HomeMy WebLinkAbouttwinsheds.pdf
New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Lands & Forests Bureau of State Land Management
TWIN SHEDS
UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN
DRAFT
Towns of Caroline and Dryden, Tompkins County
January 2013
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Region 7
1285 Fisher Ave.
Cortland, NY 13045
(607) 753-3095
Governor ANDREW M. CUOMO Commissioner JOE MARTENS
State Forester ROB DAVIES
- 12 -
Draft Twin Sheds
Unit Management Plan
A Unit Management Plan Consisting of Two State Forests encompassing about 5,002 acres in
New York’s Central-Southern Tier.
Prepared by the Twin Sheds Unit Management Plan Contributors:
John Clancy, Forester 1 - Team Leader and Principal Author
Mark Zubal, Forester 1 - Principal Author
Tom Bell, Biologist 1 (Wildlife)
Michael Putnam, Biologist 1 (Wildlife)
Linda Collart, Minerals Resources Supervisor
Joan Oldroyd, Forest Ranger
Jeff Robins, Biologist 1 (Aquatic)
Additional Assistance Provided By:
Richard Pancoe, Forester 2 Cortland
Glenn Wolford, Real Property Supervisor
Thomas Swerdan, Conservation Operations Supervisor 3
Michael Marsh, Forester 1
Patricia Hazard, Secretary 1
Daniel Little, Forestry Technician 2
Kraig Senter, Seasonal Forestry Technican
Brendan Murphy, Seasonal Forestry Technician
Charles LaRose, Seasonal Forestry Technican
DEC Adopt-A-Natural Resource Volunteers
Evin Munson, Recreation Intern, SUNY Cortland
Jeff Perrault, History Intern, SUNY Cortland
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Lands and Forests
Bureau of State Land Management
1285 Fisher Avenue
Cortland, New York 13045
(607) 753-3095
www.dec.ny.gov/
DEC’s Mission
"The quality of our environment is fundamental to our concern for the quality of life. It is hereby
declared to be the policy of the State of New York to conserve, improve and protect its natural
resources and environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in
order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall
economic and social well-being." - Environmental Conservation Law 1-0101(1)
Vision Statement
State Forests on the Twin Sheds Unit will be managed in a sustainable manner by promoting
ecosystem health, enhancing landscape biodiversity, protecting soil productivity and water
quality. In addition, the State Forests on this unit will continue to provide the many recreational,
social and economic benefits valued so highly by the people of New York State. DEC will
continue the legacy which started more than 80 years ago, leaving these lands to the next
generation in better condition than they are today.
This plan sets the stage for DEC to reach these ambitious goals by applying the latest research
and science, with guidance from the public, whose land we have been entrusted to manage.
i
Table of Contents
DEC’s Mission ................................................................................................................................ i
Vision Statement ............................................................................................................................ i
Location Map ........................................................................................................................ iv
Selected Photos from the Unit ............................................................................................... v
Preface ................................................................................................................................. vi
State Forest Overview ......................................................................................................... vii
Legal Considerations ........................................................................................................... vii
Management Planning Overview ............................................................................................ vii
Public Participation .............................................................................................................. vii
Strategic Plan for State Forest Management ....................................................................... vii
DEC’s Management Approach and Goals .............................................................................. viii
Sustainability and Forest Certification ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ecosystem Management Approach ...................................................................................... ix
Ecosystem Management Strategies ..................................................................................... ix
What is a Unit Management Plan? ........................................................................................ 1
Historical Background ................................................................................................................... 1
INFORMATION ON THE UNIT .............................................................................................. 4
A. Geographic Information ..................................................................................................... 4
B. Geological Information ...................................................................................................... 6
C. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 8
D. Landscape Analysis ........................................................................................................ 11
E. Wetland and Water Resources ....................................................................................... 18
F. Wildlife Resources ........................................................................................................... 21
G. Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern and Significant Species ............................. 32
H. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 35
I. Roads .............................................................................................................................. 36
J. Recreational Assets ......................................................................................................... 38
K. Other Facilities that Require Maintenance ...................................................................... 41
L. Taxes Paid on the State Forests ..................................................................................... 42
M. Property Use Agreements .............................................................................................. 42
N. Resource Demands ........................................................................................................ 45
O. Public Use and Facility Demands on the Unit ................................................................. 46
P. Management Challenges on the Unit .............................................................................. 47
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES - UNIT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
ACTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 48
GOAL 1. Provide Healthy and Biologically Diverse Forest Ecosystems .............................. 48
ii
GOAL 2. Provide Recreational Opportunities for People of all Ages and Abilities .............. 65
GOAL 3. Provide Economic Benefits to the People of the State ......................................... 70
GOAL 4. Provide Sound Stewardship of the State Forest ................................................... 74
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 76
A-1. Land Management Action Schedule - Hammond Hill State Forest (Tompkins No. 2) ..... 78
A-2. Land Management Action Schedule - Yellow Barn State Forest (Tompkins No. 5) ........ 83
A-3. Facility Maintenance and Improvement Projects by Priority ............................................ 85
A-4. Amphibians & Reptiles New York GAP Analysis Data EMAP Hexagon 420 and HERP *
Atlas ........................................................................................................................................ 87
A-5. Mammals New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420 .................................... 88
A-6. Birds New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420 ........................................... 89
A-7. Breeding Bird Atlas Data Blocks 3869A, 3869B, 3869D, 3870C and 3870D ................. 93
A-8. Possible Sites for Vernal Pool Creation .......................................................................... 96
A-9. Streams in the Twin Sheds Unit ..................................................................................... 97
A-10. Taxes Paid on the Unit’s State Forests (2009 Tax Roll) ................................................ 97
A-11. Previous Owners of the Hammond Hill State Forest ..................................................... 97
A-12. Previous Owners of the Yellow Barn State Forest ......................................................... 98
A-13. Stratigraphic Profile of Southwestern New York (Modified after Van Tyne & Copley .... 99
A-14. Tree Planting Summary by Species - Twin Sheds Unit ............................................... 100
A-15. Roads Open to Public Use in the Unit ........................................................................ 100
A-16. Special Management Zones (SMZ’s)DEC Division of Lands and Forests Management
Rules for Establishment of Special Management Zones on State Forests Version: June 2008
.............................................................................................................................................. 101
A-17. Examples of Activities that Require a Temporary Revocable Permit (TRP) ............... 101
A-18. Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................................ 102
GLOSSARY REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 111
UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN REFERENCES ....................................................................... 113
MAPS ................................................................................................................................. 122
iii
Location Map
iv
Selected Photos from the Unit
One of the many s
v
mall streams on the Unit
Round-leaved Orchid is on the
Unit
Rattlesnake Plantain is on the Unit.
Volunteers restoring the trail
Hammond Hill State Forest in the fall
Preface
It is the policy of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to manage public lands
for multiple benefits in a sustainable fashion to conserve natural resources and serve our
customers, the People of New York State. This Unit Management Plan (UMP) has been
developed to strategically guide the management activities on the State Forests in the Twin
Sheds Unit for the next 20 years, with a review scheduled after 10 years. The 5,002 acre Unit is
comprised of the Hammond Hill and Yellow Barn State Forests. Covering about 8 square miles,
the Forests are located in the Tompkins county towns of Caroline and Dryden. This Unit
Management Plan has been named “Twin Sheds” as the State Forests in the Unit lay within two
watersheds. The northern part of the Unit flows north into the Greater Lake Ontario basin and
the southern portion flows into the Susquehanna River Basin.
An integral part of the Department’s planning process is public participation. As such,
Department staff seeks public participation throughout the UMP process to insure that all
stakeholders have a chance to make their views heard. Public participation adds significant
value to the planning process and thereby greatly improves the quality of the final plan. Future
management of the Forests will be guided by this document and the ability of the land resource
to produce and sustain a diverse group of ecosystem * and recreation services.
Through this plan, the Unit will continue to provide excellent recreational opportunities such as
big and small game hunting, cross country skiing, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, informal
camping, mountain biking, snowshoeing and trapping. The Twin Sheds Unit will continue to
provide sustainable ecosystem services including clean water, carbon storage, nutrient
recycling, wildlife habitat, and renewable forest products such as pulpwood, firewood and
sawtimber. In addition, the Unit has the potential to provide oil and gas mineral resources to
society. Natural resources provided by the Unit and its landscape add significant economic
value by providing jobs and bringing tourism to the region. Diverse by nature, the Unit and its
surrounding landscape provide habitats for more than two hundred birds, mammals, amphibians
and reptiles.
Sustaining biodiversity through adaptive management strategies is one of the key goals of
the plan. Included with this plan is a detailed list of proposed forest management actions by
State Forest and year. The plan conserves, enhances and retains forests managed to provide
late successional characteristics, natural and protection areas for plants, animals and insects
that require large blocks of forest canopy. Additionally, the plan buffers and conserves water
resources while creating early successional cover for wildlife species such as woodcock,
grouse, song birds and butterflies. The plan outlines stewardship and land acquisition projects
over a twenty (20) year period. It should be noted that some of the projects may be funded
through state funds, timber sales and voluntary contributions of DEC Adopt-A-Natural Resource
(AANR) partners and volunteers. However, if human and financial resources continue to be
limited, some of the recommendations may not be implemented.
Opportunities exist to sustain and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem health at the landscape
level by promoting additional collaboration between state and local governments, private
landowners and environmental organizations. Approximately 92% of the landscape surrounding
the Unit is owned by private landowners. As such, the Department should continue to work with
rural forestry stakeholders to help make private landowners informed decision makers. The
Twin Sheds Unit is administered locally by the DEC, Division of Lands and Forests Office in
Cortland, New York, which manages approximately 90,000 acres of public State Forests,
Multiple Use and Unique Areas in six Central New York counties. Additionally, Department
* The initial use of highlighted (bold) terms are defined in the glossary.
vi
forestry staff also provides forest stewardship assistance to 1.1 million acres of privately owned
forest land and 146 communities in the region.
State Forest Overview
The public lands comprising this unit play a unique role in the landscape. Generally, the State
Forests of the unit are described as follows:
• large, publicly owned land areas;
• managed by professional Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) foresters;
• green certified jointly by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) & Sustainable Forestry
Initiative (SFI);
• set aside for the sustainable use of natural resources, and;
• open to recreational use.
Management will ensure the sustainability, biological diversity, and protection of functional
ecosystems and optimize the ecological benefits that these State lands provide, including the
following:
• maintenance/increase of local and regional biodiversity
• response to shifting land use trends that affect habitat availability
• mitigation of impacts from invasive species
• response to climate change through carbon sequestration and habitat, soil and water
protection
Legal Considerations
Article 9, Titles 5 and 7, of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) authorize DEC to
manage lands acquired outside the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. This management includes
watershed protection, production of timber and other forest products, recreation and kindred
purposes. For additional information on DEC’s legal rights and responsibilities, please review
the statewide Strategic Plan for State Forest Management (SPSFM) at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html. Refer specifically to pages 33 and 317.
Management Planning Overview
The Twin Sheds Unit Management Plan (UMP) is based on a long range vision for the
management of Hammond Hill and Yellow Barn State Forests, balancing long-term ecosystem
health with current and future demands. This Plan addresses management activities on this unit
for the next ten years, though some management recommendations will extend beyond the ten-
year period. Factors such as budget constraints, wood product markets and forest health
problems may necessitate deviations from the scheduled management activities.
Public Participation
One of the most valuable and influential aspects of UMP development is public participation.
Public meetings are held to solicit input and written and verbal comments are encouraged while
management plans are in draft form. Mass mailings, press releases and other methods for
soliciting input were used to obtain input from adjoining landowners, interest groups and the
general public.
Strategic Plan for State Forest Management
This unit management plan is designed to implement DEC’s statewide Strategic Plan for State
Forest Management (SPSFM). Management actions are designed to meet local needs while
supporting statewide and eco-regional goals and objectives. The SPSFM is the statewide
master document and Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) that guides the careful
vii
management of natural and recreational resources on State Forests. The plan aligns future
management with principles of landscape ecology, ecosystem management, multiple use
management and the latest research and science available at this time. It provides a foundation
for the development of Unit Management Plans. The SPSFM divides the State into 80
geographic “units,” composed of DEC administered State Forests that are adjacent and similar
to one another. For more information on management planning, see SPSFM page 21 at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html.
DEC’s Management Approach and Goals
Forest Certification of State Forests
In 2000, New York State DEC-Bureau of State Land Management received Forest
Stewardship Council® (FSC®) certification under an independent audit conducted by the
National Wildlife Federation - SmartWood Program. This certification included 720,000 acres of
State Forests in DEC Regions 3 through 9 managed for water quality protection, recreation,
wildlife habitat, timber and mineral resources (multiple-use). To become certified, the
Department had to meet more than 75 rigorous criteria established by FSC. Meeting these
criteria established a benchmark for forests managed for long-term ecological, social and
economic health. The original certification and contract was for five years.
By 2005 the original audit contract with the SmartWood Program expired. Recognizing
the importance and the value of dual certification, the Bureau sought bids from prospective
auditing firms to reassess the Bureaus State Forest management system to the two most
internationally accepted standards - FSC and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI®)
program. However, contract delays and funding shortfalls slowed the Departments ability to
award a new agreement until early 2007.
Following the signed contract with NSF-International Strategic Registrations and
Scientific Certification Systems, the Department was again audited for dual certification against
FSC and additionally the SFI program standards on over 762,000 acres of State Forests in
Regions 3 through 9. This independent audit of State Forests was conducted by these
auditing firms from May until July 2007 with dual certification awarded in January 2008.
State Forests continue to maintain certification under the most current FSC and SFI
standards. Forest products derived from wood harvested off State Forests from this point
forward may now be labeled as “certified” through chain-of-custody certificates. Forest certified
labeling on wood products may assure consumers that the raw material was harvested from
well-managed forests.
The Department is part of a growing number of public, industrial and private forest land
owners throughout the United States and the world whose forests are certified as sustainably
managed. The Department’s State Forests can also be counted as part a growing number of
working forest land in New York that is third-party certified as well managed to protect habitat,
cultural resources, water, recreation, and economic values now and for future generations.
viii
Ecosystem Management Approach
State Forests on this unit will be managed using an ecosystem management approach which
will holistically integrate principles of landscape ecology
and multiple use management to promote habitat
biodiversity, while enhancing the overall health and
resiliency of the State Forests.
ix
Ecosystem management is a process that considers the
total environment - including all non-living and living
components; from soil micro-organisms to large
mammals, their complex interrelationships and habitat
requirements and all social, cultural and economic
factors. For more information on ecosystem
management, see SPSFM page 39 at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html.
Multiple-use Management
DEC will seek to simultaneously provide many resource
values on the unit such as, fish and wildlife, wood products, recreation, aesthetics, minerals,
watershed protection and historic or scientific values.
Landscape ecology seeks to improve
landscape conditions, taking into
account the existing habitats and land
cover throughout the planning unit,
including private lands
Landscape Ecology
The guiding principle of multiple use management on the unit will be to provide a wide diversity
of habitats that naturally occur within New York, while ensuring the protection of rare,
endangered and threatened species and perpetuation of highly ranked unique natural
communities. The actions included in this plan have been developed following an analysis of
habitat needs and overall landscape conditions within the planning unit (i.e. the geographical
area surrounding and including the State Forests) the larger ecoregion and New York State.
Ecosystem Management Strategies
The following strategies are the tools at DEC’s disposal, which will be carefully employed to
practice landscape ecology and multiple-use management on the unit. The management
strategy will affect species composition and habitat in both the short and long term. For more
information on these management strategies, please see SPSFM page 81 at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html.
Passive Management
DEC foresters will employ passive management strategies through the designation of natural
and protection areas, and buffers around those areas, such as along streams, ponds and other
wetlands, where activity is limited.
Silviculture (Active Management)
DEC foresters will practice silviculture; the art and science of controlling the establishment,
growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands, in an effort to promote
biodiversity and produce sustainable forest products. There are two fundamental silvicultural
systems which can mimic the tree canopy openings and disturbances that occur naturally in all
forests; even-aged management and uneven aged management. Each system favors a different
set of tree species. In general, even-aged management includes creating wide openings for
large groups of trees that require full sunlight to regenerate and grow together as a cohort,
while uneven-aged management includes creating smaller patch openings for individual trees or
small groups of trees that develop in the shade but need extra room to grow to their full
potential.
What is a Unit Management Plan?
A unit management plan (UMP) contains an assessment of the natural and physical resources
on the unit and considers the landscape conditions in the surrounding geographic area. The
UMP guides the Department’s activities on the unit for a ten‐year period, although a number of
goals and objectives in the plan focus on a much longer time period. Each plan addresses
specific objectives and actions for public use and ecosystem management. For a more detailed
discussion of the Unit Management Planning Process please refer to the Strategic Plan for
State Forest Management, Chapter 1, Management Planning Overview, page 22.
Historical Background
State Forest History
The Strategic Plan for State Forest Management (SPSFM) provides a detailed account. For
more information, please refer to page 15 of the SPSFM available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html.
Local History
The State Forests of the Unit are on the Allegheny Plateau, which is made of uplifted
sedimentary rock that formed about 350 million years ago when the region was covered by a
warm ancient sea. Geologists believe that the plateau was formed as the continents of North
America and Africa pushed against each other from 250 to 330 million years ago. As the
continents slid past each other, the bedrock was tilted and uplifted. Most recently, the landscape
has been shaped by the advance and retreat of continental ice sheets (glaciers) and the
constant weathering of the uplifted bedrock. The last glacier reached its peak about 21,750
years ago.
Archeological evidence suggests that the earliest humans in the planning area were nomadic
peoples whose ancestors had entered North America across the Bering Strait during the last ice
age. These Native American peoples eventually established small communities and raised
beans, corn and squash in the area for thousands of years (Vandrei, C., 2009).
Before Europeans arrived, the lands of the Twin Sheds Unit were home to the Cayuga Nation of
the Iroquois Confederacy (also called Haudenosaunee). The Haudenosaunee was founded
roughly in 1570 under the influence of the legendary Chief Hiawatha. Inspired by the region’s
natural resources, the Iroquois believed that the Finger Lakes were formed when the Great
Spirit placed his hand on some of the most beautiful land ever created. American Colonists
were inspired by the Iroquois Confederacy and included elements of its structure in the U.S.
Constitution (Ellis, D.M, 1967).
By all accounts, the Cayuga, who were the main inhabitants of Tompkins County, did not
heavily develop the land. Archeological evidence shows us that they had semi-permanent
dwellings placed near freshwater sources, which allowed them to remain extremely mobile.
Mobility was important for the Cayuga to locate and transport game, even though they preferred
to travel by land. The locations of the villages near water sources also allowed the Cayuga to
irrigate and cultivate crops. It is believed that villages were moved every 10 to 20 years, which
kept areas under cultivation more productive as the land would lay fallow for a number of years
between settlement periods (http://caid.ca/RRCAP1.4.pdf, 2011).
The American Revolution signaled great changes in the social, political, economic, and physical
landscape of the region. During the Revolutionary War, the Cayuga, along with the entire
1
Iroquois Confederacy, sided with Great Britain because of a previously established trade
agreement. Great Britain also promised to stop European settlers from moving into Iroquois
lands upon defeat of the American Colonists. In retaliation to the British/Iroquois alliance,
George Washington ordered Major John Sullivan to remove the Confederacy and all its
members from Central New York in 1779. This military campaign later became known as the
“Sullivan Expedition.” Locally, Sullivan promptly directed Colonel Henry Dearborn and William
Butler to move along the edges of Cayuga Lake with the order to destroy Cayuga villages and
crops (http://www.tompkins-co.org/historian/essay/page2.html, 2011).
Based on historical evidence, the Sullivan Expedition was devastating and as a result the
Cayugas surrendered their land in 1789. The Sullivan Expedition drove the Cayuga, and most of
the Iroquois Nations out of New York State and into Canada or westward towards Ohio. The
area cleared by the Sullivan Expedition during the Revolutionary War was largely incorporated
into the “New Military Tract” in 1789. The New Military Tract was designed during the American
Revolutionary War by New York State as a means of enticing New York residents to fight for
freedom. Soldiers were offered a total of 600 acres each with officers receiving proportionally
larger offers. By 1872, a tract of land totaling over 1.5 million acres was set aside across the
Finger Lakes Region. The northern most part of Tompkins County was included in the military
tracts. However, the lands that today comprise much of southern Tompkins County were not
included (Dieckman, 1968).
The lands of southern Tompkins County and of the Twin Sheds Unit were part of the
Watkins – Flint Purchase of 1794. New York City resident John W. Watkins, a lawyer, and
Royal W. Flint and associates, purchased about 363,000 acres of land near what is now
Candor, New York for three shillings and four pence (or about 25 cents) an acre. The land was
purchased for investment purposes and sold to settlers.
The Twin Sheds Unit is in what today is called Tompkins County. Formed in 1817 from a part of
Montgomery County, Tompkins County was named after Daniel D. Tompkins who was governor
of New York from 1807 to 1817. Governor Tompkins also served as the sixth Vice President of
the United States from 1817 to 1825. As European settlers arrived in ever increasing numbers,
they cleared forests, built communities, and farmed the land. As a result, much of the landscape
was transformed from forests to fields and pastures. Today, foundations, family cemeteries and
old fruit orchards of the early homesteaders can still be found throughout the Unit’s State
Forests (Kammen, 2003). A total of 32 farms and two sawmills were mapped on Hammond Hill
and Yellow Barn State Forests in the 1866 atlas. A map showing the approximate locations of
the farms is provided at the end of this plan.
The invention of the steam engine and automobile brought further change to the region, as
settlers moved west to farm the fertile soils of the Midwestern U.S., and the railroads connected
farm products with markets across the nation. As time progressed, the thin upland soils of the
northeastern United States became less productive and could not compete with the thick rich
farmlands of the Midwest. Adding insult to injury, harsh economic times ushered in by the Great
Depression drove many upland farmers into bankruptcy, greatly impacting rural economies and
the quality of life.
In an effort to improve the land, provide jobs, and stabilize the tax base, then Governor
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) led the charge to establish the State Reforestation Act (of
1929) and the Hewitt Amendment (of 1931) that established New York as a leader in forest
policy and natural resource conservation. The State Reforestation Law and the Hewitt
Amendment of 1931 provided funding to acquire abandoned farmland and create State
Reforestation Areas. Because of the past farming on steep, sloping ground, soil erosion was a
serious problem on the newly acquired lands. To solve this problem, a massive tree planting
campaign began. After being elected as U.S. President in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated
2
conservation policies very similar to what he had established in New York State. Once
President, he led the charge to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) with the goal of
creating jobs and improving public lands and parks. The labor used to establish plantations of
trees on the Twin Sheds Unit was provided by Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp S-125
of Slaterville Springs, New York. Additional information on the history and legacy of the CCC is
available at http://www.cccalumni.org/.
Although the Hewitt Amendment was a major land acquisition catalyst throughout New York
State, about 3,000 acres of the Twin Sheds Unit (nearly 60%) was acquired from the federal
government in January of 1956. From 1933 to 1937, as part of the Roosevelt Administration’s
New Deal, the federal government purchased about eight million acres in the Southern
Appalachians through what was called the “submarginal” land purchase program. The program
purchased land with limited crop production capacity and in some cases promoted the
“resettlement” of farm families whose lands had been bought by the federal government. This
concept was especially supported by Rexford Tugwell, undersecretary of the United States
Department of Agriculture, who believed that American agriculture needed to be restructured by
transferring small inefficient farmers working poor land to more productive employment. Initially
established under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the program was
headed by Harry L. Hopkins. Interestingly, Hopkins headed similar relief work when Roosevelt
was governor of New York (Roth et al., 2002).
After the Unit’s lands were acquired by the state and federal governments, CCC camp S-125 of
Slaterville Springs, New York planted 1,421,150 tree seedlings. These seedlings included
Norway spruce, red pine, Scotch pine, white spruce, black locust, Japanese larch, white pine,
northern red oak, European larch and white ash. Major tree planting efforts ceased during the
early 1940’s to shift labor towards the production of wartime materials. A summary table of the
trees planted on the Unit is in Appendix A-14.
Figure 1 - Trees Planted
Hammond Hill State Forest
Hammond Hill State Forest (Tompkins Reforestation Area No. 2) was established between 1935
and 1950 to help reduce soil erosion, produce forest products, stabilize the tax base and to
provide recreational opportunities for the citizens of New York State. The State Forest lies within
3
the towns of Caroline and Dryden. About half of the forest’s 3,719 acres was acquired by the
state from the federal government. Hammond Hill State Forest has a rich history of private
ownership, starting in the early 1800’s with Duncan McKeller. Mr. McKeller was one of the first
residents of Hammond Hill. He was a progressive farmer in that his cattle barn was one of few
to have a concrete floor (Leonard Georgi, Ann, personal communication, 2007). Portions of the
McKeller farm foundations remain on the Hammond Hill State Forest to this day.
The majority of the lands that make up Hammond Hill State Forest were once used for farming
and pastureland. The lands suffered from poor agricultural practices and were largely
abandoned during the Great Depression when many of Upstate New York’s farms due to
difficult economic conditions. In what is now Hammond Hill State Forest all but one family farm
was sold to the state, the Burch Rose Crest Farm owned by Burch and Rose Hammond. They
kept their farm by using a small bank account of $600 to pay the land taxes. After Rose’s death
in 1963, Burch sold the farm in part to the Three Fires Council of Camp Fire Girls to benefit the
children he and Rose could not have and to Drs. Jay and Marion Georgi. Both parcels continue
to be privately owned. Star Stanton Hill road was named after Starr Stanton, an early Hammond
Hill resident and farmer. Mr. Stanton was born in born 1850 and lived until 1920. Starr and his
wife Delphine lived on the family farm on Star Stanton Hill road. The Stanton family farm is now
part of Hammond Hill State Forest.
Yellow Barn State Forest
Yellow Barn State Forest (Tompkins Reforestation Area No. 5) falls solely within the town of
Dryden, totaling around 1,289 acres. The lands that comprise the forest of today were once
small farms. About 1,243 acres (96%) of the State Forest were initially acquired by the federal
government under the sub-marginal land purchase program. In January of 1956, the New York
State Conservation Department took title to the Federal lands. Additional purchases in 1976 and
2002 added to the present forest total. Previous owners of the properties in the Unit are listed in
Appendices A-11 and A-12.
INFORMATION ON THE UNIT
A. Geographic Information
Location
The Twin Sheds Management Unit is located about 7 miles east of the city of Ithaca, 11 miles
southwest of Cortland and about 30 miles northwest of the Triple Cities of Endicott, Binghamton
and Johnson City. Irish Settlement Road bisects the Unit and provides excellent access to local
roads that serve the State Forests in the Unit.
The Unit includes two State Forests encompassing 5,002 acres and lies within the Appalachian
Plateau-Central Appalachian ecozone and in the Cayuga Inlet, Fall Creek, Owego Creek and
Virgil Creek sub-watersheds. About one half of the Unit drains into the Upper Susquehanna
watershed of the greater Susquehanna River Basin. The other half of the Unit drains to the
north into the Lake Ontario Basin. Elevation ranges from 1,200 to 2,000 feet above mean sea
level. Not surprisingly, the lowest elevations are found along streams in valleys and hollows.
The highest elevations are Star Stanton Hill on Hammond Hill State Forest (2,011 feet) and just
off of Tower Road on Yellow Barn State Forest (1,868 feet).
4
Table 1 - State forests in the Twin Sheds Unit Management Plan
Reforestation Area State Forest Name County and Town Acres
Tompkins No. 2 Hammond Hill Tompkins County, Towns of Caroline & Dryden 3,713
Tompkins No. 5 Yellow Barn Tompkins County, Town of Dryden 1,289
Total Unit Acreage 5,002
Total acreage reported here is based on deed descriptions and proposal maps on file, and as reported by the DEC regional
property office. Acreages generated by geographical information system (GIS) computations which potentially could vary as much
as 1% from land record or deed acreages. These differences could be caused by cumulative errors in deed or GIS calculations,
and/or rounding errors. This slight variation does not affect planning or management decision making.
The landscape immediately surrounding the Unit is a mosaic of forests, farms and residential
dwellings. The nearest community centers to the Unit are the villages of Dryden and Freeville as
well as the hamlets of Caroline, Etna, Harford, Slaterville Springs and Varna. Most of these
small communities are anchored by a post office and are within five miles of the Unit. The Unit
pays both town and school taxes and lies within the Dryden or Ithaca school districts.
Demographics
During the past 150 years the Unit’s landscape has been significantly changed by human
settlement. Data from the New York State Department of Economic Development and U.S
Census Bureau illustrates the rapid growth in population from 1940 to 2010 (New York State
Department of Economic Development, 2009). In the year 2009, the population of the
Tompkins County was estimated to be 101,799. According to U.S Census estimates, Tompkins
county posted an estimated 5.5% growth in population from 2000 to 2009. The nearest urban
centers are the cities of Cortland and Ithaca, with estimated populations of 18,870 and 29,287,
respectively.
Local census tract
data from year
2000 U.S Census
was also analyzed
for the Unit. The
Unit lies within 3
U.S. census tracts
which cover about
159 square miles.
An estimated 5,357
households and
3,556 families lived
in the census
tracts. Population
densities in these
census tracts
ranged from 52 to
187 people per
square mile, with
an average density
of 122 people per
square mile. The average household size was 3 people, and the median age of the population
was about 36 years. As a comparison and for reference sake, New York State covers about
47,214 square miles and according to new 2010 U.S census estimates the state has a
population of about 19,378,102 people. Thus, at the statewide level, the average population
density is about 410 people per square mile (or about 1.6 acres of land per person).
Figure 2 - Historic Population by County
5
Subdivision Trends
Records obtained from the New York State Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) show that
between 1998 and 2009 the number of real property land parcels in Tompkins County has
increased by about 4.6%. On a related front, the average real property parcel size decreased by
an estimated 4.4% during the same period. This data illustrates that the rural landscape
surrounding the Unit is gradually being divided into smaller ownerships.
Table 2 - Land Subdivision Trend Data, Tompkins County, Twin Sheds Planning Area
Estimated
Acres
# Parcels
(1998)
# Parcels
(2009)
Change in
Parcel #s
% Change
(Parcels)
Ave, Parcel
Size, Acres
(1998)
Ave. Parcel
Size, Acres
(2009)
% Change
(Size)
314,414 33,000 34,513 1,513 4.6 9.53 9.11 -4.4
Based on these trends, it is reasonable to expect that land parcel size will continue to decrease
in Tompkins County. As a result, the landscape of the future will be managed by a greater
number of private landowners. It is important to note that private landowners presently own
about 95% of the landscape in Tompkins County. As such, the short and long term land use
decisions made by private landowners will greatly influence the character and health of the
Unit’s ecosystems. Moreover, continued subdivision will likely increase the demand for forestry
and agriculture related technical assistance and educational outreach services. Similarly,
demand for recreation and forest based products/services is likely to increase, placing additional
pressure on the Unit’s forest ecosystems. Land subdivision associated with development will
also place additional demands on roads, schools, public safety agencies and sanitary sewer
systems.
Local Climate
The local climate is humid continental, as the summers are warm and the winters are cold.
Additionally, the climate is strongly influenced by the Finger Lakes, Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and
the Atlantic Ocean. The average annual rainfall averages 35 inches and historically has ranged
from 26 to 47 inches. Annual snowfall averages 70 inches, with the greatest snowfall taking
place during the months of January and February, as the area receives an average of 16.9 and
14.7 inches of snow, respectively. Lake effect snow from Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and Cayuga
Lake is common, particularly during the early winter months when the lake temperatures are
warm relative to the surrounding air. In terms of total precipitation, January, February and March
are the driest months, as the area receives an average of 1.8, 2.0, and 2.3 inches of
precipitation each month respectively. Precipitation is well distributed throughout the remaining
months of the year, averaging 2.9 inches each month. The average annual temperature is
approximately 46 degrees Fahrenheit. In terms of temperature extremes, the highest
temperature on record is 103 degrees, and the record low is -35 degrees Fahrenheit. The month
of July is the warmest month with an average temperature of 68.5 degrees Fahrenheit. January
is the coldest month with an average temperature of 21.5 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual
growing season is approximately 152 days (Northeast Regional Climate Center, 1995).
B. Geological Information
1. Surface Geology
Most surface geology in the Finger Lakes region and Allegheny Plateau of the Southern Tier of
New York was influenced by the processes of glaciation that occurred during the Pleistocene
Epoch. Ice sheets from the last glacier (called the Wisconsinan glaciation episode) retreated
from the area about ten thousand years ago. Glacial activity left behind numerous sedimentary
deposits and surficial features. These included elongate scour features. Weathering and erosion
by streams and rivers has continued to sculpt the surface geology of the Allegheny Plateau to
present day, resulting in the hills and valleys prevalent throughout the region. Some features
6
filled with water creating numerous small and large lakes. A number of these lakes to the West
and Northwest of this area are now called the Finger Lakes.
Most soils and sediments in the region are related to past glacial activity, and subsequent
weathering and erosion processes over the last 20,000 years. The underlying parent rocks
(rocks that were subjected to the processes of glaciation, weathering and erosion) of this region
are sedimentary rocks; specifically shale, sandstone and minor limestone that were deposited in
shallow seas that existed in this region during the Devonian Period of the Paleozoic Era, about
370 million years ago. Any post Devonian rocks have been eroded from the region. The
presence of rounded igneous and metamorphic clasts are indicative of past glacial activity
transporting material into the region from the Canadian Shield to the north. The resulting surface
geology of the State lands included in this Unit Management Plan are similar due to their close
proximity. Hammond Hill State Forest and Yellow Barn State Forest include surface geology
consisting of glacial till as the dominant deposit in the area. There are minor intermittent areas in
stream valleys where sand and gravel deposits exist as a result of fluvial deposition at the
glacier front (glacial outwash) and deposition at the ice margin during deglaciation (kame
moraine). Bedrock outcrops and subcrops of Devonian shales, siltstones, and sandstones are
located intermittently on the sides and crests of ridges and hills in these areas, most likely due
to the erosion of overlying glacial till, causing the exposure of the bedrock.
Further information on the surface geology of the region is provided by the: Surficial Geologic
Map of New York, New York State Museum - Geologic Survey - Map & Chart series #40, 1986.
Table 3 - Surficial Geologic Material
Name Surficial Material
Hammond Hill
State Forest
(Tompkins 2)
Glacial till: Deposition beneath glacial ice (predominant material)
Glacial outwash & kame moraine: Sands & gravels deposited next to glacial ice by
meltwater (minor)
Bedrock: Shales, siltstones & sandstones of the Upper Devonian Sonyea & West
Falls Groups (minor outcrops)
Yellow Barn
State Forest
(Tompkins 5)
Glacial till: Deposition beneath glacial ice (predominant material)
Kame moraine: Sands & gravels deposited next to the glacial ice by meltwater (very
minor in southwest corner only of the state forest)
Bedrock: Shales, siltstones & sandstones of the Upper Devonian Sonyea & West
Falls Groups (minor outcrops)
2. Soils of the Twin Sheds Unit
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil type map identifies eighteen
different soil types on the Unit. The top three soils on the Unit are Lordstown channery silt loam,
Volusia channery silt loam and Mardin channery silt loam. These soils cover about 83% of the
Unit are common throughout the Twin Sheds Unit area. The remaining 17% are combinations of
gravely, silt and channery loams. As a group, they tend to be moderately deep, gently to
moderately sloping, and are medium textured with a high clay content. Soils in the Unit typically
formed in very low lime glacial till that was derived from local shale and sandstone rocks. The
local shale and sandstone tends to be acidic. As a result, the soil is correspondingly moderately
to strongly acid. Some of the soils also have a fragipan that restricts plant root growth, water
movement, and overall site productivity. In terms of soil drainage, about 63% of the Unit is
considered well drained, 29% somewhat poorly drained, and 8% poorly drained.
Overall, most of these soils have major limitations for intensive crop production including a
seasonally high water table, low fertility, moderate to high acidity and erodibility on steep slopes.
However, many of the soils in the Unit and the surrounding landscape are well suited to growing
cool season grasses, shrubs and trees. Additional information on soils in the region is available
7
in the United States Soil Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey Tompkins county (1965). A
map illustrating the diversity of the Unit’s soils is included at the end of this plan.
3. Bedrock Geology
Bedrock underlying the Finger Lakes region and Allegheny Plateau of the Southern Tier of New
York is inclusive of sedimentary rock units deposited in association with ancient seas and their
marine-fluvial-deltaic environments of deposition during the Cambrian [550-500 million years
ago (mya)], Ordovician (500-440 mya), Silurian (440-400 mya) and Devonian (400-350 mya)
Periods of the Paleozoic Era. Younger bedrock units deposited during the post-Devonian
periods (such as Mississippian and Pennsylvanian periods) have been subsequently eroded
away by erosional and glacial processes. Underlying the Paleozoic rocks are pre - Paleozoic
Era rocks or Pre-Cambrian rocks generally considered to be composed of igneous and
metamorphic rocks. These rocks are generally referred to as “basement” rocks.
Rock units (bedrock) outcropping or subcropping at the surface in the Hammond Hill State
Forest and Yellow Barn State Forest of the Allegheny Plateau in the southern tier of New York
are shales, and intermittent siltstones and sandstones of the West Falls Group and Sonyea
Group that were deposited during the Upper Devonian Period.
Further information on the bedrock geology of the region is provided by the: Geologic Map of
New York - Finger Lake Sheet - New York State Museum and Science Service - Map and Chart
#15, 1970.
4. Geologic Structure
Subsurface rock formations dip (become deeper) to the south-southwest at an average dip
angle of about one (1) degree, or deepen 100 feet per each mile traveled to the south-
southwest. The Geologic map of New York - Finger Lakes Sheet #15, 1970, depicts
progressively older rock units outcropping farther to the north, confirming the southerly dip of
strata in the region.
Geologic structural features in the region generally trend in a northeast to southwest direction.
North-south trending faults have also been identified in the region. Structural reference is
available at the Preliminary Brittle Structures Map of New York, New York State Museum-Map
and Chart Series No.31E, 1974.
C. Mineral Resources
Article 23, Title 11, Section 23-1101 of the Environmental Conservation Law and State Finance
Law authorizes the Department of Environmental Conservation to make leases on behalf of the
State for exploration, production and development of oil and gas on State lands. In all areas
covered by this Unit Management Plan, New York State manages the surface estate through
the NYS DEC Division of Lands and Forests, and the mineral estate is managed through the
NYS DEC Division of Mineral Resources.
Future decisions regarding oil and gas leasing will be made if and when the Unit is nominated
for the leasing of oil and gas mineral resources. Drilling and energy technologies, scientific
knowledge and public policies change with time. As such, assessments and decisions
regarding the leasing of oil and gas resources will be based on the most current technologies,
public policies, regulations, public feedback and the potential for environmental impacts.
Assessments and decisions will not be made until the Unit is nominated. Possible future
outcomes include: no leasing, non-surface occupancy leasing or surface occupancy leasing with
significant safeguards and restrictions.
8
It is NYS DEC policy to recommend excluding operations in surface areas with sensitive
habitats (stream banks, wetlands, steep slopes, rare communities etc.) or intensive recreational
use. Any proposal for mineral development other than oil and gas would require SEQR review.
1. Historical Drilling and Production
The drilling of the first commercial oil well in the United States occurred in Titusville,
Pennsylvania in 1859.The results of this drilling activity carried over into neighboring New York
State in 1863. Eventually this activity extended into western and central New York.
Numerous wells have been drilled within the UMP area (however not on state forest lands in the
Unit) in the Towns of Lansing, Danby, and Groton, Tompkins County. There are currently no
producing gas wells in the UMP area. Many wells in the area were drilled during the 1940s and
little information is available regarding their production. General information regarding historic
drilling activity and gas production in the UMP area is provided in the paragraphs below.
Historic gas production in and immediately adjacent to the UMP area is generally associated
with three fields in the Towns of Danby, Groton, and Lansing, Tompkins County with production
reported from the Oriskany Sandstone. These fields were named the Danby, Groton, and
Lansing Fields after the respective towns where they were located. Numerous additional wells
were drilled over the years targeting the Oriskany Sandstone adjacent to these fields but they
were unsuccessful. Three wells were drilled in the Danby field from 1939 through 1960. Only
one well was known to have produced gas from the Oriskany Sandstone drilled to a total depth
of 2,478 feet. These wells are located approximately eight miles southwest of the UMP area.
Eight wells were drilled in the Groton Field targeting the Oriskany Sandstone from 1940 through
1943. The Groton Field is located approximately six miles north of Yellow Barn State Forest.
Records indicate that four of these wells produced from the Oriskany Sandstone with the total
depths of these wells ranging from 1,987 to 2,192 feet. Numerous additional wells drilled to the
Oriskany Sandstone to the northeast of this field between 1940 and 1949 were unsuccessful.
Three wells were drilled in 1942 targeting the Oriskany Sandstone in the Lansing Field. The
Lansing Field is located approximately eight miles northwest of Yellow Barn State Forest. Two
of the wells reportedly produced gas with their total depths ranging from 1,619 to 1,722 feet.
Approximately 11 miles northwest of Yellow Barn State Forest within the UMP area numerous
solution salt mining wells were drilled on and adjacent to property that is currently owned by the
NYSDEC (Myers Point Boat Launch). The wells were drilled between 1900 and 1950 and
operated by International Salt Company. These wells have all been plugged.
2. Recent Drilling and Production
The closest natural gas commercial production is approximately 14 miles southwest of the UMP
area in the Town of Van Etten, Chemung County where Talisman Energy USA Inc. drilled three
wells targeting the Black River formation at an approximate depth of 9,400 feet in the Hulbert
Hollow and McDuffy Hollow Fields. Production in these fields began in 2007.
The most recent drilling activity that has occurred near the state forest lands in the Unit is the
Crissey #1 well drilled in 2001 and the Sega #1, #1-A, and #1-B wells drilled from 2003 through
2004. The Crissey #1 well, located in the Town of Dryden 4.5 miles due north of Yellow Barn
State Forest, targeted the Oriskany Sandstone and was drilled to a total depth of 1,934 feet.
The Sega wells, located in the Town of Virgil, Cortland County approximately 3.7 miles
northeast of Yellow Barn State Forest, represent three sidetracks drilled from the vertical
wellbore at this location which targeted the Black River formation at a depth of 7,126 feet. The
Sega #1 and #1-A wells have been plugged. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. currently owns
9
both the Crissey #1 and the Sega #1-B wells which are temporarily abandoned and have never
produced.
There have been numerous wells drilled in the northern portion of the UMP area and adjacent to
the UMP area since 1998 targeting the Black River formation but none have been successful
commercial producers. Columbia Natural Resources LLC drilled wells at three locations in the
Town of Dryden in 1998 and 1999 approximately 3 to 5.5 miles northeast of Yellow Barn State
Forest. These wells targeted the Black River and Oriskany formations but were unsuccessful
and have been plugged. Several wells operated by Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. located
west of the UMP area were plugged back to the Queenston Sandstone from the Black River
formation in 2007 but the wells are not currently in production.
Anschutz Exploration Corporation submitted an application in 2009 to drill the Cook #1 well in
the Town of Dryden located adjacent to Yellow Barn State forest to the north targeting the Black
River formation however, this application remains incomplete.
3. Recent Leasing Activity
An initial title review indicates New York State and the Federal Government own the mineral
rights under a significant portion of State Land areas covered by this Unit. The above
statement is made with the qualification that mineral reservations may exist and no expressed
or implied warranty of title is being offered in this document. Both State Forests in the Twin
Sheds Unit are not presently under oil and/or gas lease contracts.
4. Future Leasing Activity
Due to recent drilling and production activity related to the Trenton-Black River limestone and
Marcellus shale formations, and interest in the western New York and the Finger Lakes Regions
in general, the State may again receive requests to nominate lands for leasing. For further
information on lease procedures, well drilling permitting procedures, historical and statistical
information go to the Department’s website at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/205.html or contact
the NYS DEC Mineral Resource staff at (585) 226-5376 or by mail at Region 8, 6274 East
Avon-Lima Road, Avon, New York 14414-9591. Additional contacts include; New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation-Division of Mineral Resources- Bureau of Oil and
Gas Regulation, 3rd Floor, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233 (518) 402-8056.
5. Gravel & Hard Rock Mining
The bedrock outcropping or subcropping beneath surficial deposits in the UMP area generally
consists of shale and siltstones of the Upper Devonian age Genesee and Sonyea Groups.
Bedrock beneath Yellow Barn and Hammond Hill State Forests is mainly comprised of rocks of
the Sonyea Group with shale and siltstones of the Upper Devonian age West Falls Group
comprising the bedrock in some areas on hilltops. Shale can be excavated near the surface
where it is weathered and used as a source of aggregate. There are currently no active shale
pits or hard rock quarries on or in the immediate vicinity of the Unit.
There are additional mineral resources associated with the bedrock within the UMP area. There
is an active bluestone quarry located approximately 4 miles west of Yellow Barn State Forest.
Bluestone is defined as a dense, hard, indurated, fine-grained, quartz/feldspathic sandstone of
Devonian Age, which is easily split along bedding planes. Commonly dark or slate gray, as well
as blue, the term is applied to all varieties, irrespective of color. The bluestone mined is likely
fine-grained sandstone from the Sonyea Group. Within the UMP area, approximately 10 miles
northwest of Yellow Barn State Forest, there is an active limestone quarry (mining the Tully
Limestone) operated by Cayuga Crushed Stone, Inc. This mine is due east of the Cargill, Inc.
Cayuga Salt Mine which is an underground mining operation for the production of road salt.
10
Surficial deposits overlying bedrock in the Unit are predominantly glacial till with bedrock very
close to the surface (within 1 to 3 meters) and occasional bedrock outcrops located
intermittently on the flanks and crests of ridges and hills. Due east and west of the state forest
lands in this Unit are extensive kame moraine deposits. There are also a few intermittent kame
deposits due north of the state forest lands within the Unit and outwash sand and gravel
deposits in the major stream valleys to the south and east of the state forests in the Unit. The
kame moraine, kame, and outwash sand and gravel deposits associated with glacial meltwater
fluvial systems would provide the best sand and gravel resources for potential mining
operations. These types of deposits (kame moraine) only appear to be present in the extreme
southwest corner of Hammond Hill State Forest.
D. Landscape Analysis
Landscape Ecology Assessment
Ongoing research by universities and public environmental agencies suggests that ecosystem
health is strongly related to biological diversity. As such, promoting and sustaining biodiversity
has become the cornerstone of public land management. Biodiversity is the term used by
conservation biologists to describe the entire diversity of life - encompassing all the species,
genes, and ecosystems on earth (Perlman and Midler, 2005). Having a wide range of plant and
animal species, land types, and ecosystems in a landscape increases biodiversity and
ecosystem resiliency. Sustainable landscapes are connected to different land types by natural
habitat features at many different scales and have core blocks of minimally fragmented habitat.
To assess the landscape surrounding the Unit, Department foresters utilized the 2001 National
Land Cover Database. The data was spatially analyzed using the Environmental Systems
Research Institute’s (ESRI’s) ArcGIS 10 geographic information system (GIS) software. The
Twin Shed’s Unit landscape is chiefly comprised of rural forests and agriculture. Forests are
clearly the most connected and most extensive landscape type in the planning Unit and, as
such, play a dominant role in the function of the landscape (Forman and Godron, 1986). This
landscape matrix is connected to other landscape types by natural features such as stream
corridors, hedgerows and wetlands. Historically, much of the land that is presently forest was
once cleared for pasture and cropland. Early farmers quickly learned that the thin, fine textured
upland soils within the Unit would not support intensive agriculture. Many of the uplands in the
Unit have reverted back into forest through the process of natural succession over the past 100
years.
Today, land use conversion, subdivision and landscape fragmentation is greatest within and in
close proximity to the cities of Ithaca and Cortland. However, gradual residential and
commercial development of agricultural and forested lands will continue to fragment the
landscape and likely negatively impact the health, function and biodiversity of the region’s
ecosystems. Conversion of agricultural land to commercial or residential use typically reduces
and/or fragments critical habitat components such as forests, hedgerows, grasslands, shrub-
lands, wetlands and stream corridors. Conversion of natural landscapes to residential and
commercial land use typically increases the amount of water flowing from a watershed, but also
decreases its quality.
Table 4 lists the land use cover types by area and relative percentage within the four
watersheds from which surface water originating on Unit’s land flows. For this analysis, the 11
digit hydrological unit watershed classification was used. Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) are part
of a U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) watershed classification system and are based on size. A
watershed and landscape analysis map is provided at the end of this plan.
11
Table 4 - Land Cover Types in the Twin Sheds Watersheds (HUC 11)
Note: Data is from the 2001 National Land Cover Database
Land Cover Type Acres Percentage
Deciduous Forest 96,013 31.5
Pasture/Hay 63,914 21.0
Mixed Forest 44,625 14.6
Cultivated Crops 32,205 10.6
Young Trees, Shrubs and Brush (Early Successional) 16,175 5.3
Woody Wetlands 15,768 5.2
Evergreen (Conifer) Forest 14,195 4.7
Developed Open Space 12,689 4.2
Developed, Low Intensity land Use 2,985 1.0
Grassland/Herbaceous Lands 2,712 0.9
Developed, Medium Intensity land Use 1,378 0.4
Open Water 685 0.2
Herbaceous Wetlands 644 0.2
Developed, High Intensity 378 0.1
Bedrock, Sand or Clay 225 0.1
Total 304,591 100.0
At the landscape scale, the unit drains into 5 smaller “sub” HUC 12 watersheds totaling about
304,592 acres or 76 square miles. According to recent satellite generated images, the Unit's
landscape is about 51% forest, 21% pasture/hay, 11% cultivated crops and about 5%
shrub/scrub. Evergreen forest covers about 5% of the landscape. About 6% of the landscape is
considered developed; however, most of the development is considered low intensity or
developed open space. High and medium intensity development covers just over one half of a
percent. No extensive tracts of old growth forests are known to exist on the landscape. Thus,
forests and agricultural lands are the dominant land cover types within the five sub-watersheds
of the Twin Sheds Unit. The land cover types are further illustrated by the Watershed and
Landscape Analysis Map located in the map section at the end of this plan.
Critical Landscape Components
Early Successional Habitats
Young seedling/sapling and brush areas are often called early successional forests or mixed
shrubland. Early successional habitat includes old fields, hedgerows, forest edges and
managed forests up to about 20 years of age (Wasilco et al., 2010). This vegetation type is
gradually disappearing from the landscape as farms naturally revert back into forest and as
fields are developed into building lots. Early successional habitat is especially important in that it
supports a high diversity of birds, mammals and reptiles (Perlman and Midler 2005). In fact,
New York State’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy developed by the DEC
Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, recognizes the value of this land cover type
and identifies early successional birds as a “greatest conservation need” species group.
Early successional habitat provides unique and important habitat for many wildlife species.
Species that benefit from the presence of early successional habitat include chestnut‐sided
warbler, golden winged warbler, yellow warbler, yellow‐breasted chat, field sparrow, ruffed
grouse, cottontail rabbit, woodcock, white‐tail deer, and red and gray foxes. The 2001 GAP
analysis of New York found that shrub lands comprise only 2% of the State, with “successional
12
shrub fields accounting for most of the cover.” Satellite imagery from the 2001 National Land
Cover Database show about 3% of the state is covered by scrub/shrub cover, a very similar
result. Most of the upland shrub land is privately owned state wide. However, 16% of the shrub
swamp and salt shrub/maritime types are managed by state agencies. For ecosystem planning
purposes, pioneer hardwood stands up to about 40 years of age containing a relatively high
component of aspen trees are grouped with the early successional habitat type on the Twin
Sheds Present and Future Major Habitat Type Maps in the map section at the end of this plan.
Late Successional Habitats with Old Growth Characteristics
Most of the landscape was cleared by early European settlers for agriculture. As such, the
landscape lacks late successional forests with old growth characteristics such as biological
legacies and pit and mound topography. Late successional forests are defined as: a forest
beyond the age of economic maturity, generally beyond 100 years of age and typically contain
some trees 100 to 200 years old. They may exhibit evidence of past human or natural
disturbances. These forests may exist as entire stands or as smaller patches within younger
stands. The term late successional forest implies a forest that is nearing one of potentially
several old stages of forest condition after a relatively long period without a stand replacing
disturbance.
Eastern old growth forests are conceptually described as being relatively old and relatively
undisturbed by humans (Hunter, 1989). Some definitions describe old growth as a forest with
trees older than 150 years with little or no human-caused disturbance in the forest understory
during the past 80 to 100 years (Frelich, 1986). The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources defines old growth as forests defined by age, structural characteristics, and relative
lack of human disturbance. These forests are essentially free from catastrophic disturbances,
contain old trees (generally over 120 years old), large snags, and downed trees (1994). Experts
estimate that approximately 251,000 acres (1.4% of the landscape) of old growth forest exist in
New York State. These old growth forests are chiefly located in remote areas of the
Adirondacks, Catskills and western New York (Leopold, 1996). No old growth forests are known
to exist on the Unit or on the immediate landscape. The nearly 3 million acres of State Preserve
in the Adirondacks and Catskills provide significant blocks of developing late successional
forests with old growth characteristics at the state-wide landscape scale.
The DEC recognizes that Old-Growth Forest involves a convergence of many different, yet
interrelated criteria. Each of these criteria can occur individually in an area that is not old growth.
However, it is the presence of many factors that when combined, differentiate Old-Growth
Forest from other forested ecosystems. These factors include: an abundance of late
successional tree species, at least 180-200 years of age, a contiguous forested landscape that
has evolved and reproduced itself naturally (with the capacity for self perpetuation) which is
arranged in a stratified forest structure consisting of multiple growth layers throughout the
canopy and forest floor. Other features include: (1) canopy gaps formed by natural disturbances
creating an uneven canopy, and (2) a conspicuous absence of multiple stemmed trees
originating from stumps, rocks, or branches.
Old growth forest sites typically (1) are characterized by an irregular forest floor containing an
abundance of coarse woody material, which are often covered by mosses and lichens; (2)
show limited signs of human disturbance since European settlement; and (3) have distinct soil
horizons that include definite organic, mineral, illuvial accumulation, and unconsolidated layers.
The forest understory displays well developed and diverse surface herbaceous layers.
Biological legacies are defined as the organisms, or a biologically derived structure or pattern
inherited from a previous ecosystem. Biological legacies include large trees, snags and down
logs after harvesting and other ecological features vulnerable to timber harvesting such as
vernal pools, small forest wetlands and patches of rare or unusual plant species (Helms, 1998).
13
Biological legacies are lacking at the landscape level because forest ecosystems were
significantly altered or converted to agricultural use during the European settlement of the
region. Additionally, many privately owned forests are managed on a relatively short term basis,
growing trees to a certain diameter in order to maximize return and generate income to pay for
the costs of land ownership, primarily real property taxes. Short term ownership and
management may lead to shorter forest harvesting intervals and lead to a reduction in biological
legacy creation, conservation and retention rates.
Landscape Challenges
There are three significant long term challenges to maintaining biodiversity and the existing
landscape matrix at the landscape level. First, residential and commercial development, if not
properly planned, will continue to subdivide and fragment land cover on the landscape.
Subdivision and conversion of rural forests and fields to other land uses will reduce available
wildlife habitat and likely disrupt existing wildlife travel corridors. Second, non-native forest
insects and diseases such as gypsy moth and chestnut blight, respectively, have historically
damaged forest ecosystems. Introduction of new non-native insects and diseases through
global trade is a significant threat to the region’s forest ecosystem health. Third, many credible
researchers believe that rapid global climate change related to increased global greenhouse
gas emissions (largely carbon dioxide and methane) created by the burning of fossil fuels by
humans will likely impact forest ecosystem health and productivity this century.
The public owns only a fraction of the Unit’s landscape. New York State efforts to enhance
biodiversity can be significantly enhanced by informing, educating and assisting adjacent private
landowners. Private and public land stakeholder organizations such as the USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Finger Lakes
Land Trust and Cornell Cooperative Extension can provide valuable information and education
to rural forest landowners. Additionally, the DEC has a long history of providing technical
assistance to forest landowners through its Cooperative Forest Management (CFM) program.
All of these organizations can help provide information on many of the critical habitat
components missing in the landscape.
The Unit is within the Nature Conservancy’s High Alleghany Eco-region. A very detailed eco-
regional landscape assessment is included in the NYS Strategic Plan for State Forest
Management. The assessment and Strategic Plan helped guide the ecosystem based goals and
objectives of this Unit Management Plan. The complete strategic plan can be found at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html , 2012.
State Forest Assessment
To provide updated data for informed decision making at the State Forest level, both State
Forests in the Twin Sheds Unit were re-inventoried during 2006. State Forest inventory data
was collected on tree species, tree diameter, tree height, density, visible defect, forest type,
topography and soil drainage. Additionally, in May of 2005, the New York Natural Heritage
Program completed a Biodiversity Inventory of all State Forests in the Region. Data from the
project was used during the development of this plan.
The DEC Region 7 Cortland Forestry Office also developed and implemented a supplemental
inventory datasheet to capture natural resource features not typically collected during a forest
inventory. Supplemental inventory attribution guidelines were also developed and implemented
to insure that the data was organized in a consistent manner. Table 5 illustrates the
supplemental attributes collected during the State Forest inventory.
14
Table 5 - Supplemental Inventory Data Attributes
Natural Resource
Attribute/Feature Description
Hydrology Identifies various hydrologic resources at the forest stand level such as wetlands,
ponds, streams spring seeps, waterfalls, erosion issues and beaver dams.
Herbaceous Plants
Identifies herbaceous plants observed in a forest stand related to site potential such as
sensitive ferns, horsetails, blue cohosh, maiden-hair fern, trout lily, and orchids. Also
notes the presence of rare and endangered plants.
Forest Health Identifies general forest health observed in a stand; specifically stand decline,
blowdown, crown damage or insect/disease issues.
Recreation
Identifies recreational activity in a forest stand. Specifically, informal camping, formal
camp sites, mountain bike trails, trails for individuals with MAPPWD permits, e-country
ski trails, hiking trails, multiple use trails and informal trail use.
Forest Treatment
Recommendations
Specifies recommended treatment based on field observations at the stand level.
Safety Identifies a public safety hazard at the stand level such as open water wells.
Forest Treatment
Interval
Specifies a treatment interval in years for a given forest stand.
Forest Treatment
Priority
Prioritizes stand level treatment needs.
Stand Age Structure
(Present and Future)
Specified observed stand structure at the time of inventory; even-aged, uneven-aged
or two-aged. Also provides a field for future (desired) age structure.
Wildlife Observations Describes wildlife observed in the stand during the inventory/field inspection.
Evidence of Past
Management
Identifies any past management activity in the stand as indicated by old stumps, tops,
skid trails or tree marking paint.
Protection Zones
Identifies areas that should be considered as a special ecosystem protection zone that
has the potential to develop into old growth forest or provide critical habitat for wildlife
and herbaceous plant species.
Early Successional
Habitats
Identifies areas that could be managed for species requiring early successional
habitat.
Oil & Gas Conflicts Describes potential oil and gas exploration conflicts; specifically hydrologic/wetland,
recreation, unique natural areas, archeological, steep slopes or highly erodible soils.
Archeological
Resources
Identifies archeological resources at the forest stand level; specifically features such as
old foundations, stone walls or artifacts that appear over 75 years old.
It should be noted that not all the attributes listed in Table 5 were measured or observed when
the inventory was completed. Much of the inventory was conducted during fall, winter and
spring. However, the State Forest Inventory Database will be updated during each 10-year
forest inventory cycle, or when a forest stand is actively managed. Prior to managing a forest
stand, DEC foresters develop a tree marking prescription after: evaluating the State Forest
Inventory Database, reviewing the Department’s GIS based Master Habitat Database and
walking thru the stand. New stand data may be also be collected if the stand has significantly
changed.
15
Spatial Analysis
Spatial analysis may be defined as a process to analyze various sets of geographic based
data - typically using a computer based Geographic Information System (GIS). Spatial analysis
can be highly technical and mathematical or very simple and intuitive (Goodchild, 2001). The
information provided by the GIS helps DEC staff make informed land management decisions at
the landscape scale.
Many sources of data (information) were used to develop this plan. Specifically, data from the
State Forest Inventory Database, the supplemental natural resource data presented in Table 4,
the New York GAP Analysis Project, the National Land Cover Dataset and DEC’s Master
Habitat Database were used. Spatial analysis was conducted using ArcGIS 10 GIS software in
order to assess land cover types on the Unit.
Results of the analysis are shown below in Figure 3 and Table 6. Table 6 shows that only about
5% (252 acres) of the Twin Sheds Unit is characterized by early successional sapling and
pioneer hardwoods forest. Similarly, only 2% percent (92 acres) of the Unit is characterized by
forest stands with trees measuring eighteen (18) inches or greater in diameter at breast height
(dbh). Forest stands with large diameter long lived trees such as eastern hemlock and eastern
white pine have the greatest potential to provide late successional characteristics such as large
coarse woody material and den trees. About 58% (2,895 acres) of the Unit is comprised of
middle aged forest stands that are between 12 and 17 inches in diameter. For the past five to
seven decades fields have grown back to forest through deliberate tree planting and through the
natural process of succession. As with the surrounding landscape, the State Forests in the Unit
clearly lack two important land cover types for wildlife:
❒early successional forest cover and pioneer hardwoods pole sized timber with a
significant aspen component (with young and relatively small trees typically less than 40
years of age)
❒late successional forests with old developing growth characteristics (with a significant
number of individual trees 180 to 200 years of age).
Figure 3 - Present Land Use and Cover Types by
Forest Stand Diameter
16
Table 6 - Present Land Uses and Cover Types by Forest Stand Diameters
Major Size Class
1-5”
Saps
6-11”
Poles
12-17”
Small
Sawtimber
18”+
Med. & L.
Sawtimber
Land
Area
Land Classification*
(No. of Features)
Total
(Ac.)
(Ac.) (Ac.) (Ac.) (Ac.) %
Forest Cover
Natural Hardwoods with an Oak
Component (80)
1,263.3 409.9 820.6 32.8 25.3
Natural Hardwoods with Conifers (73) 1,204.6 455.1 730.2 19.3 24.1
Conifer Plantations (74) 1,033.7 433.2 600.5 20.7
Natural Hardwoods (49) 592.2 247.7 316.4 28.1 11.8
Early Successional and Pioneer
Hardwoods (16) 242.5 206.3 36.2 5.0
Conifer Plantations with Hardwoods (14) 197.3 47.3 150.0 3.9
Natural Hardwoods with Oaks and
Conifers (9) 170.9 11.6 147.9 11.4 3.4
Hardwood Plantations (5) 77.6 53.7 23.9 1.6
Natural Conifers (5) 58.2 5.0 53.2 1.2
Natural Hardwoods, Mostly Oak (3) 30.8 14.8 16.0 0.6
Early Successional (Seedling/Sapling)
(1) 9.2 9.2 <0.2
Sub-total 4,880.3 9.2 1,884.6 2,894.9 91.6 97.6%
Other Land Uses
Roads (Includes Town and PFAR) 51.2 1.0
Wetlands 45.2 0.9
Petroleum Pipe-line Corridor 13.3 0.3
Electric Power-line Corridor 10.2 0.2
Shale Pits (3) 1.8 <0.1
Sub-total 121.7 2.4%
Total 5,002.0 9.2 1,884.6 2,894.9 91.6 100%
*Notes on Land Classifications
❒Roads include town roads, seasonal town roads and public forest access roads (PFAR’s).
❒ The sapling size class represents early successional cover commonly containing small trees and
shrubs.
❒Pioneer Hardwoods are stands with a significant aspen component, often less than 40 years of age.
❒ Wetlands are areas that are classified as National wetlands and include additional small wetlands
identified by DEC forestry staff during the forest inventory process. Wetlands are typically wet meadows
with cattail rushes and sedges, shrubs, or forested lands along streams. Some of the wetlands on the
Unit are forested with trees such as red maple and ash that tolerate low oxygen conditions, but most are
best described as shrub/scrub wetlands along and connected to nearly flat or gently sloping stream
corridors.
❒ Natural Conifers are stands that have been established without direct human intervention.
17
❒ Conifer Plantations contain trees that have been established by direct human action and are
composed of species such as red pine, white pine, Scotch pine, Norway spruce, white spruce, white
cedar and larch (Japanese and European).
❒Conifer Plantations with Hardwoods are conifer plantations with a significant hardwood component.
❒Natural Hardwood with Conifers are mixed stands that have been established without direct human
intervention.
❒Natural Hardwood stands have also been established without direct human intervention, but consist
almost entirely of hardwood species such as sugar maple, red maple, beech, white ash and black cherry.
❒Natural Hardwoods, Mostly Oak are stands dominated by northern red oak, with red maple, sugar
maple, beech, black cherry and white ash as typical associates.
❒Natural Hardwoods with Oaks and Conifers are stands dominated by northern red oak, with eastern
hemlock, eastern white pine, white ash, beech and red maple as typical associates.
Detailed information about plant communities can be found in the publication entitled Ecological
Communities of New York State (Edinger 2002).
Forest Stand Structure
The updated forest inventory data was spatially analyzed to establish the existing age structure
of each stand on the forest and to predict future stand structure as depicted in Table 7.
Table 7 - Present Forest Stand Structure
# Features Structure Acres Percentage
205 Even-aged 2,826 56.5
108 Uneven-aged 1,651 33.0
16 Protection/Natural area (Even & Uneven-aged) 403 8.1
- Wetlands 45 0.9
52 Non-forested 77 1.5
TOTAL 381 5,002 100
E. Wetland and Water Resources
Watershed Characteristics
The Unit’s watershed was split in half by the Valley Heads Moraine, a moraine built by the
Laurentide Ice Sheet as the ice cap melted and withdrew from the region between 13,000 and
14,000 years ago. This interesting fact was the basis for calling the management unit “Twin
Sheds.” The moraine dammed the southern ends of the Finger Lakes and formed an east-west
natural boundary line, splitting the watershed into two drainage basins. This boundary is similar
in concept to the continental drainage divide of the U.S., which is created by the Rocky
Mountains. Before the Finger Lakes were blocked, the Unit’s watersheds drained to the south.
Today, rainfall and snowmelt originating on the northern part of the unit flows north into the
Greater Lake Ontario basin and the southern portion flows into the Susquehanna River basin.
About 2,676 acres (53%) of the Twin Sheds Unit lie within the Oswego River/Finger Lakes
drainage basin. Nearly 2,362 acres (47%) drains into Sixmile Creek and 314 acres (6%) drain
into Fall and Virgil Creeks, all of which eventually flows into Lake Ontario through the Oswego
River/Finger Lakes drainage basin. The remaining 2,326 acres (47%) of the Unit’s watershed
flows south to the Susquehanna River through Owego Creek. About 53% of the Unit directly
drains into a watershed that has an “AA” classification. Watersheds classified as “AA” are used
as a source of drinking water.
The Oswego River/Finger Lakes drainage basin encompasses the area drained by the Oswego,
Oneida, Seneca and Clyde Rivers. The headwaters of these rivers originate along the northern
edge of the Appalachian Plateau and the southwestern Adirondacks and flow across the central
18
lowlands before emptying into Lake Ontario (DEC Division of Water, 2008). The basin is one of
the largest in the state, draining 5,070 square miles (11%) of New York State. The most recent
Oswego River/Finger Lakes Basin Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List Report
provides additional detail on the basin and is available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/48023.html, 2012.
The Susquehanna River basin covers about 4,500 square miles (10%) of New York State and
contains about 5,500 miles of rivers and streams. It is the second largest river basin - next to the
Ohio River Basin - east of the Mississippi River and the largest on the Atlantic seaboard (DEC
Division of Water, 2009). Due to the primarily rural-agricultural character of the Susquehanna
River Drainage Basin, most water quality issues in the basin tend to be the result of agricultural
activities and other nonpoint sources that are becoming a growing concern all across the state
and throughout the country. Within the basin, stream bank erosion and various agricultural
activities result in riparian buffer loss and excessive nutrient and sediment loading to tributary
watersheds. The 2009 Susquehanna River Basin Waterbody Inventory and Priority Waterbodies
List, published by DEC’s Division of Water, provides additional detail on the basin and is
available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/48020.html, 2012.
Streams
A combination of activities such as land clearing, plowing of the ground, road building and the
construction of municipal storm water drainage systems gradually reduced stream water quality
throughout the state and the region. As rapid settlement of the region took place, forest cover
was lost, increasing soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Stream temperatures also
increased. As a consequence, water clarity and dissolved oxygen levels decreased, reducing
habitat quality for cold water species, particularly wild brook trout. Additionally, small streams
were dammed to harness energy from the flowing water to run sawmills, breaking the
connections between smaller and larger stream ecosystems necessary for fish spawning. With
time, the water quality of the Unit’s streams has gradually improved with the return of forest
cover, the creation of water quality protection regulations and the implementation of best
management practices.
Today, about 20.4 miles of both year around and seasonal flowing streams flow within the Unit.
Of these, 5.2 miles are class A (drinking water quality) waters, 0.8 miles are class A(T) (drinking
quality/trout waters), 1.2 miles are class C(T) (trout quality waters) and 4.9 miles are class C
(suitable for fish) quality waters. Additionally, about 8.3 miles of smaller headwater streams
without a specific water classification have been mapped. Fishing for wild brook trout on the
small headwater streams of the Unit is limited but probably does occur. Historically, protected
status was given to streams where trout had been collected or were considered, by observation,
to be suitable for trout at the time the DEC Protection of Waters Program began. Protected
status can be attained for unprotected streams now supporting trout following an evaluation of
the stream by DEC Bureau of Fisheries staff.
The streams associated with the Sixmile Creek watershed are all designated as Class “A”
(drinking water) streams primarily because Sixmile Creek is the main water supply for the City of
Ithaca. Many of the streams in the Sixmile Creek watershed are also protected trout streams.
Additional information on on DEC’s Protection of Waters Program is available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6042.html, 2012)
Few fish sampling surveys have been carried out on the Sixmile Creek watershed within the
Twin Sheds Unit. In 1978, landlocked salmon were collected in a section of Sixmile Creek in
Hammond Hill State Forest during a survey to evaluate the success of a Cayuga Lake tributary
salmon stocking program which was conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Fingerling
salmon were stocked in the headwater areas of some of Cayuga Lake’s larger tributaries where
they spent one or two years before entering the lake. Once in Cayuga Lake, these fish
19
contributed to its important coldwater sport fishery. The tributary stocking program was
eventually discontinued and replaced with direct lake stocking of yearling landlocked salmon.
Also collected during the 1978 survey were brook trout, brown trout, white sucker, sculpin,
central stoneroller, longnose dace, blacknose dace and creek chub. Given the remote
headwater location of this survey, the brook trout and brown trout collected were likely wild fish.
The other fish species collected in the 1978 survey were typical of those inhabiting streams in
the Oswego River watershed such as blacknose dace, slimy sculpin and tesselated darter. As
such, survey results suggest other unsurveyed streams in the Unit may support wild brook trout.
Fish survey work will be conducted in the future throughout the Sixmile Creek watershed within
the Twin Sheds Unit to determine the current extent of wild trout inhabitation. A 5.4 mile long
section of Sixmile Creek between Creamery Road and Banks Road in the Town of Caroline
located just downstream of the Twin Sheds Unit is stocked with yearling brown trout.
Maintaining good water quality in the Twin Sheds Unit is essential to the well-being of these fish
as well as the wild fish residing throughout Sixmile Creek.
There is currently a major project proposed by the City of Ithaca to dredge its navigable
waterways which include the Ithaca Flood Control Channel, Cayuga Inlet and the lower reaches
of Sixmile Creek, Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek. Suspended sediment from the mid reach of
Sixmile Creek is a significant source of the material to be dredged. The Department is an active
participant in the planning and design of this project. It is important that the other active
participants (City of Ithaca, USACE, NYSCC, etc.) are aware that the Department is doing
everything reasonably possible to minimize siltation in Sixmile Creek within the Twin Sheds
Unit.
Freshwater Wetlands
The Twin Sheds Unit has valuable water resources as the Unit has 17 national wetlands
covering about 13 acres in total that range from 1/3 of an acre to almost 5 acres in size. Most of
these small wetlands are classified as Palustrine Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory.
Palustrine wetlands are low places that collect water to a depth of only a few inches or feet. The
Palustrine System was developed to group the vegetated wetlands traditionally called by such
names as marsh, swamp, bog, fen and prairie, which are found throughout the United States
(Cowardin et al. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979). Such wetlands are often dry during a
portion of the year. Most of these wetlands exist along the floodplains of small stream channels.
In addition, DEC forestry staff identified 32 acres of scrub-shrub, emergent and forested
wetlands in the Unit while conducting forest inventory. Thus, in total, the Unit has about 46
acres of wetlands. There are no DEC regulated wetlands on the Unit.
Wetlands significantly impact how water moves within a watershed by absorbing, storing and
slowing down the movement of rain and melt water, thereby minimizing flooding and stabilizing
stream flow. In many cases, wetlands serve as groundwater recharge and discharge sites. In
doing so, wetlands help maintain water levels in streams, rivers, ponds and lakes - especially
during the summer months. Additionally, wetlands are one of the most productive habitats for
feeding, nesting, spawning, resting and cover for fish and wildlife, including many rare and
endangered species. Additional information is available on DEC’s Freshwater Wetland
Program is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4937.html, 2012).
Spring Seeps
Many spring seeps and some vernal pools can be found on the property. These spring seeps
and vernal pools enhance the biodiversity of the entire parcel as they enhance wildlife habitat.
Spring seeps are broad shallow flows that occur where groundwater emerges on sloping terrain
usually on the lower slopes of hillsides and mountains.
20
Spring seeps are valuable to wildlife, particularly wild turkey in severe winters because the
emerging groundwater provides snow-free feeding sites in winter and are among the first sites
to provide green plants in spring. Spring seeps are used by amphibians such as the Jefferson
salamander, spotted salamander and by neotropical migratory birds such as the veery and
wood thrush.
Vernal Pools and Ponds
Vernal pools and ponds are small areas that are wet in the spring of the year. Vernal pools and
ponds derive their name from vernalis, the Latin word for spring, because they result from
various combinations of snowmelt, precipitation, and high water tables associated with the
spring season. The ponds tend to occur in small depressions and while many dry up in late
summer, a few have water year round. By definition, vernal pools and ponds are free of fish and
can support a rich community of amphibians and invertebrates that would be difficult to sustain
if fish were present (http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/n_resource/wetlands/, 2012).
F. Wildlife Resources
The State Forests of the Twin Sheds Unit and the surrounding landscape are home to a wide
range of wildlife. As previously mentioned, the State Forest inventory procedure was enhanced
to include collection of data related to wildlife resources. DEC has also relied on several peer
reviewed resources and surveys to predict which species can be potentially found on or near
the Unit.
The New York GAP Analysis Project (NY GAP), a project led by United States Geological
Survey, New York Herp Atlas and Breeding Bird Atlas studies were combined with state forest
inventory and field observations to help obtain a “snap-shot” of the wildlife that potentially
frequent the State Forests and surrounding landscape. The United States Geological Survey
(USGS) states that “GAP analysis is a scientific means for assessing to what extent native
animal and plant species are being protected. It can be done at a state, local, regional, or
national level.” GAP analysis is a coarse filter approach to biodiversity protection. “The land
cover types mapped in GAP analysis serve directly as a coarse filter, the goal being to assure
adequate representation of all native vegetation community types in biodiversity management
areas” (Smith et. al, 2001). Additional information on the NY GAP Analysis Project is available
at (http://iris.css.cornell.edu/GIS_NYS_GAP.html, 2012).
The goal of GAP analysis is to maintain the highest level of biodiversity possible by protecting
habitats that support rare and endangered species and hot spots of species richness in a
network of conservation areas. In addition, GAP analysis strives to “keep common species
common” by identifying those species and plant communities that are not adequately
represented in existing conservation lands. Common species are those not presently threatened
with extinction. By identifying their habitats, GAP analysis gives land managers, planners,
scientists, and policy makers the information they need to make better-informed decisions when
identifying priority areas for conservation.
NY GAP came out of the realization that an ecosystem based land management strategy at the
landscape level is an effective way to address loss of biodiversity. Many researchers believe
that a species-by-species approach to conservation is not effective because it does not address
the continual loss and fragmentation of natural landscapes. “Only by protecting regions already
rich in habitat, can we adequately protect the animal species that inhabit them”. NY GAP, which
was developed as part of a nationwide initiative by the University of Idaho, uses predictive
modeling to map species that breed or use habitats in a given landscape. To predict their
distributions, species are associated with mapped habitat characteristics using computerized
GIS tools. The resulting maps are checked for accuracy against verified checklists and public
reports of species occurrences and peer reviewed by experts species by species. The ability to
21
successfully map natural communities and species in terrestrial as well as aquatic environments
is the result of recent advances in science, technology, and effective partnering of federal, state
and private conservation agencies.
To help assess biodiversity, NY GAP uses the U.S. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) hexagon mapping unit. EMAP is a national research program
that is developing the tools necessary to monitor and assess the status and trends of national
ecological resources. EMAP's goal is to develop the scientific understanding for translating
environmental monitoring data from multiple spatial and temporal scales into assessments of
present ecological condition and forecasts of future risks to our natural resources.
EMAP aims to advance the science of ecological monitoring and ecological risk assessment,
guide national monitoring with improved scientific understanding of ecosystem integrity and
dynamics, and demonstrate multi-agency monitoring through large regional projects. EMAP
develops indicators to monitor the condition of ecological resources. EMAP also investigates
designs that address the acquisition, aggregation, and analysis of multiscale and multilayer data
(http://www.epa.gov/emap/, 2012). The Unit lies within EPA EMAP hexagon 420. The EMAP
hexagon is based on the EPA’s global hexagonal grid system. Each hexagon is approximately
160,200 acres in size, or about 250 square miles.
Reptiles and Amphibians
The New York Gap Analysis Project confirmed or predicted 41 species of reptiles and
amphibians within EMAP hexagon 420. Confirmed species are known to exist within the EMAP
hexagon; occurrence of predicted species is forecasted by the NY GAP model. Predicted
species have not been confirmed on the ground within the hexagon. Appendix A-4 lists
amphibians and reptiles predicted or confirmed by NY GAP in EMAP hexagon 420. The New
York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas lists and confirms 22 reptiles and amphibians within the
USGS Dryden quadrangle map that covers the Unit.
Amphibians and reptiles are vertebrates like birds and mammals, but they are fundamentally
different in one important way. Frogs, toads and salamanders are amphibians, while turtles,
snakes and lizards are reptiles. The word "herp" is short for herpetofauna, which is the general
term for amphibians and reptiles as a group. Herps are cold blooded, whereas birds and
mammals are warm blooded. Warm blooded animals must eat regularly to fuel the biochemical
mechanisms producing body heat. As such, most warm blooded animals are active year round
(Partners in Amphibians and Reptile Conservation, 2003). In contrast, cold blooded animals
such as salamanders and turtles are only active during the late spring, summer and early fall
during warmer temperatures. Amphibians do not have scales, feathers or fur to insulate their
bodies, so they are especially sensitive to changes in temperature and humidity. Most
amphibians require moist habitats such as a shaded forest floor. Reptiles are covered in scales
and are therefore less vulnerable to changes in temperature and humidity.
While encounters with some herps, such as frogs or toads can heighten some people’s trips
afield, the herps as a group include many species, which often go unnoticed other than to those
specifically looking for them. Despite this, herps are an important group, as their presence,
absence and relative abundance are an indicator of the ecological health of a site. Naturalists,
scientists and land managers agree that local habitat destruction is the primary cause of reptile
and amphibian declines in the northeast. Activities such as urbanization, wetland destruction,
subdivision, stream channelization and poorly planned agriculture and/or timber harvesting are
the primary causes of habitat destruction and loss.
22
Principal Reptile and Amphibian Habitats Provided by the Twin Sheds Unit
Late Successional Forest Habitat - The Unit provides extensive forest cover, often with late
successional characteristics such as coarse woody material, moderate to heavy shade and cool
moist forest floor conditions. Amphibians such as the red backed salamander, northern dusky
salamander, spotted and Jefferson salamander complexes require this type of habitat. The red
backed salamander can reach very high densities in northeastern hardwood forests. The
biomass (combined weight of all individuals) can be more than all the mammals combined and
equal to all the birds combined (Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 2003).
Salamanders are of vital importance to the ecosystem as a whole because they consume
invertebrates and serve as prey for other vertebrates (Crawford and Semlitsch, 2007).
Appendix A-4 summarizes the specific species confirmed or predicted to occur within and near
the Unit based on data from the NY GAP Analysis Program and the HERP Atlas. Information on
the HERP Atlas Project is available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7140.html.
Ponds, Vernal Pools/Ponds, Wetlands, Seepages, Spring and Stream Habitats - The lands of
the Unit also provide about 20 miles of headwater stream corridors, 45 acres of wetlands, many
seepages and scattered vernal pools/ponds that provide valuable habitat for several species of
salamanders, frogs, snakes and turtles.
Mammals
The NY GAP predicts or confirms 52 species of mammals on the Unit’s landscape. Adaptive
forest management that provides young, middle and old-aged forests will help diversify the
landscape and contribute toward maintaining a diverse population of mammals. State Forests
are home to the majority of Norway spruce plantations of Upstate New York’s rural landscape,
which provide unique habitats for mammals such as the red squirrel. Large blocks (500 acres or
more) of forest with late successional characteristics provide unique habitats for mammals such
as silver-haired bat, eastern red bat, and hoary bat, northern flying squirrel and black bear. The
Twin Sheds Unit and the private lands that surround it provide a matrix of different landscape
and cover types for a wide range of mammals. Appendix A-5 lists the mammals predicted or
confirmed by NY GAP in EMAP hexagon 420.
Principal Mammal Habitats Provided by the Twin Sheds Unit
Late Successional Forest Habitat - The State Forests in the Unit can provide a substantial block
of connected forests that are developing late successional forest habitat characteristics. Late
successional forest habitat provides important open space and habitat for mammals that require
blocks of forest with late successional forest characteristics (typically with 65% or greater
average canopy closure) such as the black bear, bobcat, fisher, smokey shrew, pygmy shrew
and northern flying squirrel. This type of forest cover also provides hollow trees and snags that
act as homes for animals such as the gray squirrel, red squirrel, northern flying squirrel, Keen’s
myotis (bat), Indiana myotis (bat), little brown myotis (bat), silver-haired bat, red bat, hoary bat
and raccoon.
Long-Lived Conifer Forest Habitat - The State Forests in the Unit provide significant long term
and critical open space habitat for mammals that require conifer cover in the form of Norway
spruce, white spruce, red pine, larch and white pine plantations. All of these species growing on
the correct site, and in the absence of a stand replacing event such as a wind storm, can be
long lived. The Unit also has areas of natural eastern white pine and eastern hemlock, often
mixed with natural hardwoods. Conifer forests moderate temperature extremes and thereby
provide winter thermal cover. Mammals that require or benefit from conifer cover include the red
squirrel, snowshoe hare, white tailed deer and bobcat.
Early Successional Forest Habitat - The State Forests in the Unit presently provide a small
amount of critical early successional forest habitat (seedling/sapling and brush growth) for
mammals. Many mammals benefit from a variety of habitats and edges with adjacent cover
23
types. Species that use brushy areas include the red fox, gray fox, white tailed deer, eastern
cottontail, woodland vole, eastern chipmunk, woodchuck, southern bog lemming and meadow
jumping mouse. Early successional habitats are disappearing from the surrounding landscape
as forests grow and mature in the landscape. Early successional habitat is also gradually being
lost through subdivision and urban sprawl. As such, early successional habitat will continue to
decrease with time unless steps are taken to deliberately create, enhance and sustain new
habitat, particularly on publicly managed lands. There is no consensus within the scientific
community as to what is the optimal percentage of the landscape occupied by early
successional cover. However, many bird and mammal species dependent on early successional
habitat are declining in population, and will benefit from the creation and maintenance of this
habitat type.
Ponds, Vernal Pools/Ponds, Wetlands, Seepages, Spring and Stream Habitats
The 45 acres of wetlands and 20 miles of headwater streams on the Unit provide valuable
shallow freshwater habitats and travel corridors for mammals that live, visit and reproduce on
the State Forests.
Birds
One of the best available inventories of bird populations is the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA).
The BBA is a comprehensive, statewide survey that reveals the present distribution of breeding
birds in New York. The New York State Ornithological Association and the DEC sponsor the
project in cooperation with the New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Cornell
University, Cornell University Department of Natural Resources, Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology, and Audubon New York. The backbone of the atlas is a dedicated group of
volunteers who do the actual on the ground survey. Originally conducted from 1980 to 1985, the
2000 BBA shows a change in bird occurrence in parts of the state.
The breeding bird survey areas are organized into ten regions based upon the "Kingbird"
reporting regions for the New York State Ornithological Association. One or two Regional
Coordinators are responsible for seeing that all of the blocks in their region are surveyed. Each
block measures 5 x 5 km (3 x 3 mi); there are 5,335 blocks in the entire state. BBA volunteers
visit various habitats within their assigned block(s) and record evidence of breeding for the birds
they see, using defined breeding codes. The State Forests in the Twin Sheds Unit fall within
BBA blocks 3869A, 3869B, 3869D, 3870C and 3870D. In 2000, 134 different bird species were
observed in the BBA blocks that intersect the State Forests of the Twin Sheds Unit; of these, 87
species of birds were classified as confirmed breeding. As an additional measure of bird species
diversity, the NY GAP estimates 173 bird species use the habitats within and surrounding the
Unit. Appendices A-6 and A-7 provide additional detail. Information on the Breeding Bird Atlas is
available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html.
Why are birds important? The opportunity to hear and see birds enhances the field experiences
of many people. Moreover, diversity and size of bird populations are related to overall
ecosystem health - on a local, regional and global scale. Region wide, there are several species
of birds identified on the Unit which are known to be suffering declines and are of conservation
concern. Many of the birds that are of conservation concern such as the Henslow’s sparrow,
black-billed cuckoo and prairie warbler require early successional (brush and young trees) or
grassland habitat to breed and nest. Some species of conservation concern such as the
Cerulean warbler require larger tracts (greater than 500 continuous acres) of mature forest
cover with late successional characteristics to successfully nest and reproduce. Other species,
such as the woodthrush and northern saw-whet owl, use a variety of habitats. Many of the birds
that visit or breed in the region are neo-tropical migrants. Neo-tropical migrants nest and breed
in the north and fly south to warmer climates in the winter.
24
It is suspected that habitat change is responsible for the decline in the bird species mentioned
above. In the Central Appalachian region, millions of acres of former agricultural land have
reverted to back to forest over the past 100 years. This changing habitat creates opportunities
for some bird species and represents a potential threat to species that require early
successional vegetation habitats and grasslands. Researchers suspect that changes in land use
in Central and South American winter habitat may be impacting neo-tropical migrant bird
populations as well.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) uses the North American Bird Conservation
Initiative (NABCI) Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) to track bird populations across the North
American landscape. The purpose of NABCI is to ensure the long-term health of North
America’s native bird populations through cooperation between public and private North
American conservation organizations. BCRs are ecologically defined units that provide a spatial
framework for bird conservation across the North American landscape (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2002). BCRs are being used to help assign "conservation priority" scores for bird
species. Each BCR, regardless of internal political boundaries, has its own priority species list.
Species contained on a given BCR list are ranked by conservation importance according to a
standardized set of criteria determined by partners from Mexico, the United States and Canada.
Derived BCR lists of priority species help guide conservation activities throughout the continent
(http://www.bsc-eoc.org/international/bcrmain.html, 2012).
The Twin Sheds Unit falls within the Appalachian BCR (region 28). In the report entitled The
Birds of Conservation Concern 2008, the USFWS identifies several birds of concern that are
known to exist within or near the Unit. Table 8 summarizes the bird species of conservation
concern that have been observed within Unit’s landscape, and describes the basic habitat
requirements for each bird, respectively.
Table 8 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern
in the Twin Sheds Unit’s Landscape
Common
Name
Habitat Requirements
Blue-winged
Warbler
Edges of woods, bushy overgrown fields or borders of wooded swamps. Prefers old
fields with saplings greater than 10 feet tall (Robbins et al.1966). Often near streams
(DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986).
Canada
Warbler
Breeding habitat is lowland and upland habitats, including swamps, streamside
thickets, brushy ravines, moist forests and regenerating timber cuts, (Ellison 1984,
Smith 1994, Conway 1999).They forage among shrubs and primarily nest on the
ground (Vermont Institute of Natural Science 2005).
Cerulean
Warbler
Typically found in mature forested areas with large and tall trees of broad-leaved
deciduous species and an open understory, but may also inhabit wet bottomlands,
some second-growth forests and mesic upland slopes (Audubon, 2005).
Golden-
winged
Warbler
Prefers early successional habitats for nesting. Recently abandoned farms and
regeneration harvests are ideal. These habitats, however, do not last long, and the
warbler often quickly disappears from an area. Return of forest cover is reducing
available breeding habitat (Cornell lab of Ornithology Website, 2005).
Henslow’s
Sparrow
Breeds in weedy grasslands of the east-central United States. Its population numbers
have declined steadily over the past few decades, largely because of habitat loss
(Cornell Lab of Ornithology Website, 2005).
Kentucky
Warbler
Bottomland hardwoods and woods near streams with dense understory, often at low
elevations. Rarely observed in agricultural habitats (Robbins et al. 1992). Well-
developed ground cover for ground nesting, and a thick understory, are essential
(Cornell lab of Ornithology Website, 2005).
25
Table 8 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern
in the Twin Sheds Unit’s Landscape
Common Habitat Requirements
Name
Louisiana
Waterthrush
Moist forest, woodland, and ravines along streams; mature deciduous, mixed floodplain
and swamp forests. Prefers areas with moderate to sparse undergrowth (Prosser &
Brooks 1998) near rapid-flowing water of hill and mountain streams (Brown et al. 1999).
Prairie
Warbler
Optimal breeding habitats are usually associated with poor soils and include brushy
dune/lakeshore communities, fallow fields with scattered trees, young jack pine stands,
pine plantations (especially Christmas tree plantings), oak clearcuts and power line
right-of-ways (Evers 1994). Large openings surrounding or containing clumps of shrubs
are typical components of breeding habitat (USFWS, 2005).
Red-headed
Woodpecker
Prefers open areas with snags and lush herbaceous ground cover. Breeds in lowland
and upland habitats, river bottoms, wooded swamps, groves of dead and dying trees
and beaver swamps (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986).
Upland
Sandpiper
Requires large open grasslands and shows a preference for nesting, feeding, and
courtship in vegetation less than 2 feet tall (Ailes 1976, Kirsch & Higgins 1976), most
commonly in areas interspersed with taller grasses which provide concealment
(Johnsgard 1981, White 1988, Carter 1992). Birds require open areas 125 acres or
greater in size.
Whip-poor-
will
Dry, open, predominantly deciduous woodlands, often will use small to medium trees of
oak, pine and beech (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986).
Wood
Thrush
Requires moderate to dense understory & shrub density with a lot of shade, moist soil,
and decaying leaf litter. Shows much variation in habitat use, from mature deciduous
forests to shrubby second-growth forests and suburban parks in the Northeast to
riparian habitats in the Great Plains (Corned Lab of Ornithology Website, 2005).
Worm-
eating
Warbler
Well-drained upland deciduous forests with understory patches of mountain laurel or
other shrubs, drier portions of stream swamps with an understory of mountain laurel,
deciduous woods near streams; almost always associated with hillsides.
Note: Breeding bird atlas data, including applicable global and state listings - and New York status as a
game, special concern, protected, threatened or endangered species is included in the appendix
section of this plan.
Principal Bird Habitats Provided by the Twin Sheds Unit
The Twin Sheds State Forest Unit and its surrounding landscape provide significant habitats for
many species of breeding birds. It is apparent to the casual observer that the landscape
provides many valuable habitats as demonstrated by the richness of breeding bird species
within and surrounding the Unit. The Twin Sheds Unit’s State Forests provide four important and
critical bird habitats.
Late Successional Forest Habitat - The Unit has managed uneven-aged forest, along with
natural and protection areas that provide significant blocks of forest canopy with late
successional forest characteristics (with 65% or greater average canopy closure). This type of
cover provides habitat for neotropical migrant birds that are moderate to high in conservation
priority in the region such as the wood thrush, scarlet tanager, Louisiana waterthrush and black-
throated blue warbler. Other birds that prefer mature deciduous and mixed coniferous-
deciduous forests include the red-eyed vireo, veery, American redstart, ovenbird, blue headed-
vireo, black throated green warbler and yellow-bellied sapsucker.
Additionally, habitats with late successional characteristic, when compared to other forest
cover, tend to have higher densities of live or dead hollow trees greater than 10 inches in
diameter at breast height that provide homes and/or forage areas for cavity nesting birds. These
birds include the: northern flicker, yellow-bellied sapsucker, black-capped chickadee, downy
woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker, eastern screech owl, great crested
26
flycatcher, wood duck and pileated woodpecker. The managed uneven-aged forest also
provides nesting habitat for raptors (birds of prey) that require extensive forested areas such as
the northern goshawk.
Long-lived Conifer Habitat - The long-lived conifers on the Twin Sheds Unit provide important
habitat for a suite of bird species requiring conifers such as the Magnolia warbler, Blackburnian
warbler, pine warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, red-breasted nuthatch and black throated green
warbler. Mature tall conifers also provide important nesting habitat for raptors such as the
northern goshawk and sharp shinned hawk.
Early Successional Forest Habitat - Early successional seedling/sapling sized forest provides
critical habitat for a suite of birds that require young dense vegetation for breeding, nesting, and
foraging. Bird species that require such habitat include the ruffed grouse, American woodcock,
white-throated sparrow, American goldfinch, rufous-sided towhee, chestnut sided warbler,
yellow warbler, blue winged warbler, white-eyed vireo, alder flycatcher, willow flycatcher, least
flycatcher, hermit thrush, brown thrasher, Indigo bunting and gray catbird. In fact, New York
State’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy recognizes the value of this land cover
type and identifies early successional birds as a “greatest conservation need” species group.
Ponds, Vernal Pools/Ponds, Wetlands, Seepages, Spring and Stream Habitats. The 20 miles of
headwater streams and 45 acres of wetlands provide habitat for birds that require water in close
proximity for breeding, nesting or foraging. Specifically, the streams, pools, and shallow wetland
waters provide habitats for birds such as the tree swallow, Kentucky warbler, Louisiana
waterthrush, worm eating warbler, wood duck, hooded merganser, mallard, American black
duck, blue wing teal, green heron and Canada goose.
Major Game Species
Several game or furbearer species exist on the Unit. A few species of high importance with
regards to use demands, habitat management needs or impact to forest ecosystems are
discussed below.
White-tailed Deer
White-tailed deer are an important component of the Unit’s wildlife, both for their recreational
value and their capacity to impact other resources and human activities and interests. The
recently published NYSDEC Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in New York (2012-2016)
outlines the components of New York’s deer management plan in a single document. It also
provides a strategic direction for deer management in New York over the next five years. The
plan describes six primary goals identified by DEC that encompass the current priorities for deer
management and the values and issues expressed by the public: 1) manage deer populations
at levels that are appropriate for human and ecological concerns; 2) promote and enhance deer
hunting as an important recreational activity, tradition and management tool in New York; 3)
reduce the negative impacts caused by deer; 4) foster understanding and communication about
deer ecology, management, economic aspects and recreational opportunities while enhancing
DEC’s understanding of the public’s interest; 5) manage deer to promote healthy and
sustainable forests and enhance habitat conservation efforts to benefit deer and other species;
and 6) ensure that the necessary resources are available to support the proper management of
white-tailed deer in New York. DEC seeks to achieve these goals through implementation of
sound scientific management principles in a manner that is responsive to the complex
ecological, cultural, recreational, and economic dynamics associated with deer in New York.
The complete NYSDEC Management Plan for White-tailed Deer is available at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7211.html
According to the NYSDEC Management Plan for White-tailed deer, successful deer population
management requires assessing public desires, ecological impacts and population trends. Then
27
goals and management activities can be identified, implemented and evaluated. Though
estimates of deer population abundance and density are frequently sought by the public,
meaningful estimates are difficult and expensive to acquire for free-ranging deer populations.
Moreover, population estimates may not provide essential information for management. Rather,
deer managers use indices to monitor trends in population size, condition and impact on the
environment. Together, these factors are more valuable than precise knowledge of the number
of deer.
In New York, DEC uses the annual buck harvest, expressed as bucks taken per square mile
and deer sighting rates by bowhunters as methods to monitor changes in deer population size.
However, as patterns in access to land for deer hunting become less uniform and hunters
become more selective by choosing not to take young, small-antlered bucks, annual buck
harvest density may become a less sensitive index of population change. To compensate, DEC
is exploring mechanisms to enhance current indices and integrate alternative methods to
monitor population trends. DEC utilizes Citizen Task Force(s) (CTF) to set a DEC Wildlife
Management Unit (WMU) deer population objective. The CTF process convenes
representatives from various community interests, i.e. farming, forestry, hunting, highway safety,
ecology and small businesses. The task force provides a way for these potentially affected
interest groups to share interests and concerns, and ultimately make a recommendation on the
desired deer population.
This process seeks to obtain a community view on appropriate deer numbers and requires
compromise by many participants, since all interests cannot be fully satisfied. Deer
management permits are issued by the Department’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of
Wildlife, to control the number of female deer taken by hunters in each Unit. Citizen Task Forces
are formed in each WMU to represent the various community interests in deer management.
Task forces consider hunting and agricultural interests, the number of deer/auto collisions,
damage to residential landscaping and any other impacts deer have on society. They then make
a recommendation as to how many deer they want to see in any given Wildlife Management
Unit – more, less or the
same. The Department’s
Bureau of Wildlife then
sets the quota of deer
management permits t
will be issued to move
the deer population in the
direction recomm
by the task force.
hat
ended
he most recent CTF for
e
is to
er
T
WMU 7R to update deer
population objectives was
completed in 2009. Th
current CTF
recommendation
maintain the current de
harvest intensity in WMU
7R with a Buck Take
Objective of 2.7 bucks
per square mile. The
BTO is the average number of bucks per square mile expected to be taken when the deer
population is at the level recommended by the task force. Prior to 2009, the CTF met during the
winter of 2003-2004. At that time, the CTF recommended that the deer the population be
reduced by 35%. The Unit’s Buck Take Objective (BTO) was then adjusted to its current value
Figure 4A - Deer Take by town
28
of 2.7 bucks per square mile. The Department’s Bureau of Wildlife monitors the deer populatio
and annually adjusts the quota of deer management permits available to hunters to mainta
Unit’s deer population at the level recommended by a task force. Figure 4A shows the deer tak
in the two towns that comprise the Twin Sheds Unit from 1995 to 2010. Figure 4B compares
the actual buck take to
the BTO in WMU 7R for
the same period. For the
period, deer populatio
levels appear to have
peaked from 2001 to
2002. It also appears
though the downward
trend reversed in 2010
n
in a
e
n
as
.
esearch on the
l
at
d
overall
heny
ome
er
sting
ly alters
nd food
ources for small
nt of
by
n
es
R
Allegheny Nationa
Forest has shown th
high deer populations
over an extended perio
of time can negatively
impact species
richness and the
productivity and health of
forest ecosystems
(Marquis, 1981). In
portions of the Alleg
National Forest in northwestern Pennsylvania with excessive deer populations, researchers
have noted changes in the forest understory associated with excessive deer browse. In some
areas, specific trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, which are preferred browse sources for
deer such as birch, ash,
witch hobble, sumac, wild
raisin, blueberry and
wintergreen, have bec
scarce in the forest
understory. Lack of a
herbaceous/shrub lay
leads to higher nest
predation of ground-
nesting and shrub-ne
birds. It also direct
the habitat a
Figure 4B - Objective Vs. Actual Take WMU 7R
s
mammals.
In 2010, an assessme
data from the USDA
Forest Inventory and
Analysis (FIA) program
the Eastern Chapter of the
Nature Conservancy
indicated that regeneratio
was adequate in 43% of
the U.S. Forest Service
inventory plots for speci
Figure 5 - Predicted Values for Regeneration Index of
hapter
Desirable Timber Species in New York State
Source: The Nature Conservancy, Eastern New York C
29
with substantial timber value at the state-wide level (Shirer and Zimmerman, 2010). The study
found that nearly one-third (32%) of the state may not have sufficient regeneration to replace
the forest canopy after a significant overstory disturbance. Regeneration success varied
geographically, with forests in southeastern New York generally faring worse than other eco-
regions. In the High Alleghany Eco-region, the eco-region in which the Unit is located, the
Nature Conservancy study found that American beech made up nearly 29% of the native tree
species regeneration. The Nature Conservancy study points out that deer browsing (Marquis
1981, Rooney 2001, Horsley et al. 2003, Rooney and Waller 2003, Russell et al. 2001, Sage et
al. 2003, Rawinski 2008, Wiegmann and Waller 2006) competition from understory vegetation
such as beech (Horsley and Marquis 1983, Royo and Carson 1986) and acid deposition
and Mitchell 2004) can all suppress desirable regeneration (DEC Deer Management Plan,
2011). Beech seedlings are not a prefer
(Lovett
red deer food and are seldom heavily browsed.
Beech bark disease has killed many mature beech trees statewide and within the Unit. Beech
prolifically re-sprouts from the roots. However, most researchers believe that less than 1% of
the trees are resistant to beech bark disease. As such, most re-sprouting beech will never reach
maturity and will effectively shade out desirable tree seedlings such as maple, cherry and oak.
Today, and for the near term, deer populations within the Unit’s immediate landscape are being
managed within reasonable limits but appear to be trending slightly upward at the DEC wildlife
management unit scale. Recent work by the Nature Conservancy predicts that desirable forest
regeneration (excluding beech) is fair in the northern most part of the Unit. Intensive recreational
use on the Unit’s formal recreational trail network may disturb deer and reduce hunter success.
A specific study to assess the deer population at the State Forest unit scale has not been
conducted. However, the DEC is cooperating with Cornell researchers on the Unit. Cornell
researchers from the Department of Natural Resources are conducting an assessment of deer
and earthworm impacts on native plants. The objective of the study is to assess the effects of
earthworms and deer on native forest understory plant species. This five to ten year study
requires the fencing of four 50 x 50 meter study sites on the Unit, which will give a good
indication of how desirable forest regeneration is impacted by deer browsing.
Based on 2006 forest inventory data collected and analyzed by DEC state forest staff,
significant portions of the forest have beech seedlings and saplings in the forest understory, and
natural reestablishment of desirable tree seedlings in the forest understory is less than typically
desired or expected. A map showing beech interference at the forest stand scale is at the end of
this plan. The map shows that about 46% of the stands in the Unit have a beech understory
interference problem. This beech interference problem may be caused, at least in part, by
excessive deer browsing of the desirable native vegetation. Deer hunting is not allowed on
some of the neighboring lands surrounding the Unit, which may be contributing to the beech
interference issue. It is expected that at the local State Forest scale, deer populations will likely
trend upward as the land is gradually developed and hunting pressure decreases outside the
State Forest boundaries. Recently, state foresters in the Regional 7 Sherburne sub-office have
worked with NYSDEC Bureau of Wildlife biologists to obtain additional deer tags through the
Deer Management Assistance Program for specific State Forests that have excessive deer
browsing damage.
The Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) enables DEC biologists to help
landowners and land managers implement site specific deer management on their lands. DEC
issues a special permit and a determined number of deer tags to a landowner, land manager or
a group of landowners or land managers, whose property is in need of site specific deer
management efforts. DMAP permits are valid for use only during the open deer hunting seasons
and can only be used by licensed hunters. Only deer without antlers or having antlers
measuring less than three inches in length may be taken under the authority of a DMAP permit.
Under DMAP, the landowner or land manager is responsible for distributing the antlerless deer
30
tags. They are also required to maintain and submit a summary report card to DEC listing the
deer taken. Additional information on DMAP program is available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/33973.html
Wild Turkey
Wild turkey can be found throughout the Unit as the forests and fields found in the landscape
provide excellent food and cover. In the spring and summer of the year, adult wild turkeys feed
on wild leeks, roots, fruits, grasshoppers, dragonflies and snails. During the winter the animals
feed on acorns, seeds and left over fruits. In agricultural areas, they also feed on manure,
silage and any residual grains. The bird has made a remarkable recovery after disappearing
from the State around the mid-1840s as the landscape was cleared for farmland.
As farming declined on the infertile hilltops, the land gradually reverted back into brush and
forest. By the late 1940's, much of New York’s southern tier was again capable of supporting
turkeys. Around 1948, wild turkeys from a small remnant population in northern Pennsylvania
crossed the border into western New York. These were the first birds in the State after an
absence of 100 years. In 1959, these natural populations were supplemented by a trap and
release program begun by the then New York State Conservation Department (DEC Bureau of
Wildlife, NYS Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, 2004).
Humans have been an important predator of wild turkeys for many thousands of years and are
part of the region’s natural heritage. This wonderful bird is now legally protected as a game
species by spring and fall hunting seasons, which are closely monitored by State biologists. This
management has helped increase the number of turkeys throughout most of the State.
Additional information on turkey management is available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/education/68491.html
Ruffed Grouse and Woodcock
In the 20th century, farm abandonment and the recovery of forests from unregulated logging and
fires produced habitats which probably resulted in the greatest abundance of ruffed grouse in
recent times in most of the northern and northeastern United States. But as forests mature
under protection from fire and regeneration cutting, they lose the habitat qualities ruffed grouse
require. Continued loss of early successional forest habitats are likely on private forest lands as
ownership subdivision increases and average parcel size decreases. Ruffed grouse and
American woodcock depend on shrub-dominated and young forest habitats (Dessecker,
McAuley). The high tree and shrub densities characteristic of these habitats protect them from
predators and enable local populations to attain levels substantially greater than on landscapes
dominated by mature forest (Sepik and Dwyer, 1982). In many regions, Ruffed grouse and
woodcock numbers have declined as forests have become more extensive and older.
Ruffed grouse and woodcock are both listed as species of “greatest conservation need” in the
State’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (NYSDEC, 2006). They are two of the
many species which would benefit from the creation and maintenance of early successional
habitats. Their numbers can often be readily enhanced or restored by creating habitat through
heavy forest regeneration cutting on a regular basis or through the use of prescribed fire to
allow open habitats for young growing grouse to feed on insects, a high protein source. Forest
stands with low to moderately low potential productivity, that have aspen as an existing
component, are good candidates for grouse and woodcock habitat management. The overall
goal is to provide a diversity of age classes of aspen to meet the food and cover requirements
in a manner consistent with their limited mobility (The Ruffed Grouse Society, 2005). Additional
information on ruffed grouse is available at http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/our-projects
31
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
New York’s cottontail rabbit population was relatively small prior to European settlement when
forests covered much of the State. By the early 20th century, most of New York’s forests had
been cleared. Formerly cleared areas grew back to brush and young forests, providing excellent
habitat for rabbits for several decades. Today, young early successional cover has declined as
the forests have matured. Management techniques such as periodic mowing, brushing or
regeneration cutting help provide brushy cover. Additionally, maintenance of existing old field
grass, goldenrod and aster habitats by annual mowing to prevent succession is recommended
in order to provide desired habitat for this species.
Black Bear
The Twin Sheds Unit is within black bear range and bear are becoming more common. More
sightings have been reported in recent years and the number of nuisance complaints has risen
as well. Black bear require large blocks of remote mature forest cover with a thick forest
understory. They also require abundant sources of hard and soft mast from plants such as
northern red oak, chestnut oak, white oak, wild blueberry, elderberries and blackberries. These
large mammals have returned with the natural reestablishment of large blocks of upland
transitional oak and northern hardwood forest in the region. Additional information on black
bears is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/6960.html
Beaver
Beaver populations in New York are abundant and their populations are secure. The
Department regulates trapping seasons to ensure the continued security of New York's
furbearer populations (DEC Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2005). Beaver require small to large
slowly flowing brooks, streams or rivers that are usually, but not necessarily, bordered by
woodland (DeGraff and Rudis, 1986). The west branch of Owego Creek and portions of Six Mile
Creek and their floodplains provide good beaver habitat. Trapping provides important benefits
for New Yorkers including: control of nuisance wildlife damage, economic benefits to trappers
and people involved in the fur industry, and recreation for trappers. The colonization of a site by
beavers often results in the flooding of an area and subsequent changes in wildlife habitats.
Most of the changes related to beaver flooding create new habitat opportunities for other plant
and animal species. However, flooding can impact trout habitat, forest health and highways.
G. Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern and Significant Species
As previously illustrated, the Twin Sheds Unit is located in a diverse landscape that is
dominated by forest cover and open farmland with some residential development. Analysis of
the Breeding Bird Atlas and the New York GAP model data illustrate that the landscape
potentially supports over 269 species of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians.
Additionally, the landscape is the home to many species of invertebrate animals such as
dragonflies, skippers and butterflies.
Important Species within the Unit and at the Landscape Level
The Environmental Conservation Law of New York, Section 11-0535 and 6 NYCRR (New York
Code of Rules and Regulations) Part 182 authorizes the Department to list and protect
endangered, threatened and special concern wildlife species. There are no known threatened,
endangered or rare plant and wildlife species recorded within the State Forests that comprise
the Twin Sheds Unit at the time of this writing. The Round leafed orchid (Haberneria orbiculta),
and Rattlesnake Plaintain (Goodyera pubescens) are found on the Hammond Hill State Forest,
east of Canaan Rd. along recreational trail Yellow 5 in an area which is commonly referred to as
“the orchid glade.” The Conservation Advisory Council of the Town of Dryden and professional
botanists from Cornell University believe that the Hammond Hill State Forest orchid glade has
the largest round leafed orchid population in Tompkins County. The orchid glade has been
referred to as a botanically sensitive area (Karig, 2001).
32
At the landscape level encompassing the Unit, several species listed in New York State as
endangered, threatened or special concern species have been recorded by the 2000 Breeding
Bird Atlas census, New York Natural Heritage Program staff and/or confirmed or predicted by
the New York GAP Analysis Model. Table 9 lists these species and their required habitats.
Table 9 - Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species
at the Landscape Level
Common
Name
Habitat Requirements Record
Source
NY
Status
Cerulean
Warbler
Breeds in forests with tall deciduous trees and open understory,
such as wet bottomlands and dry slopes. (Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, 2005).
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Common
Nighthawk
Breeding in open areas such as plowed fields, gravel beaches,
barren areas with rocky soil, railroad right of ways, large woodland
clearings and cities. (DeGraff & Rudis, 1986).
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Cooper’s
Hawk
Breeds and winters in extensive deciduous or mixed woodlands
that are dense or in open, scattered woodlots interspersed with
open fields (DeGraff and Rudis, 1986).
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Gray
Petaltail
Hillside seeps and fens in areas of deciduous forest (Dunkle
2000). In New York, all known populations are found at rocky
gorges and glens with deciduous or mixed forests. Small shallow
streams flow through the gorges and glens, and these streams are
fed by hillside seepage areas, groundwater fed seepage
streamlets or fens. The seepage areas represent the larval habitat
for these populations, while the adults use both seepage areas
and stream courses (New York Natural Heritage Program 2006).
NYNHP PSC
Southern
Grizzled
Skipper
Open, sparsely grassed and barren areas in close proximity
(usually less than 30 m) to oak or pine forests (Schweitzer 1989).
The presence of its larval host plant, dwarf cinquefoil (Potentilla
canadensis), is also an important habitat requirement for this
species (New Jersey Department of Fish, Game & Wildlife
Website, 2011).
NYNHP Endan
Henslow’s
Sparrow
Henslow’s sparrows historically bred in native tallgrass prarie
habitat; in the East grasslands maintained by natural disturbances
or fires set by Native Americans provided habitat (Burhans, 2002)
BBA
NY Gap
CONF
Threat
Indiana
Myotis (bat)
Females congregate in nursery colonies under the loose bark of
dead trees. Only a handful of such colonies have ever been
discovered. These trees are located along the banks of streams or
lakes in forested habitat. In New York State, these bats are known
to winter in only seven caves or mines, with nearly one-half of the
world’s population being found in only two caves. Even though
other populations have been discovered in recent years, the
additions have not offset the losses recorded over the full extent of
the species range (DEC Endangered Species Unit, 1999).
NY Gap
PRED
Endan
Jefferson
Salamander
Found in undisturbed damp, shady deciduous or mixed woods,
bottomlands, swamps, moist pastures, or lakeshores. Requires
temporary ponds with a pH > 5 (DeGraff & Rudis, 1986).
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Loggerhead
Shrike
Open country with scattered trees, shrubs and road side hedges.
Is attracted to areas with thorny trees such as hawthorn and honey
locust. Favors low elevations (DeGraff & Rudis, 1986).
NY Gap
PRED
Endan
33
Table 9 - Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species
at the Landscape Level
Common Habitat Requirements Record NY
Name Source Status
Longtail
Salamander
Clean, calcareous (limestone) spring-fed seepages, spring
kettleholes, swampy floodplains, artesian wells, and ponds
associated with springs. Aquatic habitats often occur within upland
deciduous forests that may also contain calcareous fens,
limestone outcrops or caves. Forest types typically include
mature, closed canopy maple/mixed deciduous, mixed hardwood
or hemlock/mixed deciduous woodlands (New Jersey Department
of Fish, Game & Wildlife Website, 2011).
NYNHP
NY Gap
PRED
PSC
Northern
Goshawk
Breeds and winters in interiors of remote and heavily forested
areas of coniferous and mixed forests (DeGraff & Rudis, 1986).
BBA
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Northern
Harrier
Nest on ground in swamps, cut-over areas, swamps with low shrub
and clearings, sometimes built up over water on a stick foundation,
sedge tussock or willow clump (DeGraff & Rudis, 1986).
NYNHP
NY Gap
CONF
Threat
Pied-billed
Grebe
Breeds on seasonal or permanent ponds with dense stands of
emergent vegetation, bays and sloughs. Uses most types of
wetlands in winter. (Cornell lab of Ornithology, 2005).
BBA
NY Gap
CONF
Threat
Red-
Shouldered
Hawk
Breeds and winters in moist hardwood or mixed woodlands,
wooded swamps, bottomlands, and wooded margins often close to
cultivated fields (DeGraff & Rudis, 1986).
BBA
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Sharp-
skinned
Hawk
Breeds and winters in open mixed or coniferous woodlands,
clearings, and edges. A bird of cold-temperate conifer forest and
temperate deciduous woodlands (DeGraff & Rudis, 1986).
BBA
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Short-eared
Owl
A bird of open grasslands, the Short-eared Owl is one of the most
widely distributed owls in the world – but is endangered in New
York State. It is distributed across North America, South America
and Eurasia. The bird is common in northern portion of breeding
range, but populations fluctuate greatly along with prey population
cycles (Cornell lab of Ornithology, 2008).
NY Gap
PRED
Endan
Spotted
Turtle
Requires unpolluted, small, shallow bodies of water such as
woodland streams, wet meadows, bog holes, small ponds,
marshes, swamps, and roadside ditches (DeGraff & Rudis, 1986).
NY Gap
PRED
PSC
Upland
Sandpiper
Breeds in wide open pastures or grassy fields, often hayfields with
alfalfa or clover, occasionally in forest openings. (DeGraff & Rudis,
1986).
BBA
NY Gap
CONF
Threat
Vesper
Sparrow
Found in various open habitats with grass, including prairie,
sagebrush steppe, meadows, pastures, and roadsides. (Cornell
Lab of Ornithology, 2005).
BBA
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Wood
Turtle
Frequents slow-moving, meandering streams with sandy bottoms
and overhanging alders. Disperses from water sources during
summer months to fields, woods and roadsides (DeGraff & Rudis,
1986).
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
Yellow-
breasted
Chat
Breeds in dense thickets around wood edges, riparian areas, and
in overgrown clearings. In the eastern and southern portions of the
range, abandoned agricultural fields left unmanaged for 10 years
and the removal of trees and encouragement of a shrub layer in
powerline rights-of-way will create suitable chat habitat. Wherever
marginal cropland is abandoned, the species should benefit before
canopy closure (Nature Conservancy, 1998).
NY Gap
CONF
PSC
34
Key to Table 9
BBA - 2000 Breeding Bird Atlas NYNHP - New York Natural Heritage Program
CONF - Confirmed Species PRED - Predicted Species
Edan - Endangered Species (New York) PSC - Protected, Special Concern Species
NY Gap - NY Gap Analysis Program Threat - Threatened Species (New York)
Keystone Species
Keystone species are species that play roles affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem
(Miller, 2004). Keystone species are organisms whose health is often linked to the health of an
entire ecosystem. A keystone species creates habitat that is required by other species.
Therefore, the presence, absence, increase or decrease of a keystone species across a
landscape is an indicator of ecosystem health. Examples of Central Appalachian ecozone
keystone species found on the Unit include the Eastern white pine, Eastern hemlock, pileated
woodpecker and beaver. American chestnut was a keystone species, but beginning in 1904,
chestnut blight, a non-native disease, effectively eliminated American chestnut from the eco-
region’s landscape. By 1950 (except for the shrubby root sprouts the species continually
produces and which also quickly become infected) this keystone species disappeared from its
200 million acre range. The loss of American chestnut dramatically changed the forest, and
significantly reduced the amount of hard mast for wildlife. Today, other trees such as northern
red oak have filled the American chestnut’s niche, but not completely. Additional information on
the American chestnut is available at http://www.acf.org/, 2012.
H. Cultural Resources
The term cultural resources encompasses a number of categories of human created resources
including structures, archaeological sites and related resources. The Department is required by
the New York State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) (PRHPL Article 14) and SEQR (ECL
Article 8) to include such resources in the range of environmental values that are managed on
public lands.
On lands managed by the Department’s Region 7 Division of Lands and Forests Office, the
number of standing structures is minimal. Statewide, those structures that remain are related to
the Department’s land management activities such as fire towers, “ranger” cabins, maintenance
facilities, and related resources. Fire towers, as a class of resources, have been the subject of
considerable public interest over the last decade. The majority of surviving fire towers have
been found eligible for inclusion on the State and National Registers of Historic Places and a
number of towers were formally listed in the Registers in 2001. For state agencies, Register
listing or eligibility are effectively the same; obligating the Department to treat these resources
appropriately and requiring that special procedures be followed should it be necessary to
remove or affect these resources. While conducting forest inventory, Department forestry staff
made note of cultural resources such as cemeteries, foundations, stone walls, cisterns and
former water well sites. As a part of the inventory effort associated with the development of this
plan, Department staff reviewed the archaeological site inventories maintained by the New York
State Museum and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to identify known
archaeological resources that might be located within or near the Unit. The two inventories
overlap to an extent, but do not entirely duplicate one another. The purpose of this effort was to
identify any known sites that might be affected by actions proposed within the Unit and to assist
in understanding and characterizing past human use and occupation of the Unit. No such sites
are known to exist on the Unit.
The quality of the site inventory information varies a great deal in all respects. Very little
systematic archaeological survey has been undertaken in New York State. Therefore, all
present inventories must be considered incomplete. Even fewer sites have been investigated to
any degree that would permit their significance to be evaluated. Many reported site locations
result from 19th century antiquarian information artifact collector reports that have not been field
35
verified. Often very little is known about the age, function or size of these sites. This means that
reported site locations can be unreliable and encompass a large area. Should systematic
archaeological inventory be undertaken at some point in the future, it is very likely that additional
archeological resources will be identified.
Archaeological Site Protection
The archaeological sites located within this Unit and any unrecorded sites that may exist on the
property are protected by the provisions of the New York State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA
- Article 14 PRHPL), Article 9 of Environmental Conservation Law and Section 233 of Education
Law. No actions that would impact these resources are proposed in this Unit Management
Plan. Should any such actions be proposed in the future they will be reviewed in accordance
with SHPA. Unauthorized excavation and removal of materials from any of these sites is
prohibited by Article 9 of Environmental Conservation Law and Section 233 of Education Law.
Archaeological sites are locations where materials (artifacts and ecofacts) or modifications to
the landscape reveal evidence of past human activity. This includes resources that range from
Native American camps and villages to farm homesteads established by European immigrants
during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such sites can be entirely subsurface or
can contain above ground remains such as foundation walls or earthwork features. Old
homestead foundations, water wells, stone walls and barbed wire attest to the agricultural
history of the Unit and its landscape. Archeological sites within the State date back as far as
12,000 years and are located in a wide variety of settings, from forests and flood plains to
waterways and mountain tops (NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation,
2005). In preparing this plan, an 1866 census map was used to plot locations of 32 former farms
and sawmills on the Unit’s forests.
Archaeological Research
The archaeological sites located on this Unit as well as additional unrecorded sites that may
exist on the property will be made available for appropriate research. All future archaeological
research to be conducted on the property will be accomplished under the auspices of all
appropriate permits. Research permits will be issued only after consultation with the New York
State Museum and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).
Extensive excavations are not contemplated as part of any research program in order to assure
that the sites are available to future researchers who are likely to have more advanced tools and
techniques as well as different research questions.
I. Roads
Early needs for State Forest access roads were for tree planting and forest fire protection, since
over one half of the acquired acreage was in grassland or light brush. Early access was
primarily via old town roads and former farm lanes. Where these were not sufficient, new
roads were constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). In the days of the
CCC, labor was not expensive. Large crews of men built roads and trails using limited
machinery and mainly hand labor. Some of the roads were built extra wide to serve as fire
breaks to protect the newly established plantations.
Although there were few heavy trucks used at that time, the CCC roads were generally built to a
high standard and many still exist today. Decades later, as the plantations and natural forests
matured, access to stands was needed for timber stand improvement thinning. New roads
were built as needed to do this work. Some of these projects involved and were funded by sales
of forest products, which included mostly firewood, pulpwood and Christmas trees.
An estimated 11.4 miles of town, county and state roads provides access to, from and through
the State Forests on the Unit. These roads are critical assets in that they provide access to the
Unit for recreationists, DEC land managers and forest harvesting equipment. The roads are
36
maintained by the towns of Caroline and Dryden and Tompkins and Tioga counties. Town roads
represent about 6.4 miles (56%) of the road network. About 2.6 miles (41%) of the town roads
are classified as seasonal, and, as such, are not plowed or sanded. Plowed town roads cover
about 3.8 miles (59%). County roads comprise 20% of the road network; all of the county roads
are plowed and sanded and/or salted.
The State Forest road system provides both public and administrative access to the Unit. Public
Forest Access Roads (PFARs) are constructed by the Department to standards that will
provide reasonably safe travel and keep maintenance costs at a minimum. These roads are not
normally plowed or sanded. There are three types of roads that provide interior access to the
State Forests in the Unit: public forest access roads, (formerly called truck trails), haul roads
and access trails. These roads provide different levels of access depending on the level of
standards to which they were constructed.
Public forest access roads are permanent, unpaved roads. These roads are open for the public
use unless the road is gated and/or signed to prohibit use. The roads may be designed for
all/weather use depending on their respective location and surfacing. These roads provide
primary access to the Unit. The standards for these roads are those of the Class A and Class B
access roads as described in the Department’s Forest Road Handbook (Swartz, et al. 2004).
The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. The 1.5 mile Canaan Road and the 1.1 mile Red Man Run,
both on the Hammond Hill State Forest, are the Unit’s only public forest access roads.
Haul roads are permanent, unpaved roads, but are not designed for all weather use. They are
constructed primarily for the removal of forest products and provide only limited access to the
Unit. Most of these roads are not open for motor vehicle use by the public and are blocked by
soil berms, rocks, or gates to prevent unauthorized motor vehicle use. The standards for these
roads are those of a Class C road as described in the Department’s Forest Road Handbook.
There is 0.1 mile of haul road on the Unit.
Access trails may be permanent, are unpaved, and do not provide all weather access on the
Unit. These trails are originally designed for removal of forest products and may be used for
recreational purposes. These trails are constructed according to best management practices
and are typically designed for temporary use. Approximately 9 miles of access trails are located
throughout the Unit. Some of these access trails are blocked by dirt berms to prevent
unauthorized motor vehicle use.
Former town roads are part of the present day road system, or, in some cases, are no longer
used. For example, on the Hammond Hill State Forest, old atlas maps show Star Stanton Road
and Red Man Run Road continuing downhill to NYS Route 38. The Official Town Map
mentioned earlier shows the western portion of Star Stanton Road as a year round public road
changing to a seasonal road somewhere in the private lands between Tract 64 and Tract 87.
Red Man Run Road was reportedly qualified abandoned on 9/8/1992 from Canaan Road
northeast for 5,800 feet, which appears to cover the full length of Red Man Run Road within the
State Forest (Kwasnowski, 2010). Canaan Road was reportedly qualified abandoned on
9/8/1992 from Star Stanton Road south for 8,477 feet, which appears to cover the full length of
that road within the State Forest. The old atlas maps and survey map 4156 also show a road
running east and west between Hammond Hill Road and Canaan Road. The official status of
that road is unknown (Wolford, 2011).
On the Yellow Barn State Forest, old atlas maps show the “Old Ox Tail Road,” as it is
sometimes called, running north from Irish Settlement Road all the way to Tehan Road, a
distance of over 2.5 miles. The most northern portion of that road is now known as Signal Tower
Road. The old atlas maps also show Tehan Road continued west to Yellow Barn Road. Card
Road is reportedly abandoned from a point starting 1,297 feet west of Irish Settlement Road and
37
that it is 2,615 feet further to Signal Tower Road. Signal Tower Road is noted as being
abandoned from a point 600 feet south of Tehan Road and that it is 2,900 feet further to Card
Road. However, the notes also state that the abandonment of portions of Signal Tower Road
were not yet determined (2008) and the preliminary Official Town Map showed portions of those
roads within the State Forest as “seasonal use” by the legend with only the middle 1/3 of Card
Road having no symbol. That map shows nothing in the location of the Old Ox Tail Road.
Research has been unable to determine if a public road existed along part of the north line of
Tract 12.
J. Recreational Assets
Historically, State Forests have provided open space for outdoor recreational activities that
require minimal facilities. Such activities include hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, nature
observation, picnicking, mountain biking, snowshoeing, snowmobiling and cross country skiing.
In the past, the intensity of recreational use was low. This resulted in low environmental impacts
and few user conflicts. However, during the 1990s, demand for recreational trails increased
substantially (DEC Region 7 Draft Recreation Plan, 2001).
Adopt-A-Natural Resource Program
To help meet the increasing demand for recreation, the Department increasingly depends on
partnerships with recreation groups to help maintain, enhance and construct recreational
assets. Partnerships between recreation groups and the Department are formalized through the
Department’s Adopt a Natural Resource program (AANR). The AANR program is authorized by
Section 9-0113 of the Environmental Conservation Law. The statute authorizes the Department
to use a stewardship agreement for activities it approves for the preservation, maintenance or
enhancement of state-owned natural resources.
Volunteerism is the cornerstone of the AANR program. It is a means for completing work that
helps preserve, maintain and enhance natural resources at minimum cost to the State.
Individuals and groups interested in providing volunteer services are afforded a formal
opportunity to propose activities that meet management needs of state-owned natural
resources. Such activities may involve remediating vandalism, establishing or maintaining
access or nature trails, building camping sites, providing interpretive services for school groups
and other citizens, managing fish and wildlife habitats and otherwise providing positive benefits
to the natural resource.
The AANR program has been very successful in Region 7. The Unit’s volunteer stewards are
listed in Table 10 below. Since the inception of the program, volunteers have cleared miles of
trails from ice storm damage, have built and maintained miles of new trail, groomed snowmobile
trails and have removed large volumes of trash. These volunteer construction and maintenance
activities are of great value to the State Forest system and the people it serves. Vitally important
assets, the Department’s AANR partners are strongly committed to enhancing and protecting
natural resources on the Unit. Not surprisingly, AANR partners have developed a strong sense
of ownership, are advocates, and are very interested in the planning and natural resource
management activities that take place on the State Forests in the Unit.
Table 10 - Adopt-A-Natural Resources Volunteer Stewards
AANR Volunteer Stewards State Forest
Dryden Caroline Drifters Hammond Hill and Yellow Barn
Finger Lakes Trail and Cayuga Trail Conferences Hammond Hill
Friends of Hammond Hill (includes the Cayuga Nordic Ski Club) Hammond Hill
Popular Activities
The Unit is a very popular destination for cross country skiing, horseback riding, mountain
biking, snowmobiling, snowshoeing and hiking due to the Unit’s close proximity to the city of
38
Ithaca. The Friends of Hammond Hill, DEC Adopt-A-Natural Resource Partners, maintain the
Hammond Hill trail multiple use trail network cooperatively with the DEC and have developed a
strong sense of ownership. Hammond Hill State Forest is also a popular place for group events
such as orienteering, cross country ski racing, community gatherings, group horse-back riding,
trail runs and a family oriented winter outing called “Snowfest.” In contrast, Yellow Barn has
only 1 designated snowmobile trail about 3 miles in length. Yellow Barn provides informal paths,
former roads and logging trails for hiking, hunting and exploration. The Region 7 Draft
Recreation Plan called for minimal recreational development on the Yellow Barn State Forest.
Before this plan was completed, the Department sought and encouraged public participation
through an open-house style informational meeting, direct mailings, web site postings and press
releases. Based on feedback provided by stakeholders during the initial public participation
process, the public continues to be interested in a wide range of recreational activities such as
mountain bike riding, camping, horse-back riding, wildlife observation, cross country skiing,
snowshoeing, hunting, trapping and fishing. Many recreationists are concerned that oil and gas
drilling on State Land would negatively impact their recreational experience and the
environment.
The 13 mile Hammond Hill multiple use trail network is very popular with local recreationists,
and is frequented by local residents, Cornell University and Ithaca College students as well as
visitors from outside of the immediate area. The current multiple use trail network was upgraded
from 1996 to 2001 by DEC Operations Staff. The upgrades included trail resurfacing, new
culverts, trail widening and some trail closures and reroutes. Maintained mostly by volunteers,
the trail system is a cooperative effort between the Friends of Hammond Hill and the DEC.
Volunteer stewardship, trail advocacy and use continue to grow. As time has progressed, trail
use and wear has increased, and a greater number of trained volunteers and trail maintenance
resources such as geo-textile fabric, gravel and equipment will be needed. In 2007, a recreation
analysis of the Hammond Hill State Forest was completed by a SUNY Cortland Intern under the
guidance of DEC staff. The analysis concluded that significant work was needed on about 6% of
the trail tread across the trail network. The analysis also helped identify and prioritize future trail
related maintenance needs at over 50 locations on the Unit as shown on the Stewardship
Needs map at the end of this plan. In 2008, the Friends of Hammond Hill received a grant in the
amount of $8,600 from the New York State Horse Trail Council to resurface the trail tread and to
upgrade drainage on about 1,800 feet of portions of Y1 and Y6. DEC staff developed an action
plan and the 2008 upgrade was successfully completed by a local contractor under DEC
guidance.
Snowmobiling continues to be a popular activity on the Unit as well. Corridor snowmobile trail
development and maintenance activities across the State are promoted and funded via a local
grant program administered by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP). Approximately $1.1 million per year is distributed to counties, towns and
villages across the state. Much of this money is passed on to the clubs that do the actual work.
There are approximately 8,500 miles of funded trails in New York State. The Dryden Caroline
Drifters Snowmobile Club corridor trails are funded in part by the program. The club grooms
their respective trail networks on a regular basis. About 10 miles of snowmobile trail are
presently on the Unit.
The Cayuga Trails Club (CTC), affiliated with the Finger Lakes Trail Conference (FLTC), has
been building and maintaining hiking trails throughout the Unit planning area and Finger Lakes
Region since the early 1960's http://www.cayugatrailsclub.org/ 2012). Today, the Twin Sheds
Unit has nearly 3 miles of primary use hiking trails, built and maintained entirely by volunteers.
Information on the Finger Lakes Trail Conference is available at
(http://www.fltconference.org/trails/, 2012).
39
Organized Events and Temporary Revocable Permits
The Twin Sheds Unit continues to provide opportunities for organized group events such as trail
runs, bike races, ski races or orienteering club meets. Group events involving 21 or more
individuals and all competitive events or activities require a Temporary Revocable Permit
(TRP). Such organized events often require additional parking, portable toilets and emergency
medical support services. To protect public health, public safety and the environment, the
Department has developed four types of TRPs, three of which apply to the Twin Sheds Unit.
These three types are: 1) expedited TRPs, 2) routine TRPs and 3) non-routine TRPs.
Expedited TRPs are issued when events are non-competitive and the group size is between 21
to 50 individuals. Generally, no permit is required for non-competitive events or group activities
of 20 individuals or less. Expedited TRP’s do not require an application fee or proof of liability
insurance and are issued by regional DEC staff as designated by the Regional Manager.
Routine permits apply to applications for group events of over 51 and up to 100 individuals. All
competitive activities and any group event involving more than 100 individuals require a non-
routine TRP which must be approved in Albany. There is currently a $25.00 non-refundable
application fee for routine and non-routine TRP’s. Routine and non-routine TRPs may also be
subject to additional fees necessary to cover costs incurred by the Department directly
associated with permit administration, use of facilities and/or oversight. Routine and non-routine
TRP applicants must provide a certificate of liability insurance to indemnify The People of the
State of New York against any and all claims for injury to property or person or death arising out
of or relating to the operations of the applicant. Routine and non-routine TRP applications must
be submitted to the Cortland Lands and Forest sub-office, including proof of insurance, at least
30 days prior to the requested use date. A table providing examples of activities that require a
temporary revocable permit is included in the Appendix 17 of this plan.
For more complete information on the Department’s most current TRP policies, applicability,
application process, insurance requirements and applicable fees, please contact the Lands and
Forests Office at (607) 753-3095 ext. 217. TRP applications are available on-line at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/51387.html. Applicants are encouraged to contact the DEC
Lands and Forests Cortland Office to check if their respective event requires a TRP before filing
an application.
ATV Use Issues
Illegal ATV use is an issue that faces many private and public landowners in the region. Use of
the machines to reach remote outdoor destinations is increasing at a rapid pace. To prevent
chronic adverse environmental impacts associated with frequent use, ATV trails open for use for
the general public must be properly designed and maintained, be situated on relatively well
drained ground and be placed in blocks of open space 5,000 acres or more away from
residential areas. Many of the soils in the Twin Sheds Unit are wet with seasonally high water
tables. Damage from chronic illegal ATV use includes: rutting, soil erosion and sedimentation of
streams. Often, unregulated ATV use conflicts with other sanctioned recreational activities such
as hunting, horseback riding, hiking, mountain biking, running, wildlife observation and cross-
country skiing. To prevent excessive trail damage and user conflicts, the policy has been to
restrict ATV use by the general public. However, the DEC does provide access to people with
qualifying disabilities through the Motorized Access Permit for People with Disabilities
(MAPPWD) Program. About 1 mile of trail is presently designated for use on the Unit under this
program. More information can be found on page 177 in the Strategic Plan for State Forest
Management which is available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html
Recreational Asset Summary
In summary, the Unit’s recreational assets significantly add to the quality of life and to the
overall value of the Unit’s land to the People of the State of New York. Long term, as
40
subdivision, fragmentation and posting of the privately owned landscape continues, it is
expected that the Twin Sheds Unit will increasingly provide significant and highly valued
recreational opportunities for a diverse group of stakeholders. As demand increases, the
Department will seek to improve or maintain recreational services while balancing stakeholder
interests with the overall ecosystem based management goals, objectives and actions
discussed later in this plan. One thing is for certain - volunteers will continue to be a key asset in
terms of providing trail system maintenance, advocacy and support. Increased recreational use
on the State Forests in the Unit will benefit local economies as well.
K. Other Facilities that Require Maintenance
Table 11 lists other facilities that require maintenance on the Unit.
Table 11 - Facilities on the Twin Sheds Unit
Boundary Lines
State Forest Miles
Hammond Hill 30.4
Yellow Barn 13.3
Total 43.7
Designated Recreational Trails
State Forest Type Mi. Comments
Hammond Hill Multiple Use Trail Network 13 13 miles, maintained by the Friends of
Hammond Hill in cooperation with the
DEC.
Hammond Hill Snowmobile Trail 8 10 miles, maintained by the Dryden-
Caroline Drifters in cooperation with the
DEC (includes seasonal roads used on the
Unit).
Hammond Hill Finger Lakes Hiking Trail 3 3 miles, maintained by the Finger Lakes
Trail Conference in cooperation with the
DEC.
Hammond Hill MAPPWD Trail 1 Provides ATV access to the State Forest
for people with mobility impairments.
Yellow Barn Snowmobile Trail 2 3 miles, maintained by the Dryden-
Caroline Drifters in cooperation with the
DEC (includes seasonal roads).
Signs and Registers
State Forest Type No. Comments
Hammond Hill Identification Sign 1 Maintained by DEC.
Hammond Hill Canaan PFAR Speed Limit Sign 2 Maintained by DEC.
Hammond Hill Multiple Use Trail Register 1 Maintained by DEC and the Friends of
Hammond Hill AANR.
Yellow Barn Identification Sign 1 Maintained by DEC.
Shale Pits
State Forest Location Size
(ac)
Comments
Hammond Hill End of Red Man Run PFAR .3 Maintained by DEC.
Hammond Hill West of Canaan PFAR 1.0 Maintained by DEC.
Hammond Hill West of Hammond Hill Rd. .4 Maintained by DEC.
Parking Areas
State Forest Location Cars Geog. Coordinates
41
Table 11 - Facilities on the Twin Sheds Unit
Hammond Hill Intersection Canaan PFAR & Star Stanton Hill Rd. 2 Lat: 42.44158
Lon: -76.28918
Hammond Hill North end of Red Man Run PFAR 3 Lat: 42.43385
Lon: -76.27797
Utility Lines (All Privately Owned and Maintained)
State Forest Type No. Size Comments
Hammond Hill Gas pipeline
and corridor
1 13.3 acres Constructed in 1963 through a TRP (50 feet
wide) and authorized maintenance to a 30 foot
width through a TRP issued in 1963. The
conveyance of an easement cannot be
accomplished through the issuance of a TRP.
The Department will determine if an easement
exists, and, if an easement does not exist,
work with the utility company to resolve the
matter.
Yellow Barn Electric power
and corridor
1 10.2 acres Constructed in 1929 (100 feet wide) and 2008
(an additional 25 feet in total, 12.5 feet both
sides) through easements. Work on the 12.5
foot ROW requires a TRP.
Key: AANR – Adopt-A-Natural Resource Agreement, TRP – Temporary Revocable Permit
L. Taxes Paid on the State Forests
Many State Forests are subject to fire district, school and town taxes, but are exempt for county
taxes. State Forest land is taxed at the same rate as private forest land. In 2009, $149,157.00 in
property taxes were paid by New York State for Hammond Hill and Yellow Barn State Forests. A
summary of town, school and fire district property taxes paid by township can be found in
Appendix A-10.
M. Property Use Agreements
The State Forests on this Unit are subject to the following deed restrictions and easements. The
following information in Table 12 was provided by the NYSDEC Real Property office located in
Syracuse, New York. Please note that the Abstracts of Title for the tracts/proposals in these
areas were not reviewed. Real Property office records are not complete. Additional research
and field inspections may be necessary to resolve specific issues and unresolved questions.
Table 12 - Exceptions and Deed Restrictions
Facility
Name RA # Description
Proposal ID
(Surveyor’s
Reference)
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 1,803 acres of USA lands conveyed to the State of New York. The
land is to be used for public purposes or shall immediately revert back
to the USA. The deed refers to a previous lease with the State
executed on 11/27/1940 and on 4/16/1941.
Deed,
7/25/1955
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 Excepts and reserves to the USA ¾ interest in all coal, oil gas and
other minerals including sand, gravel, stone, clay and similar materials.
The State is permitted to use the quantities of sand, gravel, stone, clay,
etc. necessary for the operation of the lands conveyed. Excepts the
portion of Tract 91A conveyed to Philip J. Coyle.
Deed,
7/25/1955
Tract 91A
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The State’s deed (1934) is subject to an oil and gas lease from Susie L.
Depew and Amy C. Atwater to John E. Dubois, Jr. dated 4/18/1931.
The lease is assumed to have expired.
Proposal B
224/412
42
Table 12 - Exceptions and Deed Restrictions
Proposal ID Facility Description RA # (Surveyor’s Name Reference)
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The State’s deed (1934) is subject to an oil and gas lease from Fred C.
and Clara Meir to the Reserve Oil Corporation dated 7/18/1930. The
lease was assigned to the Lycoming Producing Corporation in (1932)
but is assumed to have expired.
Proposal B
228/133
228/323
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. was issued a TRP by letter on
12/17/1963 for a petroleum products pipeline for a maximum
construction width of 50 feet and an operation and maintenance width
of 30 feet.
Proposals C,
E, I, N
Tracts 91A,
106A, 122
Survey file
7-55-465
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The State’s deed (1934) is subject to oil and gas leases with the
Reserve Oil Corporation of Binghamton, NY and the Cayuga Gas
Company. The leases have assumed to have expired. When it was
acquired, proposal D was also subject to a 2 rod wide ROW running
from Canaan road to tract 105, which was then in Federal ownership.
Proposal D
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The State’s deed (1934) is subject to oil and gas leases with the
Reserve Oil Corporation dated 7/7/1930 and with the Belmont
Quadrangle Drilling Corporation of Bradford, PA dated 5/12/1932.
Proposal E
228/126
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The State acquired all water rights or rights of the grantor to take water
from premises adjoining the proposal. There is no additional
information on these rights in the deed or on the map.
Proposal H
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The State’s deed (1934) is subject to an oil and gas lease from
Margaret Kinsley to Henry M. Brown, agent, dated 11/12/1930. The
1934 lease was held by the Cayuga Gas Company, but it is assumed to
have expired.
Proposal J
224/13
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The appropriation of this proposal (1962) excluded rights of the
Western Union Telegraph Company, the New York State Natural Gas
Corporation and any public utility easements affecting the premises.
Map 6941 shows an access road leading northwesterly from Speed Rd.
(Hardford-Slaterville Rd.) through portions of this proposal to the Ithaca
Microwave Relay Site and labels the road “centerline of perpetual right
of way 30’ wide owned by the Western Union Telegraph Company.” In
1979, Western Union granted access over this ROW to Gutchess
Lumber Company for the purpose of a timber harvest. DEC Real
property files also have a copy of a 1985 letter from DEC’s Regional
Supervisor of Real Property to Clair Gutchess stating that a portion of
the proposal is subject to a ROW in favor of George A. and Burt Smith
with the location described as “to and from the north end of said lot in
the east side of said 70 acres.” Nothing more was found in DEC files
about this ROW or its location. The appropriation in 1962 didn’t mention
it as a specific exception.
Proposal N
Map 6941
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The abstract for the proposal includes an easement granted to NYSEG
dated 11/1/1944 and recorded on 8/27/1946, but doesn’t include a
reference to the book and page. The brief summary of the easement in
the abstract states that it is for “construction, operation and
maintenance of an electric transmission line fronting on the highway
know as the Dryden-Harford Road.” The abstract also includes an oil
and gas lease to the New York State Natural Gas Corporation dated
6/11/1958 and recorded on 7/25/1958. Cancellation of the lease was
recorded in 439/552.
Proposal N
408/431
439/552
43
Table 12 - Exceptions and Deed Restrictions
Proposal ID Facility Description RA # (Surveyor’s Name Reference)
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The acquisition by the State included a 25’ wide ROW for vehicles and
foot passage from the Harford-Slaterville Rd. (Speed Rd.) conveyed in
a ROW Agreement between Sylvia Ecker Parker and Clair Gutchess
dated 5/25/1975. It also included a 25’ wide ROW described in an
Amended Right of Way Agreement between the same parties dated
10/14/1977 and recorded on 10/28/1977. The ROW is to be used in
common with the underlying fee owner. The location of the two ROWs
are shown on map 10442. A private survey in 2008 of the 5 acre parcel
at the southwest corner of the proposal showed the ROWs in a different
location than map 10442.
Proposal P
545/360
561/142
561/144
DEC map
No. 10442
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 Research for a survey of part of Tract 91-A in 1992 found that the State
may have acquired a 33 foot wide ROW along the west line of 91-A as
part of the lands acquired from the USA. It was not mentioned in the
deeds into the USA, but the ROW described in 3/178 and 160/519
appeared to serve land acquired by the USA and could reasonably be
assumed to have been conveyed to the USA and later the State.
Proposal P
Tract 91A
3/178
160/519
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 The deed into the USA included a 2 rod wide ROW from Canaan Road.
The land affected by the ROW was later acquired as Proposal D.
Proposal P
Tract 105
Hammond
Hill State
Forest
2 In the deed into the USA grantor William C. Gallagher reserved all of
his rights under a certain oil and gas lease dated 10/20/1930 and
recorded on 12/8/1930 in 224/27.
Proposal P
Tract 125
224/27
Yellow
Barn State
Forest
5 1,243 acres of USA lands conveyed to the State of New York. Excepts
and reserves to the USA ¾ interest in all coal, oil gas and other
minerals including sand, gravel, stone, clay and similar materials. The
State is permitted to use the quantities of sand, gravel, stone, clay, etc.
necessary for the operation of the lands conveyed. The land is to be
used for public purposes or shall immediately revert back to the USA.
The deed refers to a previous lease with the State executed on
11/27/1940 and on 4/16/1941.
Deed,
7/25/1955
Yellow
Barn State
Forest
5 The abstract of title includes a copy of misc. records dated 8/20/1951, a
Town of Dryden resolution to grant NYSEG the right to lay natural gas
lines along all highways, streets, lands and public places in said town.
Proposal D
Yellow
Barn State
Forest
5 A 100 foot wide utility easement across these parcels pre-existed
acquisition of the tracts by the USA. The easement is for the
transmission of electric present for any purpose including telephone.
The original easements were granted by private owners in 1929. The
rights are presently held by NYSEG and a recent land exchange with
the NYSDEC widened the easements by 12.5 feet on both sides. The
terms of the easement over the additional 12.5 feet were much more
restrictive than the original easements and included:1) Rights are
limited to transmission and distribution lines for electric power; 2)
Clearing by manual or mechanical means is allowed, but the use of
chemicals/herbicides requires DEC approval; 3) Work on the 12.5 foot
ROW requires a TRP; 4) Removal of danger trees (defined) outside the
ROW also requires a TRP except in emergencies; 5) NYSEG must pay
for the value of all trees cut down.
Proposal D
Tracts 7, 8
12
218/344
218/347
218/421
Yellow
Barn State
Forest
5 The deed into the USA is subject to a ROW to 25 acres of land
adjoining the tract on the east and owned by John Reid (1938). Land of
J. Reid is shown on map 4163 and a ROW to it would most likely run
east from the abandoned road that leads north
from Irish Settlement Road.
Tract 93
(aka Tract
1511)
44
Table 12 - Exceptions and Deed Restrictions
Proposal ID Facility Description RA # (Surveyor’s Name Reference)
Yellow
Barn State
Forest
5 A boundary line agreement in 2009 established the location
of the southern portion of the west line of Tract 93 and the south line of
Proposal E. The agreement also resolved a dispute over the right of
two adjoiners on the west side of the “Old Ox Tail
Road”, an abandoned road, to travel over the road where it is located
on State Forest lands. The right of access was subject to certain terms
set by the agreement including the requirement
for a gate to be built by one of the private owners.
Proposal E
Tract 93
(aka Tract
1511)
Yellow
Barn State
Forest
5 A 4/23/1979 letter from the Regional Forester to Dr. Kraig Adler of the
Division of Biological Sciences at Cornell University extended
permission previously granted to conduct research on salamanders and
other amphibians on Yellow Barn and Hammond Hill State Forests. The
letter refers to a fenced research site that would be protected from
timber harvests.
Unknown
N. Resource Demands
The demand for traditional and non-traditional forest products, ecosystem based services and
mineral resources on the State Forests of the Unit have as a whole, increased over-time. To
help assess the present demand for these products and services, written and verbal comments
concerning the development of this plan and the Unit’s resources were requested and gathered
from the public through: 1) direct contact with DEC AANR volunteers, 2) press releases, 3) a
direct mailing to about 261 landowners that own 4,188 acres, (6½ square miles) around the
Unit, and 4) a public information meeting attended by 87 people, held in Dryden (January 2010).
Forest Product Demands
The following is a list of forest products and associated demand trends that State foresters and
the public have observed in the Twin Sheds Unit over the past two decades.
Product Trend
Firewood Increased
Softwood Sawtimber Increased
Hardwood Sawtimber Increased
Hardwood Pulpwood Increased
Softwood Pulpwood Variable
Wood chips Increased
Mushrooms Increased
Medicinal Plants Increased
Ginseng Increased
Honey Decreased
Fence Posts Decreased
The following comments regarding forest products and ecosystem management were received
through the public participation process.
❒ The return of black bear, bobcat and fisher are proof of a healthy ecosystem.
❒ Use even-aged treatments to regenerate early successional forest communities; this is essential
if we are to stop/reverse declines in wildlife populations that require young forest.
45
❒ Protect orchid habitats with no harvest zones.
❒ Create jobs in the rural areas by harvesting timber.
❒ Manage the forest for wood products and timber.
❒ Focus tree harvest(s) on non-native tree plantations.
❒ Allow natural forest regeneration/planting of native tree species.
❒ State Forests should be managed based on science.
❒ Keep the forests healthy by planning ahead for insect infestations and using control methods to
minimize mortality and recover value.
❒ Protect the water!
❒ Deer are the #1 threat to native flora, (their) population needs to be reduced.
Fossil Fuel Demands
Long term, domestic and global demand for fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas will
likely increase rapidly as world population and infrastructure development exponentially
increases in nations such as China and India. Improved exploration and drilling technologies
coupled with increased demand has renewed interest in South-Central New York’s deep
(greater than 6,000 feet below ground) natural gas resources in the Marcellus shale and
Trenton-Black River dolostone/limestone formations. For further discussion of this topic, please
refer to Chapter 5 of the Strategic Plan for State Forest Management, available online at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html.
The following comments regarding oil and gas exploration and development were received
during the public scoping process.
❒ No gas leases - too important for recreation and for protecting water (much of which drains to Cayuga
Lake which is drinking water source for much of Tompkins County).
❒ Keep the trails uncomplicated by gas drilling infrastructure and pipelines.
❒ Ban hydro-fracking on these State Lands.
❒ Eliminate gas drilling in any forest land or any adjacent lands.
Demands for Ecosystem Based Products, Services and Values
Diverse ecosystems and ecosystem based products, services and values are very important to
the public. As mentioned, stakeholders provided comments and suggestions concerning the
ecosystem based products, values and services of the Unit during the initial public phase of the
planning project.
O. Public Use and Facility Demands on the Unit
Recreational Uses
Based on casual observations, surveys and reports from recreational groups, overall demand
for recreational opportunities and related services continues to increase in the Unit, and, as
such, is a long term management challenge. The following lists a variety of recreational pursuits
and their estimated trends based on observations by Department foresters during the past 10
years:
USE TREND
Hunting Decreased
Trapping Decreased
Fishing Stable
Horseback Riding Increased
Hiking Increased
Camping Increased
Snowmobiling Increased
46
Cross-Country Skiing Increased
Mountain Biking Increased
Geocaching Increased
Illegal ATV Use Increased
Nature Observation Increased
Recreational Facility Demands
Demands for the following facilities have been expressed through public comment index cards,
emails, letters, phone calls and informal dialogue. Additional detail is available in the Twin
Sheds Unit Management Plan Public Meeting Comment Summary (DEC, January 2010).
❒ Keep ATV's and motorcycles out.
❒ Maintain hiking trails, particularly regarding disruption from gas drilling.
❒ Keep the Finger Lakes Trail for high quality hiking.
❒ Keep trails open to horses.
❒ Share the trails lovingly.
❒ Keep trail registers more up to date.
❒ Hammond Hill parking gets very full, especially on weekends (10-12 trailers max).
❒ New maps of Hammond Hill are useless, go back to the old maps.
❒ Keep existing snowmobile trails open.
❒ Have an option to expand the snowmobile trail.
P. Management Challenges on the Unit
Physical Challenges
The following factors create physical management challenges for the Unit’s lands and waters:
steep slopes, variable soil characteristics, demand for recreational trails, potential insect and
disease infestations, climate change, exponential global human population increases,
fluctuations in wood markets, global economic change, limited access, presence of rare or
endangered species, presence of cultural resources, proximity of the Unit’s forests and the
presence of county, town and state roads, electrical transmission lines, telephone lines,
pipelines, easements and exotic (non-native) conifer species planted on incompatible soils.
Administrative Challenges
The following factors are administrative limitations on the management of the Unit: increased
illegal ATV use, limited budgets, limited program staffing, limited enforcement staffing,
increased recreational demand, changing forest product market conditions, increased fuel and
material costs, introduction of new invasive plant and insect species requiring additional staff
resource time, periodic natural disturbances such as insect defoliation, ice and wind storms and
the reduced availability of inmate work crews.
Societal Challenges
Changing public opinion and values about public forest land impact how forest ecosystem
management is practiced on the Unit. The State Forests have traditionally produced a
sustainable supply of forest products and have also been used for outdoor recreation such as
trapping, hunting and hiking. As large open space gradually becomes developed, the forests of
the Unit are increasingly valued for the recreational services they provide. As previously
mentioned, activities such as mountain-biking, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, geo-caching, bird
watching and cross country skiing are becoming increasingly popular.
Moreover, many people value the forest as a place for reflection, relaxation and spiritual values.
Ecosystem management activities such as patch cutting to create early successional wildlife
habitat and natural disturbances caused by ice or wind events can impact aesthetics.
However, aesthetic impacts caused by such disturbances don’t last very long, as our temperate
47
forest typically reestablishes itself with vegetation within 10 to 15 years of disturbance events.
Thus, as the Unit receives a greater number of visitors, Department forest land managers must
continuously adapt and balance ecosystem management goals, objectives and practices with
the changing ecological and social demands on the Unit.
Legal Considerations
Please refer to page 317 of the Strategic Plan for State Forest Management for additional
information. The plan is available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES - UNIT GOALS,
OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
GOAL 1. Provide Healthy and Biologically Diverse Forest Ecosystems
Background
The Department’s principal goal is to provide healthy, sustainable and biologically diverse forest
ecosystems using the principles of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management is a
process that considers the total environment - including all living and non-living components. It
requires the skillful use of ecological, economic, social, political, managerial and leadership
principles to produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity and desired conditions, uses,
products, values and services over the long term. Ecosystem management recognizes that
people and their social and economic needs are an integral part of ecological systems (Bureau
of Land Management, 1994).
One of the simplest definitions of ecosystem management points out the complexity of
understanding and managing an ecosystem. That definition is in the form of a slogan on a
United States Forest Service poster promoting ecosystem management. The slogan simply
defines ecosystem management as “Considering All Things.” This approach asks that
management decisions consider all living things from soil micro-organisms to large mammals,
including their complex interrelationships and habitat requirements; all non-living components of
the ecosystem, including physical, natural, and geological components; and all social, cultural,
and economic factors as well. As ecosystem management is conceptually applied through the
actions recommended in this plan, the Department will strive to strike a balance between human
needs and ecosystem health. To achieve this goal, this plan recommends actions that promote
biodiversity at the landscape level, and healthy, productive and sustainable forest ecosystems.
The cornerstone of ecosystem management is promotion of a biologically diverse landscape. As
previously mentioned, the landscape includes the Unit’s State Forests and the surrounding
geographical area. Biodiversity refers to the variety and abundance of living things, their
habitats, and their interdependence in a given area or “landscape.” Ecosystem integrity cannot
be sustained or enhanced without considering land uses and cover types beyond the State
Forests of the Unit. For example, important landscape features such as grasslands and forests
need to be present in relatively large blocks and be connected to one another by hedgerows,
riparian zones, or wetlands to be completely functional.
Biodiversity, by definition, is greater when there are many species of plants and animals present
in the landscape. It is further enhanced if each respective population has a wide range of
genetic variability and ages. Having many different habitats also contributes to greater
biodiversity. Peer reviewed scientific studies strongly suggest that diverse ecosystems are more
resilient to environmental stresses, human impacts and attacks by insects and disease. The
resulting diversity of species and vegetation helps insure that a least a subset of the managed
forests will not be affected extensively by global change (Puettmann, 2011). Recommendations
to increase biodiversity are often based on the insurance hypothesis, which insures ecosystems
48
against declines in their functioning because many species provide greater guarantees that
some will maintain functioning even if others fail (Yachi and Loreau, 1999). Another way of
viewing biodiversity is that it encourages redundancy in ecosystem function; if one component
fails, another can take its place.
Diversity within the Unit can be broadly measured and interpreted by assessing the variety of
species and the range of land cover types and forest development stages present.
Maintaining and enhancing such diversity will require a number of specific objectives and
actions. The biodiversity objective can be achieved through both passive and active
management strategies. Foresters employ passive management strategies through designation
of natural and protection areas and riparian buffers. When actively managing forest ecosystems
to produce forest products, foresters employ two silvicultural systems to mimic natural
disturbance patterns and help promote biodiversity. The two systems are referred to as even-
aged and uneven-aged management.
Trees in an even-aged stand originated at approximately the same time, either naturally or by
planting. They grow, are cared for, and may undergo various intermediate improvement
thinnings during their development. Ultimately, trees are removed in one or more major harvest
cuts after which a new stand is released or established. As such, a stand managed even-aged
has a beginning and an ending point in time.The even-aged management system is an
important land management tool because it creates early forest developmental stages
necessary for the survival of many plant and animal species. It favors the establishment of
shade intolerant light loving tree species such as aspen, black cherry, pin cherry, red oak,
white oak, chestnut oak, shagbark hickory, tulip poplar, white ash and eastern white pine. These
species have significant environmental, biological and financial values. Additionally, even-aged
management favors the establishment of many tree species that produce mast, such as black
cherry, white oak, chestnut oak and northern red oak. These mast producing species provide
valuable food for wildlife. Over the years, the availability of hard mast producing trees has
declined in the landscape as a result of diseases which have severely impacted beech and
butternut trees and caused the virtual extinction of the American chestnut.
The uneven-aged management system differs from the even-aged system in several important
ways. Instead of maintaining one dominant age condition in the stand, this system establishes
and maintains at least three or more age groups (cohorts) ranging from seedlings and saplings
to very large, mature trees. Uneven-aged management uses two different methods: single tree
selection and group selection. Single tree selection is used to maintain a relatively closed
forest canopy as desired in the uneven-aged forest areas. Group selection is used to create
openings for the regeneration of shade-intolerant species such as white ash, red oak, white oak,
and black cherry and enhances species diversity within the stand.
The uneven-aged single tree system tends to favor shade tolerant tree species such as
Eastern hemlock, American beech and sugar maple. Many of these species are long-lived.
Through this system a vertical layering of the forest canopy is created with multiple crown
classes. Each layer of vegetation provides distinct habitat niches. Uneven-aged management
promotes the development of late successional habitat characteristics such as large diameter
trees, multiple layers of forest canopy, standing dead trees and a moist forest floor.
About 57% of the Twin Sheds Unit is comprised of even-aged forest stands as a result of land
clearing during European settlement of the area. To promote biodiversity and create additional
blocks of forests with late successional characteristics, some even-aged stands will be gradually
converted to uneven-aged stands through variable density thinnings, single tree, group
selection silviculture. This forest ecosystem management strategy will help minimize the size of
openings in the canopy, leaving retention trees and biological legacies, thereby helping to
conserve and expand the area of forests with late successional characteristics on the Unit.
49
Blocks of forests 500 acres or greater in size with late successional forest characteristics such
as the presence of old large diameter trees, large amounts of coarse woody material on the
forest floor and a reasonable number of dead standing hollow trees are environmentally
significant as they provide habitat for wildlife species such as the Northern goshawk, black bear,
wood thrush, scarlet tanager, Louisiana waterthrush and black-throated blue warbler.
Additionally, large forest blocks provide effective wildlife travel corridors between adjacent
habitats on public and private lands. Uneven-aged silviculture is a forest ecosystem
management strategy that can be used to build late successional forest characteristics over
time.
The process to convert an even-aged forest to an uneven-aged forest structure typically takes
more than 100 years. This plan recommends conversion of even-aged stands to uneven-aged
stands when environmental conditions are favorable and other goals and values are not
significantly compromised. Stands that are good candidates for long term uneven-aged
management are typically located on productive ground that is capable of growing shade
tolerant long lived tree species such as sugar maple and Eastern hemlock.
It should be noted that a significant number of stands that are outside of the core forest areas
identified suitable for uneven-aged management, including natural areas, protection areas and
stream side connective corridors, will continue to be managed on an even-aged basis in an
effort to diversify wildlife habitat, contribute hard mast and provide early successional cover.
Maps of present and future management directions are included with this plan help illustrate this
concept.
This plan provides a conceptual framework to strategically apply adaptive even-aged and
uneven-aged forest ecosystem management techniques to help create or maintain diverse
ecosystems, stages of succession and forest stand structures. Forest ecosystem management
activities may vary due to shifting DEC staff capabilities, newly identified threatened or
endangered species, unplanned natural disturbances such as ice storms, insect and disease
outbreaks and changing market demands - particularly for low grade forest products.
Objective 1.1: Apply a Landscape and Ecosystem Health Perspective to Decision Making.
The management actions recommended by this plan identify and focus on opportunities to
sustain or increase the biodiversity of the Twin Sheds Unit’s landscape. These actions will be
balanced with other economic, social, recreational and ecosystem management goals. The long
term public ownership of State Forests provides exciting opportunities to contribute unique
landscape components that are more difficult to provide from private lands with shorter term
ownership patterns. Specifically, the State Forests of the Twin Sheds Unit will be managed to
provide forests that have early successional, mid-successional, late successional and old
growth characteristics.
Ecosystems are very complex systems where almost all life forms are interrelated in some
manner. Managing an ecosystem on a species-by-species basis is a difficult task. Typically,
enhancements made to the ecosystem to benefit one species will invariably affect numerous
other species as well, in both a positive and negative fashion. It is impossible to determine and
rank the value of all the common species present on the forest in order to choose which
populations should be helped at the expense of others. For these reasons, this plan strategically
promotes biodiversity and sustains ecosystem health through diversification of horizontal and
vertical forest structure, conservation of gene pools, establishment of natural and protection
areas and protection of water resources. Adaptive forest management will be applied to sustain
and enhance ecosystems (and the services provided by them) for a suite of wildlife indicator
species, particularly neo-tropical migrant songbirds, reptiles, and amphibians. Department land
managers will employ land planning and management strategies to create, maintain, or
50
enhance uneven-aged forest areas with late successional characteristics and with appropriate
special management zones that buffer and connect streams, wetlands and vernal pools.
Natural and protection areas will be strategically linked with managed uneven-aged forest and
riparian zone protection areas.
Action 1.1.1: Apply adaptive ecosystem management using GIS technology.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and GAP analysis tools are increasingly used by
conservation organizations to develop appropriate landscape level management strategies,
goals, objectives and actions. As previously mentioned, GIS technologies use computer-based
mapping and databases to assist with decision-making and spatial analysis. GIS technologies
are continually employed to make informed ecosystem based decisions at the landscape level.
Use of improving GIS technologies will help Department foresters continue to create and
maintain a variety of ecosystems and associated wildlife habitats. Additionally, Department staff
will seek additional opportunities to collaborate and share this plan and its associated GIS data
sets with municipal land use planners and land conservation organizations.
Action 1.1.2: Establish special management zones (SMZ’s), natural and protected areas.
Special management zones (SMZ’s) are established along stream banks, wetlands, spring
seeps and vernal pools as described by the DEC Division of Lands and Forests Management
Rules for Special Management Zones on State Forests and the Strategic Plan for State Forest
Management which is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html
To help conserve, enhance and protect ecosystem function, stream habitats and overall surface
water quality, natural and protection areas have been established with special management
zones along the estimated 20 linear miles of streams and 46 acres of wetlands. A total of 45
forest stands comprising 778 acres of natural and protection areas have been established to
complement the SMZs.
Generally, riparian buffer zones will range from 100 to 250 feet from the asset edge,
depending on the nature and type of the water resource asset being protected. In addition,
stream banks are protected so that mechanical disturbance does not cause excessive soil
movement, mineral soil exposure, erosion and degradation of water quality. Any newly
constructed forest access roads, haul roads or work associated with oil and gas development
and pipeline construction will avoid these areas as well.
Action 1.1.3: Promote forest health with biomass and coarse wood material retention.
Coarse woody material such as limbs, stems, tree tops, den, snag and living reserve trees
(either singly or in patches) will be left to minimize losses of important soil nutrients such as
calcium, magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium per the Department’s Strategic Plan
for State Forest Management and associated retention policy.
Recent research conducted by forestry agencies, conservation organizations, and universities
demonstrate that coarse woody material is an important component of a forest ecosystem.
Coarse woody material stores moisture, cycles nutrients as it decays and provides habitat
niches for insects, reptiles, plants and fungi. Coarse wood material naturally occurs when limbs
break, trees are blown over or dead trees (snags) fall.
Coarse woody material is provided as follows:
❒ tops of felled trees will not be sold for firewood following sawtimber harvests,
except along travel corridors or where aesthetics are important;
❒ some non-commercial logs are left in the woods during harvesting;
❒ minimum utilization limits will generally not be required in timber harvests;
51
❒ snags and natural coarse woody material is retained, especially in no cut
protection zones.
Den and snag trees are retained whenever possible during forest ecosystem management
activities. This provides foraging, perching, and nesting opportunities for cavity nesting birds
(such as woodpeckers, owls, wrens, nuthatches, vultures, ducks) and cavity nesting mammals
(such as raccoons, squirrels, bats, mice, opossum, black bear, porcupine) as well as insects.
Snags will eventually become coarse woody material. To enhance existing and provide
additional wildlife habitat, den and snag trees are left near water, fields, and edges when
possible. This wildlife management strategy is applied in both even-aged and uneven-aged
systems. In many instances, den trees and snags are not present (i.e. red pine plantations). If
den trees and snags do not exist, they will be encouraged by leaving retention trees when a
forest stand is managed and harvested. Declining trees are typically retained to become future
den and snag trees as needed to meet the Department’s retention policy. Additional information
on retention is provided by the Strategic Plan for State Forest Management and the
Department’s retention policy on State Forests, both of which can be found at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) consider snag trees to be
an occupational hazard. During harvesting operations, loggers are required to stay two (2) tree
lengths away from hazard trees, or fell the tree(s) to the ground. As such, it is challenging to
retain snag trees across every acre of managed forest. However, high concentrations of snag
trees will naturally develop in the Unit’s designated natural, protected and riparian buffer areas
as time passes.
Action 1.1.4: Prohibit whole tree harvesting.
Whole tree harvesting removes the entire tree stem and crown. Some refer to this practice as
forest biomass harvesting, the practice of removing the entire above-ground portions of trees
with harvesting machines. At the U.S. Forest Service Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in
New Hampshire and at other places, researchers have found that nutrient concentrations are
intermediate in the bark and branches and highest in the twigs and leaves of trees. Nutrient
concentrations are lowest in the larger stemwood (Likens and Bormann, 1970, Yanai, 1997).
Studies conducted over the past two decades in the U.S. at places such as the Hubbard Brook
Experimental Forest in New Hampshire and in the United Kingdom have concluded that
repeated whole tree harvesting impacts nutrient element cycling on a short term basis. In some
instances, whole tree harvesting may deplete from the top-soil important nutrients such as
calcium, magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on a long term basis (Brierley, E et
al, 2004). Long term nutrient element loss from whole tree harvesting is of special concern on
sites that naturally have low fertility such as glacial outwash sands, wet or shallow-to-bedrock
soils (Pierce et al., 1993). The vast majority of the forests in and outside of the Unit are second
or third growth forest (sometimes called secondary forest) as most of the landscape was
intensively clear cut, burned, then farmed during European settlement. Clearing and farming of
the land, particularly on the hilltops, caused significant soil erosion of the topsoil. The loss of top
soil caused significant soil nutrient losses. Today, the forest soils continue to recover and
evolve.
Action 1.1.5: Retain healthy tree species threatened by serious and potentially
catastrophic insect and disease.
Beech, white ash and butternut trees have been declining in recent years. Beech bark disease
has damaged and killed many of the oldest beech trees. The disease involves a scale insect
and a fungus. The insect pierces the bark to feed, creating a place for the fungus to enter at a
later date. The fungus begins to grow within the bark, resulting in round scars. Fungal activity
52
interrupts the tree's normal water and nutrient uptake processes and a severely infected tree will
eventually die. Trees that do not die will remain weak and become more susceptible to wind
damage.
Ash decline has been used to describe the decline and death of ash trees by unknown
pathogens. Some pathogens may include diseases, poor soil/sites, cankers, insects, winter
injury, or drought. Ash yellows and ash anthracnose are two additional diseases that negatively
impact ash tree health. The discovery of the emerald ash borer in Cattaraugus County in 2009,
in Genesee, Greene, Steuben and Ulster counties in 2010, and in Albany, Erie, Monroe and
Orange counties in 2011 will likely accelerate the loss of ash. Presently, many healthy white ash
trees can still be found within the Unit and the surrounding landscape.
The forests in the Unit and its landscape are within the native range of butternut, but this
species is rarely observed during forest inventory or casual observation. Unfortunately, butternut
is dying throughout its range as the result of infection by a fungus that researchers believe was
introduced from outside North America. Initially, the disease, called butternut canker, infects
trees through buds, leaf scars, and possibly insect wounds or other openings in the bark. Next,
the fungus rapidly kills small branches and spreads throughout the tree. Fortunately, Butternut is
the only natural host known to be killed by the fungus. However, the fungus can survive on dead
trees for at least two years.
For butternut, forest ecosystem management activities will retain potentially resistant trees using
the following guidelines:
1. Retain trees with more than 70% live crown and with less than 20% of the combined
circumference of the stem and root flares affected by symptoms;
2. Retain some dead or declining trees for their wildlife value (snags and/or coarse
woody material);
3. Retain trees free of symptoms with at least 50% live crown and growing among
diseased trees. These trees may be resistant and have value for the gene pool.
Forest tent caterpillar outbreaks historically have defoliated many acres on private and public
lands. Forest tent caterpillars feed chiefly on sugar maple, and sometimes on white ash and
northern red oak. The insects are native, and outbreaks are typically cyclical in nature, occurring
about every ten years. Historically, populations build for a year or two and then subside
naturally. Recently, however, forest tent caterpillar outbreaks have lasted longer than typically
expected, resulting in patches of forest mortality, particularly on drier hilltop sites. It is suspected
that these drier sites make sugar maple trees more susceptible to being stressed by drought,
and consequently insect damage. At the time of this writing, the Department has no plans to
apply pesticides to control forest tent caterpillar outbreaks. Generally, trees with greater than
50% live crown canopy are left as seed source when affected stands are salvaged.
Since this plan is based on an adaptive management approach, the proposed management
activities may be altered in the event that exotic pests species such as Asian long-horned beetle
(Anoplophora glabripennis), hemlock wooly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) and wood wasps (sirex
noctilio) invade the Unit. For example, emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), is getting closer
to the Unit every year. Therefore, when possible, forest management activities will parallel
guidelines outlined in the Department’s Emerald Ash Borer Management Response Plan
available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7253.html. Hemlock wooly adelgid has been found
in Tompkins County. As a result, the Department will monitor the Unit for the adelgid and, if
found, will consider the control options available at that time.
53
Action 1.1.6 Monitor forest health and control invasive exotic species.
Forest health is monitored on the ground by Department staff and during annual aerial forest
health surveys. Aerial forest health surveys are conducted with small airplanes and are primarily
intended to cost effectively detect forest defoliation and mortality at the landscape scale.
Additionally, the Department plans to protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by monitoring
and controlling invasive exotic species as available resources permit. Initially, control efforts will
focus on exotic invasive species that immediately threaten specific habitats of threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Herbicides may be used to control invasive exotic
(non-native) plants and insects, but only after an approved herbicide action plan and the
guidelines required the Strategic Plan for State Forest Management are followed. Prescribed
fire may also be considered.
Natural control methods are employed when possible and practical. Integrated pest
management (IPM) will also be used. IPM is a comprehensive approach to controlling insects,
weeds, and plant pathogens with environmentally and economically sound practices that
minimize risks to people and the environment. Promoting animal and plant species diversity,
habitat diversity, and good forest health are cornerstones of IPM on the Unit, as healthy forest
ecosystems are better able to resist insect and disease outbreaks. In addition, the Department
will continue to collaborate with the Federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and universities such as
the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and the New York State College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University in an effort to seek effective control solutions,
grant funding and student internships.
Objective 1.2: Conserve, Protect and Enhance Wildlife Habitat
Action 1.2.1: Diversify the Unit’s landscape.
The plan provides a strategy to manage and promote a variety of forest habitats at the early,
mid and late stages of forest succession to promote biodiversity and for entire suites of plant
and animal species. This adaptive ecosystem management approach will help common species
remain common and provide opportunities for less common species to become more prevalent.
Over the next two to three decades, if fully implemented, this plan manages forests at the stand
and at the landscape level to enhance, sustain or create an estimated 2,166 acres (43%) of late
successional habitat, 1,947 acres (39%) of mid-successional habitat and eventually 767 acres
(15%) of early successional (including pioneer hardwoods) wildlife habitat. Between 2% and 3%
of the Unit is expected to remain in nonforest cover in the form of existing roads, shale pits,
power line and petroleum pipe line corridors.
Action 1.2.2: Use a shifting mosaic concept to manage forest habitats.
The Shifting Mosaic Project, as developed by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences,
based in Manomet, Massachusetts, proposes to shift habitats across the landscape, over the
decade’s scale, in a configuration that allows plant and animal populations to "track" suitable
habitat (Hagan and Whittman, 2004). Animal and plant habitats shift over time due to natural
and human-induced disturbances. The shifting mosaic concept recognizes this and attempts to
provide a variety of habitats by shifting them across the landscape over many years. In the Twin
Sheds Unit core habitats with late successional characteristics are established, built around
sensitive areas such as steep slopes, wetlands and stream corridors. New early successional
habitats are created around this core as time progresses, often in poor conifer plantations and
natural hardwood forests. Over a very large time scale (say hundreds of years) portions of the
late successional core area will likely be impacted by natural disturbance events, such as wind
and ice storms and insect damage, which will create new early successional habitat. Adaptively,
new late successional core areas will need to be added when unplanned natural disturbance
events turn planned late successional habitats into early successional habitats. Maps of the
54
Unit’s habitats, including natural and protection areas are included at the end of this plan. Table
13 shows how the Unit’s forest structure would conceptually change if this plan was fully
implemented. Table 14 shows how land cover types and associated wildlife habitats would
change over time.
Table 13 - Summary of Present and Predicted Future Management Direction
Present Stand Structure Predicted Future Stand Structure (Circa 2035)
# Stands/
Features
Structure Acres %# Stands/
Features
Structure Acres %Change
(Acres)
205 Even-aged 2,826 56.5 162 Even-aged 2,338 46.7 -488.0
108 Uneven-aged 1,651 33.0 91 Uneven-aged 1,388 27.8 -263.0
16 Protection/Natural
Area (Uneven-aged)
403
8.1 45 Protection/Natural
Area (Uneven-aged) 778 15.6 375.0
- Uneven-or-Even-
aged - - 31 Uneven-or-Even-aged 376 7.5 376.0
- Wetlands 45 0.9 Wetlands 45 0.9 0.0
52 *Other/Non-forest 77 1.5 52 * Other/Non-forest 77 1.5 0.0
381 5,002 100 381 5,002 100
*Note: Other includes roads, shale pits, parking lots and utility line corridors.
Table 14 - Present vs. Objective Land Uses and Wildlife Habitat Cover Types
Land Classification Present Future Objective*
(Year 2035 estimate) Change
Acres %Acres % Acres
Natural Hardwood with an Oak Component 1,263.3 25.3 1,296.0 25.9 32.7
Natural Hardwoods with Conifers 1,204.6 24.1 1,151.6 23.0 -53.0
Conifer Plantation 1,033.7 20.7 0.0 0.0 -1,033.7
Natural Hardwoods 592.2 11.8 624.5 12.5 32.3
Early Successional and Pioneer Hardwoods 251.7 5.0 766.5 15.3 514.8
Conifer Plantation with Hardwoods 197.3 3.9 637.7 12.8 440.4
Natural Hardwood with Oak and Conifers 170.9 3.4 310.1 6.2 139.2
Hardwood Plantations 77.6 1.6 4.9 <0.1 -72.7
Natural Conifers 58.2 1.2 58.2 1.2 0.0
Roads 51.2 1.0 51.2 1.0 0.0
Wetlands 45.2 0.9 45.2 0.9 0.0
Natural Hardwood, mostly Oak 30.8 0.6 30.8 0.6 0.0
Petroleum Pipe-line Corridor** 13.3 0.3 13.3 0.3 **0.0
Electric Power-line Corridor 10.2 0.2 10.2 0.2 0.0
Shale Pits 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 5,002.0 100.0 5,002.0 100.0 0.0
*Notes: The Future Objective estimate is based on current conditions and the expected land classification changes
through direct management actions and the natural process of succession as the forest grows and changes over
time. It does not account for a major natural disturbance at the landscape scale such as a tornado, straight line wind
storm, ice storm or broad scale insect/disease damage. It also assumes that human and economic resources are
available to fully implement the plan. ** Best estimate: may change if regional oil and gas development expands.
55
Action 1.2.3: Manage about 20% of the Unit to provide long term conifer cover.
Analysis of the landscape shows that State Forests have the highest percentage of conifer
cover in the Unit’s watersheds. Since this important habitat type is less abundant across the
landscape, about 20% of the Unit will be managed for long term conifer cover.
This will be accomplished by the gradual, sustainable harvest of forest products in 58 stands
comprising an estimated 1,002 acres of long-lived conifers as listed in the table below. Long-
lived conifer stands contribute to the Unit’s late successional habitat types. For purposes of this
plan, long term conifers are defined as long-lived species - specifically eastern hemlock, eastern
white pine, white cedar and Norway spruce.
Table 15 - Summary of Stands Managed for Long Lived Conifer (LLC)
Present Forest Type # Stands Acres LLC Percentage
Northern Hardwood - Hemlock 23 473 47%
Norway Spruce 18 212 21%
Oak - Hemlock 2 127 13%
Spruce - Natural Species 5 64 6%
Northern Hardwood - White Pine 3 58 6%
Hemlock 5 57 6%
White Pine - Hemlock 2 11 1%
TOTAL 58 1,002 100%
Conifer stands provide valuable habitat for many groups of wildlife species, particularly white-
tailed deer, grouse and wild turkey. As such, long term conifer stands and retention areas were
identified through the forest inventory process because this cover type is especially important to
wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, and for biodiversity. For example, in native eastern hemlock
stands, total wildlife species richness increases with age (DeGraff et. al.,1986).
Historically, under State and Federal policy guidelines, previously abandoned agricultural lands
were replanted with pine and spruce by the Civilian Conservation Corps. (CCC) in the 1930s
and 1940s. The Conservation Department continued reforesting newly acquired lands until as
recently as the late 1960s. Norway spruce, a non-native tree species, can be managed for the
long term - potentially as long as 150 years on better sites. Additionally, some natural
regeneration of Norway spruce has been observed. Conversely, plantation conifer species
such as red pine and Scots pine don’t live as long in this region, and typically fail to regenerate
in sufficient numbers to function as a long term conifer component. Norway spruce is
considered a long term conifer species because it has proven well suited to the heavy clay soils
of Central New York and produces large and predictable seed crops for wildlife (Young, 2006).
Also, it is a desirable forest product, regenerates more readily than most native conifers, is
relatively disease resistant, is not heavily browsed by deer and has proven to be a valuable
substitute for natural conifers. Creating additional softwood acreage by future tree planting may
be considered. However, natural regeneration methods will be attempted first as tree planting
may require extensive site preparation, the use of herbicides and considerable expense.
Action 1.2.4: Maintain an oak component on the State Forests in the Unit.
Manage about 1,249 acres (about 25% of the Unit) at the stand level to conserve, enhance and
sustain oak types. The oak types in the region are often called transition oak types, since the
percentage of oak declines as shade tolerant species occupy the site. Heavy overstory removal
actions, either natural or human-implemented, favor the perpetuation of oak species provided
that interfering species such as American beech saplings have not become heavily established.
Partial cutting tends to favor shade tolerant species such as sugar maple, American beech,
eastern hemlock and red maple. As such, deliberate planting of oak in tree shelters, installing
tree shelters over existing seedlings, limited deer fencing, mechanical cutting of competing
vegetation as well as herbicides or controlled burning to control competing vegetation may be
56
employed on a case by case basis to help reestablish oak. The table below summarizes the
stands identified through the forest inventory process as candidates for long term oak
management.
Table 16 - Summary of Stands Managed for Oak by Forest Type
Present Forest Type # Stands Acres Percentage
Transition Hardwoods (NH - Oak) 46 784 63%
Oak 14 223 18%
Northern Hardwood 5 58 5%
Northern Hardwood - White Pine 4 53 4%
Oak - Hemlock 4 29 2%
Oak - Pine 4 26 2%
Northern Hardwood - Hemlock 1 22 2%
Pioneer Hardwood 2 18 1%
Red Pine-Plt* 2 16 1%
White Pine-Plt* 1 14 1%
White Spruce* 1 4 <1%
Pine - Natural Species* 1 2 <1%
TOTAL 85 1,249 100%
*Note: These stands had advanced oak seedling and/or sapling sized regeneration when
the forest inventory was conducted.
The plan schedules the following management actions:
❒ Manage 78 stands on about 1,057 acres (21% of the Unit) using an even-aged
management strategy on a 20 to 40 year cutting cycle.
❒ Manage 6 stands on about 183 acres (4% of the Unit) using an uneven-aged
management strategy on a 15 to 30 year cutting cycle.
❒ Manage 1 stand about 9 acres in size using either an even or uneven-aged
management strategy.
Through these actions, the oak component on the Unit will be conserved, enhanced and
sustained. Red and white oaks are a highly valued food source for wildlife. Additionally, oaks
are long lived and capable of growing to 36 inches in diameter at breast height on good growing
sites. Large long lived trees provide a wide range of environmental and aesthetic values.
Action 1.2.5: Provide late successional habitats and old growth forest characteristics
Presently, there are no known old growth forests in the landscape surrounding the State Forest.
The long term public ownership of the Unit’s State Forests presents options to contribute to
needed landscape components such as late successional habitats that sustain and enhance
biodiversity. As such, 45 forest stands comprising 778 acres (about 16%) of the Unit have been
designated as natural or protection areas. The establishment of these areas coupled with
managed uneven-aged forests will provide significant blocks of late successional habitat. Some
of these habitats, in the absence of catastrophic natural disturbances, should develop old
growth forest characteristics as time progresses.
About 10 stands of oak mixed with northern hardwoods and eastern hemlock encompassing
about 238 acres are part of the larger 778 acre suite of natural and protection areas. Although
most of the stands are accessible by timber harvesting equipment, they will not be managed for
the production of forest products. These stands were selected because they are along streams,
provide habitat connectivity or have round leafed orchid populations. Some of the individual
dominant oak trees will likely grow to biological maturity and have the opportunity to become
57
biological legacies and snag trees for wildlife. Control of invasive species, beech or striped
maple seedlings and saplings may be needed to help conserve orchid habitats in some of these
stands using focused fire, brush saws and/or or herbicides. Natural and protection areas are
further described below.
Natural areas are defined as areas left in a natural condition, usually without human
intervention, to attain and sustain a climax condition, the final stage of succession. By
management direction, these areas are not managed for the production of wood products or
mineral resources.
Protection areas are defined as land excluded from most active management to protect
sensitive sites. Exclusions include: wood product management, oil and gas exploration and
development, and some recreational activities. These sites most often include steep slopes, wet
woodlands and riparian zones along stream corridors.
Action 1.2.6: Address forest fragmentation by identifying, establishing and connecting
forest stands that presently demonstrate or have potential to develop late successional
characteristics. About 43% of the Unit will be managed to provide large blocks of forest
with multiple canopy layers.
Blocks of forest over 500 acres in size with multiple canopy layers are lacking in the landscape
surrounding the Unit. Private land development in the future will likely cause additional
subdivision and forest fragmentation. The following management strategies will be used to
create, enhance and sustain connected forest canopy blocks. These large blocks of forest
canopy will eventually develop late successional forest characteristics such as large trees,
snags, den trees, canopy gaps and coarse woody material.
❒ Designate 45 stands totaling about 778 acres (about 16% of the Unit) as natural
and protection areas.
❒ Manage 91 stands totaling 1,388 acres (about 28% of the Unit) using uneven-aged
management. These stands will provide relatively closed canopy conditions, multiple
canopy layers along with den trees, snags and coarse woody material for plants and
wildlife. Group selection will often be used, with group size ranging from ½ to 2 acres in
size on a cutting cycle of 20 to 30 years. Strategies such as variable density thinning and
single tree selection will also be employed. As a result, forest canopy closure will typically
range between 50% and 80%.
Natural disturbances such as small scale storm damage or insect infestations often help create
den trees, snags and coarse woody material. As such, trees damaged by small scale natural
disturbances may be left for retention purposes. However, catastrophic damage from larger
scale natural disturbances may be salvaged for forest health purposes and to reduce fire
danger. When salvaging wood products from a large scale natural disturbance event, some
damaged and undamaged trees will be strategically left in the forest for retention purposes.
Action 1.2.7: Use a shifting mosaic concept to manage 15% of the Unit to provide early
successional habitat and 39% of the Unit to provide mid successional habitat.
Address decreasing diversity in terms of forest structure and habitat at the regional and local
level by increasing young early successional forest acreage on the Unit through natural
regeneration harvests. The long term goal will be to maintain 15 to 20% of the Unit in an early
successional forest stage. Young early successional forests provide critical habitat for a suite of
wildlife species that require early successional cover such as the ruffed grouse, blue-winged
warbler, Canada warbler, golden-winged warbler, prairie warbler, American woodcock, white-
58
throated sparrow, chestnut sided warbler, yellow warbler, Adler flycatcher, brown thrasher,
turkey, gray catbird and white tailed deer. Decisions concerning the management of early
successional habitat on the Unit were made in consideration of both current and historic
population levels of these species, public input during the development of this plan and within
the context of the amount of early successional habitat on other lands in the surrounding
landscape as described in Chapter 2 of Statewide Landscape Assessment of the Strategic Plan
for State Forest Management available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html
❒ Over the next 20 years, manage 39 stands totaling about 528 acres that currently have an
aspen component to strategically create early successional wildlife habitat. Larger stands
may be converted to natural hardwoods with a series of smaller regeneration harvests over
time, instead of one large regeneration harvest. Most regeneration harvest patches will
range from 1 to 10 acres in size. Several entries may be required to manage the entire
stand. Strategies such as single tree and patch retention will used to retain course
woody material on site as per the Strategic Plan for State Forest Management and the
Department’s retention policy. Twenty of the stands scheduled for early successional
habitat management are currently red pine, white pine, scotch pine, red pine-spruce or jack
pine plantations. These stands will be converted to natural hardwoods.
Many of these stands contain aspen and will be managed to perpetuate aspen. Aspen is a
relatively short-lived tree with an average life span of about 60 to 80 years. It can be a
prolific seeder with good germination given the proper conditions. The preferred method of
aspen regeneration is by even-aged management. Aspen is well known for its sprouting
capabilities. Cutting stands to induce regeneration by sprouts is known as the coppice
method. The conditions created in this approach provide important habitat for many
species, most notably woodcock and ruffed grouse. The regenerated aspen thickets
provide ideal brood cover while older trees provide good winter food. Aspen management
may be accomplished as sale related work with a commercial forest products sale that is
conducted in the vicinity of these stands.
❒ Manage 12 stands totaling about 239 acres to reestablish young natural hardwoods,
particularly northern red oak, white oak and black cherry for future wildlife food source and
forest products. Most of these stands are currently red and scotch pine. These
regeneration harvests will also follow the guidelines provided by the Strategic Plan for State
Forest Management.
In total, 767 acres (15% of the Unit) is scheduled for even-aged regeneration harvests. These
regeneration harvests are scheduled throughout a 20 period to provide a shifting mosaic of early
successional habitat. The size and shape of harvests will often mimic natural disturbances such
as heavy wind and ice events.
❒ Mid successional habitat is a relatively long stage in the progression of succession. It
represents the time period between early and late successional stages of growth. The long
term goal will be to maintain about 1,947 acres (39%) of the Unit in a mid successional
forest stage. Stands that have been regenerated will over time grow from early to mid
successional habitat. Strategies such as integrated commercial thinnings, thin/harvests or
multiple stage shelterwood harvests will be used.
Action 1.2.8: Insure adequate forest regeneration.
Take appropriate steps to obtain adequate forest regeneration, using appropriate
silvicultural techniques such as retention of seed trees as per the Department’s retention
policy. When natural regeneration is unsuccessful, consider using tree shelters, fencing,
59
tree planting and/or direct seeding to help reestablish desirable tree species. Control of invasive
species, hay-scented fern, beech (and other woody interference) may require the use of
herbicides, prescribed burning or focused fire.
Objective 1.3: Protect, Endangered, Threatened and Special-Concern Species.
Protection of endangered, threatened and special-concern species by conserving, protecting or
creating new habitats is a priority. There were no endangered, threatened and special-concern
species observed by New York Natural Heritage staff during a 2005 biodiversity survey of State
Forest Lands in the region (Evans, et al.). At the landscape scale, several threatened and
special-concern animal species are known or predicted to occur by DEC’s Master Habitat
Database and the New York Gap Analysis Model. Several of these species are raptors (birds of
prey) such as the Northern Harrier, Sharp-shinned hawk and Northern Goshawk - or birds such
as Henslow’s sparrow and the golden-winged warbler. Some of the animals are amphibians and
birds that require blocks of forest and mid to late successional habitat, such as the Jefferson
salmander and Cerulean warbler, respectively. In its’ entirety, this plan seeks to provide a
diverse suite of early, mid and late successional habitats for many species.
It should also be noted that the Natural Heritage Program observed the arrowhead spiketail
dragonfly (Cordulegaster obliqua) on the landscape surrounding the Unit during the New York
Natural Heritage Biodiversity Survey published in 2005. The presence of this species suggests
that the area has good quality spring seeps. The New York Natural Heritage Program has
recorded this species in approximately 16 locations in 11 separate counties across a broad
extent of the southern tier, Finger Lakes and Hudson Valley and a number of these locations
have been found in the past 5 to 10 years. The program reports that the habitat is not
uncommon within the broad range occupied by the species and many additional populations will
undoubtedly be discovered as a result of more extensive survey efforts. However, there are a
number of potentially significant threats to the habitat required by these dragonflies and
populations at individual sites are not expected to be large
(http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=8181, 2012. Habitat may be lost as wet grassy sites
revert back into forest or are developed.
Action 1.3.1: Identify the locations of endangered, threatened and special-concern
species.
Continue to collaborate with the New York Natural Heritage Program, SUNY ESF, Cornell
University and the public to identify any endangered, threatened or special-concern species on
the Unit. If additional species are found, adaptive ecosystem management strategies will be
employed to conserve, enhance or protect habitats based on the best scientific information
available. Overall, this document provides management actions and guidelines that diversify,
conserve and protect wildlife habitats across the entire Unit and connecting landscape.
Action 1.3.2: Build vernal pools/ponds.
Build 10 to 20 small vernal pools/ponds, 300 to 3,000 square feet in size. Some of the pools
may be carefully built in natural or protection areas. The pools will create additional habitat for
species such as the Jefferson salamander, blue spotted salamander and wood frog. Based on
GIS based analysis of soils and topography, an estimated 4 sites covering about 11 acres of
suitable woodland sites exist on the Unit. This project would require use of a small track-hoe
excavator and/or bulldozer. Team up with DEC Bureau of Wildlife, Upper Susquehanna
Watershed Coalition and U.S. Fish and Wildlife service for technical assistance and funding
whenever possible. Some of this work may be accomplished during other forest ecosystem
management activities such as timber harvesting. A list and map of possible sites are included
in the appendix of this plan.
60
Action 1.3.3: Protect active nesting sites for raptors listed as Threatened, Endangered or
Special Concern.
Many raptors in New York are listed as species of special concern. Within the Unit, these
include: Northern Harrier, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper's Hawk, Northern Goshawk and Red-
shouldered Hawk. Each species has specific habitat requirements when nesting. Birds may
occupy territory seasonally, or return to the same location yearly. During breeding season,
usually between April and July, human activity near nests may disrupt breeding or cause the
adult birds to abandon their young. DEC Bureau of Wildlife staff will be consulted and
management activities will be adapted to minimize disturbance to birds that are known to be
nesting on the Unit.
Adaptive management strategies and actions will be developed and applied on a case by case
basis. These strategies may place restrictions on timber harvesting and gas exploration
activities and could include: setbacks, no-cut or no disturbance zones, or seasonal restrictions.
For recreational uses, actions may include trail closures or rerouting of trails. When specific
management strategies for individual species are developed, they will be incorporated into the
management plan.
Action 1.3.4 a: Falconry.
Licensed falconers will be permitted to remove raptors from the Unit, in compliance with ECL
Article 11, Title 10 and 6 NYCRR Part 173.
Action 1.3.4 b: Monitoring and Research.
The Department will encourage monitoring and research on the status of northern goshawks to
ensure sustainable populations, and to ensure that our knowledge of the natural history and
ecology of these raptors continues to increase
Action 1.3.5: Monitor and address changing deer populations.
High deer populations can adversely impact forest regeneration, herbs and wildflowers. Over-
browsing by deer can drastically alter biodiversity and change the dynamics of forest
ecosystems. A map showing beech interference at the forest stand scale is at the end of this
plan. The map shows that 46% of the stands in the Unit have a beech understory interference
problem. This beech interference problem may be caused, at least in part, by excessive deer
browsing of the desirable native vegetation. Thus, as time progresses, the Department may
need to address impacts from excessive deer browsing on the Unit. If so, Department foresters
will collaborate with Department biologists to address the issue. Forestry staff will conduct
surveys of deer density on State Forests where impacts are evident. If surveys indicate that
excessive deer browsing is an issue, the following actions will be considered:
❒collaborating with neighboring landowners to encourage hunting on private lands;
❒fencing to protect a site with a rare, endangered or special concern plant species;
❒adjusting the scale of forest management activities;
❒taking measures to reduce deer numbers on the Unit through the DMAP program
❒use tree shelters to protect desired natural seedling/sapling regeneration and/or
native hardwood restoration plantings.
If deer population reduction is needed, measures seeking to maximize deer harvest through
traditional hunting programs would be used and use of the Department’s Deer Management
Assistance Program (DMAP) would be considered. DMAP provides a mechanism for
landowners or managers to boost doe harvests by providing additional antlerless tags valid only
on designated lands.
61
Action 1.3.6: Preserve the Hammond Hill State Forest Orchid Glade
The Hammond Hill State Orchid glade has been designated a natural area as part of the late
successional forest habitat component of the Unit. It complements the core blocks of late
successional habitat cover types established by this plan. Control of invasive plant species and
beech, or other woody interference with focused herbicide or fire may be needed to preserve
plant habitats. Botanists from SUNY ESF and/or Cornell University will be consulted if invasive
plants, beech, other woody interference or high deer populations significantly threaten orchid
populations. Excessive damage from deer would be addressed as previously described by
action 1.3.5.
Action: 1.3.7: Use the Predicted Richness Overlay (PRO) Zones for Management and
Planning Purposes
The New York Natural Heritage Program has developed models conceptually similar to the
National and NY GAP Analysis Project. The model predicts plant and animal distributions and is
available to DEC staff on the DEC’s Master Habitat geo-database. The PRO model is a work in
progress. It was consulted during the development of the plan. Most of potential plant and
animal habitats currently identified by the PRO model falls within and in close proximity to
natural and protection areas and special management zones along streams. The model will be
consulted when employing management actions within the Unit.
Objective 1.4: Protect Soil and Water Resources.
Sustainability of a forest ecosystem largely depends on the protection of soil and water
resources. The aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems on the Unit and its landscape provide
food, breeding areas, and cover for numerous plant and animal species. These water resources
are an integral part of the larger hydrologic cycle (the route water takes from rainfall to
evaporation through condensation to rainfall again) providing sediment filters, regulating runoff
and recharging aquifers. Reducing and preventing soil erosion and sedimentation caused by
water flowing over bare mineral soil throughout the Unit and its landscape is of critical
importance.
1.4.1: Apply best management practices (BMPs).
Apply BMPs on all State Forest land management operations including timber harvesting, the
development of recreational facilities and oil or gas exploration and/or development. Continue to
encourage the voluntary use of BMPs on private lands through the Department’s Division of
Lands and Forests, Bureau of Private Land Services Cooperative Forest Management (CFM)
program.
Harvesting and construction activities are not a major cause of water quality problems when
properly managed. When minimally disturbed, forest soils retain their capacity to absorb
tremendous amount of water. However, construction of skid trails, roads, log landings, well
pads, parking lots, and any large scale earth moving project has the potential to become a
source of erosion, sedimentation and siltation. Such water quality issues are primarily caused by
water flowing over the surface of disturbed mineral soil during heavy rain or snowmelt events.
Sedimentation and turbidity (cloudiness) is caused when eroded soil gets into a stream,
wetland, pond, or lake. This condition can damage fish habitat, spawning areas, and make the
water unsuitable for other uses downstream. Severe erosion moves large quantity of soil and
can negatively impact ecosystems.
The key to protecting water quality is proper planning and the appropriate use of BMPs. These
simple, often low-cost practices and techniques are incorporated into timber harvests and
construction projects. BMPs keep water clean, maintain the productivity of the forest, improve
public confidence in logging, and maintain public support for activities which are essential for
sustainable forest management.
62
Forestry BMPs will be followed for all construction, maintenance, logging, log landings and
mineral extraction projects. All main skid trails will be located by Department Foresters prior to
harvesting. BMP recommendations for road placement, grading, water diversion devices and
culverts will be followed. Whenever possible, log landings will be located at least 250 feet away
from water bodies. If any log landings are located closer than 250 feet, additional sediment
control methods will be employed (including straw bales and silt fences) to prevent
sedimentation and minimize erosion. Cutting and filling on roads and trails will be limited. Goal 3
of this plan details specific buffer guidelines for extraction of minerals.
Upon completion of a logging job, the log landing will typically be back-bladed and seeded with
an appropriate conservation seed mixture of appropriate grasses and legumes and/or mulched
with hay or straw at a rate of about 2 tons per acre (approximately 2 ½ 40 pound bales per
1,000 square feet) (NYS Forestry BMP Field Guide, 2011). The grass seed mix may include up
to 20% (by weight) of annual ryegrass as a cover crop. Alternatively, a mix of native, warm-
season grass may be used if the landing is large enough and the soil type is appropriate. The
warm-season grass species may include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi) var. ‘Niagara’, little
bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), eastern gamma grass
(Tripsacum dactyloides) and/or Tioga deer tongue (Panicum clandestinum). Depending on the
species used, seedling rates may range from 10 pounds to 25 pounds per acre.
New York’s BMPs are consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency
approved Non-Point Source Pollution Management Plan. The 2011 Edition of the BMP Field
Guide is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/37845.html
1.4.2: Establish special management zones (SMZ).
Establish and implement in the field SMZs as described by DEC Division of Lands and Forests
Management Rules for Establishment of Special Management Zones on State Forests (2008)
and the Strategic Plan for State Forest Management.
1.4.3: Protect aquatic ecosystems by controlling invasive exotic species.
Control invasive species in aquatic ecosystems as resources allow.
1.4.4: Pick up litter.
Collaborate with DEC AANR volunteer partners and the towns of Caroline and Dryden highway
departments to keep the Unit free of litter as resources allow.
1.4.5: Communicate and enforce regulations.
Collaborate with DEC Forest Rangers and Environmental Conservation Officers to reduce illegal
ATV and 4x4 vehicle use on the Unit through education and enforcement of regulations. Post
appropriate notices and signs to educate the Unit’s visitors.
1.4.6: Block facilities from illegal vehicle use.
Block selected firelanes, shale pits, skid trail and haul roads with rocks and gates to prevent
illegal traffic, soil erosion and dumping. The locations of these areas are shown in the
stewardship needs map at the end of this plan.
Objective 1.5: Conduct Periodic Forest and Natural Resources Inventories.
Action 1.5.1: Update forest inventory.
The State Forest Information Database (SFID) has been updated and continues to collect and
manage natural resource information at the stand level (stands average about 17 acres in size).
The updated software provides improved data storage and sharing capabilities. As such, it
supports ecosystem based planning initiatives. Additionally, DEC forestry technicians and
63
foresters will continue to collect the locations of stone walls, foundations and special natural
features each inventory cycle and place the information into the Department’s GIS based
database.
Action 1.5.2: Inventory the Forest before Updating the Plan.
Forest re-inventory will be conducted on a 10 year schedule and before updating the plan.
Objective 1.6: Conserve, Protect and Enhance Ecosystem Connectivity.
Action 1.6.1: Manage 2,166 acres (43%) of the Unit for late successional habitat
characteristics.
Blocks of connected forest canopy over 500 acres in size are noticeably lacking in the
surrounding landscape outside of the Unit. New York State Office of Real Property Services
records show that the landscape surrounding the Unit is gradually being divided into smaller
parcels. Subdivision often negatively impacts rural ecosystems as habitat becomes increasingly
fragmented from new building construction and related infrastructure development. In the long
term, the ability of rural watersheds to absorb, filter and transmit surface and ground water is
impacted as well. It is expected that future private land development will likely result in
additional subdivision and forest fragmentation. This action will encourage a minimally
fragmented forest canopy and promote biodiversity and to help address this habitat gap.
Action 1.6.2: Help conserve ecosystem connectivity of the landscape.
To help address conserve ecosystem connectivity, the Department will continue to build
relationships and offer management advice free of charge to private forest landowners. In doing
so, Department foresters encourage proactive forest ecosystem management and stewardship,
thereby fostering forest land ownership retention, thus reducing subdivision. Additionally, the
Department will seek opportunities to conserve ecosystem connectivity to adjacent private lands
by collaborating with land conservation and planning organizations such as the Finger Lakes
Land Trust, Finger Lakes Trail Conference, Nature Conservancy and Tompkins County
Planning Department as part of the Emerald Necklace Project as listed in the New York State
Open Space Plan (2009). On a voluntary basis, this plan seeks to conserve and enhance
ecosystem connectivity on adjacent private land parcels through fee simple acquisition or
conservation easements from willing sellers. The New York State Open Space Conservation
Plan is available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/47990.html
Action 1.6.3: Consider Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas Resource Values.
When possible and compatible, incorporate the natural resource values identified by Tompkins
County Unique Natural Areas (UNA) 116 (Star Stanton Hill) and 117 (Slaterville Wildlflower
Preserve) into ecosystem management planning efforts on the Unit. The lands mapped as these
UNA’s are mostly natural forest on hillsides with areas of conifer forest plantations. These areas
were designated as unique by Tompkins County for factors such as: recreational value, quality
examples of plant communities, scenic/aesthetic values, diverse flora, birding sites, geologic
importance and old growth forest. It should be noted that based on DEC forest inventory work,
no old growth forest is known to exist within the Twin Sheds Unit.
Together, UNA 116 and 117 cover about 1,317 acres of public and private land. About 407
acres (about 31%) of these UNA’s are within the Twin Sheds Unit. On the 407 acres of UNA’s
within the Twin Sheds Unit, about 278 acres (68%) are scheduled to be managed as late
successional forest, 116 acres (29%) as mid-successional forest and 13 acres (3%) as early
successional forest.
The goals, objectives and actions of this plan, the Strategic Plan for State Forest Management
and the Department’s retention policy in fact conserve, protect or enhance most of the values
64
identified by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council’s Unique Natural Area
project.
Background
As a guide to landowners, municipal governing and town planning boards, the Environmental
Management Council of Tompkins County created the Unique Natural Area Inventory. This
inventory identifies areas in the county that are special, and, in many respects, contain one-of-a
kind natural features. The UNA inventory was started in 1973. It was greatly expanded and
updated in 1990 and it recently has been revised. Presently, within Tompkins County there are
192 UNAs. These sites were included in the inventory based on the work of ecologists,
botanists, animal scientists, geologists, and wetland specialists who surveyed many of these
sites on foot. Other parcels that were not field-visited were surveyed from the road or adjacent
parcels, or by using topographic maps and aerial photography
(http://www.tompkins-co.org/emc/docs/11_una_brochure.pdf, 2012).
Objective 1.7: Monitor Ecosystem Health and Plan Progress.
Action 1.7.1: Encourage, Design and Implement a Monitoring Program
Encourage design and development of a method to monitor the effectiveness of adaptive
ecosystem management principles and strategies outlined by this plan. Embrace opportunities
to collaborate with educational institutions to develop and employ internships for qualified
undergraduate and graduate students in an ecosystem monitoring project at the Unit level.
Monitoring at the larger landscape scale will likely continue through the New York Natural
Heritage Program.
GOAL 2. Provide Recreational Opportunities for People of all Ages
and Abilities
The Department’s goal is to provide a variety of rustic, forest-based recreational opportunities
that are sustainable and compatible with forest resources. Trails are designed for family
enjoyment for beginner to intermediate-level users. When possible and appropriate, new
recreational facilities will be designed to provide access for people with disabilities in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Construction will be guided by the
Principles of Universal Design.
Compatible recreation is a mainstay in a use-oriented land management plan. Outdoor activities
are widely enjoyed by millions of Americans. State Forests provide opportunities for both active
and passive forms of recreation. Some of the important attributes that contribute to pleasurable
recreational experiences include public safety, accessibility, aesthetic character and quality of
facilities.
It should be noted that a landscape perspective was applied when evaluating recreational
resources, opportunities and demands on the State Forests of the Twin Sheds Unit. The natural
resources of the Unit sustain several types of rustic outdoor recreation, such as berry picking,
bird watching, fishing, hiking, horse-back riding, hunting, informal camping, mountain biking,
snowshoeing, cross country skiing, snowmobiling and trapping. The Department strives to
provide quality multiple use opportunities throughout the Unit and the larger region on the land
that it administers. Additional recreational opportunities can be found at private and public
facilities throughout the region.
65
Objective 2.1: Support Rustic and Kindred Uses of the Unit’s State Forests.
Action 2.1.1: Continue to support rustic and kindred uses.
Continue to support uses such as berry picking, bird watching, fishing, hiking, horse-back riding,
hunting, informal camping, mountain biking, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, snowmobiling
and trapping.
Objective 2.2: Maintain, Conserve and Enhance Existing Recreation Trails and Facilities.
The Department will focus resources on the maintenance of existing trail systems in a way that
protects the resource and maintains the rural, rustic character of the State Forests in the Twin
Sheds Unit. To achieve this objective, the Department will continue to work cooperatively with
user groups through AANR Agreements to maintain existing trails. Volunteers with the Dryden-
Caroline Drifters Snowmobile Club, Finger Lakes Trail Conference and Friends of Hammond Hill
devote countless hours to maintenance of the trail systems on the Unit. The present trail
systems would not be possible without their dedicated support and commitment. Trail re-routes
are sometimes necessary due to natural weather events or forest management activities. Trail
relocation requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Additional trail development
and/or relocations will be considered and may be authorized through a written amendment to
the AANR agreement.
Action 2.2.1: Prevent conflicts with winter recreation enthusiasts.
Mountain bikes and horses will be restricted from the trail system during snow covered
conditions.
Action 2.2.2: Prevent unauthorized construction of trails and structures.
Per Department regulations, building trails without authorization from the DEC is prohibited. In
addition, structures such as jumps are not allowed unless specifically approved in writing by the
Department. Accordingly, Lands and Forest staff will 1) collaborate with DEC Adopt-A-Natural
Resource Stewards, neighboring landowners and the DEC Division of Law Enforcement to
educate and inform the public of applicable policy and regulations, and 2) work with law
enforcement officials to enforce applicable regulations if necessary.
Action 2.2.3: Maintain hiking trails.
Maintain about 3 miles of the Finger Lakes Hiking Trail and hiking trail structures (such as foot
bridges, waterbars, trail marking dips and rock armoring) with volunteers through the DEC’s
Adopt-A-Natural Resource program. Most of the trail is designed and designated for pedestrian
use only. About 1,200 feet (8%) of the trail shares a section of the multiple use trail network.
The entire trail network is maintained by volunteers in cooperation with Department staff.
Action 2.2.4: Maintain the Multiple Use Trail Network.
Maintain the trail network, including resurfacing with geotextile fabric and gravel, water bar and
broad based dip clean-out and repair and culvert clean-out or replacement. The Twin Sheds
Stewardship Needs Map at the end of this plan shows the approximate locations of these
maintenance needs. About 3,400 feet of the trail tread will need grading, smoothing, resurfacing
and broad based dip/water bar repair. Continued collaboration with and advocacy from the
Friends of Hammond Hill, Finger Lakes Trail Conference, Cayuga Trails Conference and the
Dryden-Caroline Drifters snowmobile club will be needed in order to maintain the trail network.
Outside funding and materials will also be needed.
Action 2.2.5: Maintain snowmobile trails.
The Department has an AANR agreement with the Dryden Caroline Drifters Snowmobile Club
on both the Hammond Hill and Yellow Barn State Forests to groom and maintain about 10 miles
of trail on the Unit. Routine trail maintenance is performed by volunteers in cooperation with
Department foresters under AANR agreements. Funding for these activities is provided in part
66
by the Snowmobile Trail Fund administered by the New State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Programs (OPRHP). Snowmobiles primarily use corridor trails which pass through the
State Forests in the Unit. Requests for additional corridor trail connections will be considered on
a case-by-case basis through the AANR agreement process.
Action 2.2.6: Buffer designated recreational trails.
Buffer zones of minimally disturbed vegetation will be left along DEC designated recreational
trails to minimize the aesthetic impacts associated with ecosystem management and
silvicultural activities. When possible, natural regeneration cutting will be avoided over and
across any designated recreational trail. Whenever harvesting close to or over a designated
recreational trail, contact will be made with the AANR steward to explain the rationale for the
harvest. Additionally, educational or interpretive signs explaining the rationale for the harvest
will be installed on the site. Tops and slash will be kept at least 25 feet back from the edge of
the trails. In some cases, trails may be relocated to minimize aesthetic impacts from ecosystem
and silvicultural management actions or weather events. As always, the DEC will work with
AANR partners when planning and conducting ecosystem management projects and
silvicultural activities along designated trails.
In terms of oil and gas exploration and development, well pads will not be developed within 250
feet of designated trails. All oil and gas exploration and development related activities will
require a TRP, which will address additional trail buffering needs for activities such as seismic
testing or pipeline construction if exploration and/or development take place. For additional
information, please refer to objective 3.2 and the site assessment classification system for oil
and natural gas exploration and drilling.
Action 2.2.7: Construct a Pedestrian Connector Hiking Trail.
In collaboration with the Cayuga Trails Club and the Finger Lakes Land Trust, construct a one
mile hiking trail that provides access to Six Mile Creek from the town of Dryden parking lot on
Hammond Hill road. The connecting trail will provide pedestrian access to the Yellow Barn State
Forest through the Finger Lakes Land Trust’s Roy H. Park Preserve-Baldwin Tract. The trail
may be upgraded for cross country ski use in collaboration with the Cayuga Nordic Ski Club and
the Finger Lakes Land Trust if sufficient resources are available.
Action 2.2.8: Provide parking.
Continue to collaborate with the town of Dryden to provide year round parking for cars, trucks
and horse trailers at the town parking lot on Hammond Hill road adjacent to the Unit. The town
maintains and plows the parking lot. Maintain the two other small seasonal parking lots at: 1) the
intersection of Star Stanton Hill road and Canaan road and, 2) at the end of Red Man Run.
Action 2.2.9: Formerly establish trail easement and network gateway.
As resources allow, negotiate a trail network gateway conservation easement across private
land to maintain and enhance access from the town parking lot on Hammond Hill road to the
Unit’s trail network through trail Y1. Based on GIS analysis, the easement would be about 825
feet long. If acquired, develop an action plan and seek funds along with broad based
stakeholder support to upgrade the trail base, trail tread and water drainage system. Upgrading
of the trail easement segment would require collaboration between the Friends of Hammond
Hill, the town of Dryden and the DEC.
Action 2.2.10: Trail re-routes.
Permanent and temporary trail re-routes may be occasionally needed due to natural weather
events or forest management activities. The Department will collaborate with the appropriate
DEC Adopt-A-Natural Resource Steward before a trail reroute takes place. Reroute requests
from outside of the Department will be considered on a case by case basis.
67
Action 2.2.11: Limit trail development.
No new trail networks are currently planned on the Unit. Trails that connect the Unit’s existing
trail network to other trail systems will be considered on a case by case basis. The total unit trail
network, including any new connecting trails, will not exceed 30 miles (a change of about 11%)
during the planning period (the current trail network is about 27 miles).
Action 2.2.12: Limit Mountain Biking to the Multiple Use Trail Network and Public Roads
Limit mountain bike use to the multiple use trail network, public roads and parking lots. Close all
areas to mountain bike use on the Twin Sheds Unit (including undesignated routes, fire lanes,
former logging trails and single use pedestrian foot trails), except the Multiple Use Trail Network
and Public Forest Access Roads.
Unauthorized building of single track mountain bike trail has recently increased on the Unit,
particularly on the Hammond Hill State Forest. The Department has received several complaints
regarding unauthorized single track trail and structure construction from volunteer stewards and
neighboring landowners, and, unless curtailed, the problem will continue to grow. Unauthorized
trail and structure building is of concern because: 1) improperly built unauthorized trails and
structures may create a personal safety hazard, 2) unauthorized trails are not officially
mapped or marked and may confuse novice recreationists, 3) improperly located trails may
result in chronic erosion and maintenance problems, stretching already thin volunteer and DEC
stewardship capabilities, and 4) closing of established unauthorized trails and removal of
structures requires significant resources.
Objective 2.3: Enhance Public Information and Access.
Action 2.3.1: Install or replace signage.
Install and/or replace large wooden State Forest identification signs; maintain four large signs
on each State Forest on the Unit (please see the Stewardship Needs maps for specific
locations).
Action 2.3.2: Update brochures and maps.
Collaborate with the Unit’s AANR partners to update the Hammond Hill trail network brochure
and the Department’s web site maps as necessary. Interactive maps are available through the
State Lands Interactive Mapper at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/45415.html. Information
about State lands in DEC Region 7 (Central New York) is available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7792.html
Action 2.3.3: Upgrade the Hammond Hill Informational Kiosk.
Upgrade the Hammond Hill State Forest kiosk to two or three panels in size and include
information about the Yellow Barn State Forest. The kiosk will also include information such as:
emergency contacts, ecosystem/wildlife habitat management, silviculture, local history, state
forest rules and regulations, volunteer stewardship organizations and volunteer opportunities.
Collaborate with the town of Dryden to install the updated kiosk at the public parking area on
Hammond Hill road.
Objective 2.4: Restrict ATV (All Terrain Vehicle) Use to Protect Forest Sustainability.
Action 2.4.1: Restrict ATV use to those that hold a DEC-issued Motorized Access Permit
for People with Disabilities Trails (MAPPWD).
Based on evaluation of past efforts to accommodate ATV use and the many impacts
and constraints associated with off road vehicles as outlined in the Strategic Plan for State
Forest Management, the Department does not permit public ATV use on State Forests, except;
68
❒ as may be considered to accommodate a public “connector trail” through Unit
Management Planning or a similar public process; and;
❒ on those specific routes designated for use by DEC‐issued Motorized Access
Permit for People with Disabilities (MAPPWD).
Per DEC policy, a connector trail through a portion of State Land could be considered. However,
a connector trail was not considered for the following reasons;
❒ there is no public trail in the area;
❒ according to the USDA soil survey, about 37% of the soils on the Unit are fine textured,
have high clay content and are imperfectly or poorly drained, and therefore cannot
sustainably support intense ATV use;
❒ illegal ATV use has been a problem on the Hammond Hill multiple use trail network;
constructing a formal ATV connector trail would intensify illegal use and damage the
multiple use trail network;
❒ overall all appropriate soil conditions, maintenance and enforcement funds must exist to
ensure that roads and trails can be maintained to prevent chronic environmental damage or
development of hazardous trail conditions. Presently, DEC resources for construction and
maintenance are very limited. An ATV connector trail for the general public would require
additional resources from DEC’s Office of Public Protection.
❒ part of the Unit drains into watersheds that are sources of drinking water. Also, part of the
Unit drains into the West Branch of Owego Creek, an important trout fishery that is stocked
by the Department and the County Sportsman Federation and Six Mile Creek. A connector
trail would encourage illegal ATV use throughout the Unit and could impact water quality for
people, fish and wildlife.
Objective 2.5: Provide Recreational Opportunities Through Universal Design
The following is a summary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its influence on
management actions for recreation and related facilities.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), along with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
(ABA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Title V, Section 504, have had a profound effect on
the manner by which people with disabilities are afforded equality in their recreational pursuits.
The ADA is a comprehensive law prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities in
employment practices, use of public transportation, use of telecommunication facilities and use
of public accommodations. Title II of the ADA requires, in part, that reasonable modifications
must be made to the services and programs of public entities, so that when those services and
programs are viewed in their entirety, they are readily accessible to and usable by people with
disabilities. This must be done unless such modification would result in a fundamental alteration
in the nature of the service, program or activity or an undue financial or administrative burden.
Consistent with ADA requirements, the Department incorporates accessibility for people with
disabilities into the planning, construction and alteration of recreational facilities and assets
supporting them. This UMP incorporates an inventory of all the recreational facilities or assets
supporting the programs and services available on the unit, and an assessment of the
programs, services and facilities on the unit to determine the level of accessibility provided. In
conducting this assessment, DEC employs guidelines which ensure that programs are
accessible, including buildings, facilities, and vehicles, in terms of architecture and design,
69
transportation and communication to individuals with disabilities. A federal agency known as
the Access Board has issued the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for this purpose.
An assessment was conducted, in the development of this UMP, to determine appropriate
accessibility enhancements which may include developing new or upgrading of existing facilities
or assets. The Department is not required to make each of its existing facilities and assets
accessible so long as the Department’s programs, taken as a whole, are accessible. Any
facilities, assets and accessibility improvements to existing facilities or assets proposed in this
UMP are identified in the Proposed Management Actions section.
For copies of any of the above mentioned laws or guidelines relating to accessibility, contact
Carole Fraser, DEC Universal Access Program Coordinator at (518)-402-9428 or
cafraser@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Action 2.5.1: Consider the Principles of Universal Design in trail rehabilitation and assets
Taking ADAAG one step further is the application of the Principles of Universal Design.
Universal Design makes products and environments usable by all people, to the greatest extent
possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The intent of Universal Design is
to make things easily usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost. Universal
Design benefits people of all ages and abilities (Ron Mace, founder and program director of The
Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University, and Raleigh, North Carolina).
When possible and appropriate, all new construction of facilities and trails on the forests will
follow ADA requirements, the Principles of Universal Design and the ADAAG.
Action 2.5.2: Maintain and enhance existing MAPPWD trail on Hammond Hill
Inspect 1.1 the miles of trail annually and replace trail signage. As required, smooth and drain
portions of the trail periodically to help maintain the trail tread. Inspect and replace culverts as
required. Build a 2 car parking lot.
GOAL 3. Provide Economic Benefits to the People of the State
Ecotourism
State Forests provide a base for eco-tourism business. Individuals using the forests for
recreational purposes also frequent local businesses for other needs. Thus, the recreational
services provided by the lands in the Twin Sheds Unit benefit the service and retail sectors of
the local economy.
Renewable Resources
Well managed forests produce sustainable forest products. Properly designed prescriptions and
harvest plans promote biodiversity and forest health. At the same time, the State Forests of the
Unit provide jobs and locally produced natural material to support the local economy.
Mineral Resources
The leasing and development of natural gas and oil resources can provide jobs and income to
the State while increasing domestic energy supplies. Oil and natural gas are valuable resources
which can provide energy and revenue, as well as the opportunity for improvements to the
existing infrastructure of the Twin Sheds Unit (such as improving safe and restricted access
through upgrading existing roads, culverts and gates) and creation of additional early
successional wildlife habitat which may or may not enhance habitat diversity. As with any other
human activity on State lands, oil and natural gas exploration and development can impact the
environment. Natural gas is a cleaner energy alternative to fossil fuels such as coal and diesel
fuel.
70
Objective 3.1: Provide a Steady Flow of Forest Products to Generate Income to the State
of New York, Raw Materials to the Forest Products Industry and Create Local Jobs while
Protecting Sensitive Areas and Other Management Objectives.
Action 3.1.1: Manage forest ecosystems.
Schedule about 3,666 acres (73%) of the Unit for sustainable forest management through
harvesting using science-based silvicultural systems over a 20 year period. This equates to
about 183 acres per year Unit wide. About 3,837 acres (77%) of the Unit is managed working
forest. The 171 acres (3%) not presently scheduled for management will be reevaluated during
forest inventory and plan updates.
Action 3.1.2: Salvage forest products.
Salvage forest stands that are destroyed or severely damaged by natural events before they
lose significant value from decay and insect infestation. Leave some snag trees and coarse
woody material for wildlife and conservation of soil nutrients during salvage operations as per
the Department’s retention policy.
Objective 3.2: Provide for Mineral Resource Exploration and Development while
Protecting Natural Resources and Sustaining Quality Recreation Opportunities.
Action 3.2.1: Prohibit surface disturbance associated with high-volume hydraulic
fracturing
Disturbance associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing is inconsistent with the purposes
for which the lands within the Unit were acquired. This prohibition is subject to change if the
Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Statements regarding Well Permit Issuance for
Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-
Permeability Gas Reservoirs is amended during finalization processes.
Action 3.2.2: Restrict surface mining
Restrict surface mining of shale, sand, gravel or other aggregate and underground mining of
"hard rock" minerals such as metal ores, gem minerals, and salt. The Department's current
policy is to decline any commercial mining application(s) pertaining to any lands covered by this
UMP as these activities are not compatible with the purposes for which State Forests were
purchased. Maintain eight shale pits across the Unit for infrastructure purposes. These surface
mines will occasionally be used for road and parking area maintenance and construction
activities.
Action 3.2.3: Consider leasing the State Forests for oil and natural gas exploration and
development.
Consider leasing. The Unit cannot be leased until it is nominated. If nominated, limit the
geophysical, geochemical and/or surface sampling procedures for the exploration of mineral
resources with an approved lease. Once nominated, and before the Unit is leased, a public
meeting would be held to provide information about natural gas development specific to the Unit
and to receive public comments. A 30-day public comment period would follow. The
Department would consider all comments and conduct an oil and gas exploration and
development tract assessment of the Unit prior to making a decision. If the Department decided
to pursue a lease, the Division of Lands and Forests would collaborate with the Division of
Mineral Resources to incorporate special conditions into the proposed lease. These conditions
would include, but not be limited to, criteria for site selection, mitigation of impacts and land
reclamation upon completion of drilling. Any parcel designated as a non-surface entry lease will
no longer be subject to the process detailed above due to the prohibition of surface
disturbance(s).
71
In addition to an approved lease, a Temporary Revocable Permit (TRP) is also needed to
explore State Forest land for mineral resources. For additional information see the Guidelines
for Seismic Testing on DEC Administered State Land. These guidelines are available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/sfseismic.pdf
Action 3.2.4: Minimize well pad density.
If leasing occurs, the Division of Lands and Forests recommends that well density does not
exceed one well pad per 320 acres. Consistent with the Strategic Plan for State Forest
Management, DEC may consider well pad densities of greater than one well pad in 320 acres
only when the additional impact can be managed with heightened mitigation measures and well
location restrictions. These will address well site placement, along with routing considerations
for supporting roads and pipelines. Well pad densities of one well pad in 40 acres or greater will
not be considered. Additional well pad development would be required to be compatible with oil
and gas exploration and development tract assessments conducted in association with the
lease and the goals and objectives of this plan.
Action 3.2.5*: Develop and implement a three category tract assessment classification
system for oil and natural gas exploration and drilling.
If the State Forests in the Unit are nominated for leasing by the oil and gas industry, the
Department would develop an oil and gas lease tract assessment. A hierarchical approach
would be used to focus surface disturbances on the least sensitive areas of the Unit and to
exclude the highly sensitive areas. The hierarchical approach will classify the forests into three
categories:
Category A - Compatible with well pad and access road development. Defined as
areas compatible for well pad development and associated access roads on slopes
between 0 and 15%. Category A areas are the least sensitive to surface disturbances
and should be considered first for well placement to limit the overall environmental
impact of well pad and access road development. These areas include existing shale
pits and land with 250 feet of existing public highways and public forest access roads
which would be preferred areas for development. The hierarchy will first consider drilling
in areas such as fields and conifer plantations. Drilling options will decrease as stand
management moves from even aged to uneven aged conditions. The least favorable
locations for drilling will be in stands managed for old growth characteristics. Upon
completion of drilling, well sites will be reclaimed with native vegetation to a condition
consistent with the surrounding stand management objectives. Any areas within this
category that have limitations related to soils, slope, streams and wetlands as well as
high use recreational areas are excluded from this classification. Also excluded are
features such as wetlands, homestead foundations and cemeteries, as well as natural
and protection areas. The intent is to focus any future surface disturbances in this zone
to reduce environmental impacts.
Category B - 250 foot stream and designated recreational trail buffers. Not
compatible with well pad development; may be compatible with road and utility
development.
This category includes the following:
❒streams and a 250-foot buffer.
❒designated and signed recreational trails and a 250 foot buffer.
72
Category C - Not compatible with well pad or road development.
This category includes:
❒water bodies and wetlands and a 250-foot buffer around them;
❒slope greater than 15%;
❒archeological and cultural concerns;
❒known occurrences of rare and endangered species;
❒natural and protection areas not related to buffers and slope;
❒spring seeps, vernal pools and an appropriate buffer (determined in the field).
Exceptions to special conditions developed from oil and gas lease tract assessments are
possible if additional analysis, protective measures, new technology or other issues warrant a
change in the compatibility status of an area.
Action 3.2.6**: Minimize environmental impacts from pipelines.
Pipelines may be constructed on State Forest lands only if a portion of the mineral resources to
be transported was extracted from State lands. Pipeline and road development must be in
compliance with State Forest tract assessments, the Strategic Plan for State Forest
Management, and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Supplemental Generic
Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program.
Pipelines will be located immediately adjacent to Public Forest Access Roads. The location of
the roads and pipelines will be in compliance with tract assessments. Pipelines may be located
in stands managed for closed canopy conditions only along pre-existing roads that intersect
such area. Additional surface disturbance associated with such construction will be considered
only in areas other than stands which are managed for relatively unbroken canopy conditions.
Areas managed for unbroken canopy conditions may be referred to using various terms such as
“uneven-aged,” “uneven-aged variable retention,” “all aged,” “high canopy,” “closed canopy” or
others.
Pipeline development on State land will not be permitted if the Department determines that it
creates a significant long-term conflict with any management activities or public use of the State
Forests, or with other management objectives in this plan. All pipelines will be gated to restrict
motorized access, and if necessary hardened crossings or bridges will be installed, to allow
heavy equipment access across pipelines. These requirements will be satisfied by the Lessee.
Exceptions to the above guidance must be approved by the Division of Lands and Forests, in
consultation with the Division of Mineral Resources.
Action 3.2.7**: New road development or rehabilitation.
Any new roads built to access well sites will be located based on the three category tract
assessment classification system for oil and natural gas exploration and drilling, with the intent
of protecting the Unit’s natural resources and to limit the impacts on other forest uses and
values. Access roads associated with well sites will not exceed 14' in width between ditches and
will be designed to maintain closed canopy conditions, where appropriate. On turns and
intersections, roads will not exceed a total cleared width of 36 feet. Roads will be constructed
with gravel over filter fabric to minimize soil disturbance. Regardless of the spacing unit, State
land which is not leased or leased with no surface occupancy, road development will not be
permitted on State land. Upon completion of drilling, access roads may be closed to the public
and will be reclaimed to a condition capable of supporting both vegetation and periodic access
to maintain the well site. Site restoration will be a condition of the lease and will be authorized
by a Temporary Revocable Permit (TRP).
73
Note 1*: Where criteria for these categories overlap, the most restrictive classification would be
applied. Note 2**: The Department will allow access to State Forest land in the Unit from
adjacent private lands when access is required to drill or develop wells and associated
infrastructure. This will only be permitted when written permission is provided from the private
landowner granting access. The lessee will be required to build a gate to Department
specifications at the state boundary line and must maintain the gate for the duration of the
lease. Access to private land across State Land will not be permitted.
Objective 3.3: Provide Property Tax Income to Local Governments and Schools.
Action 3.3.1: Pay real property taxes.
The State Forests are subject to town, school and fire district property taxes, but are exempted
from county taxes. State Forest land is taxed at the same rate as private forest land. Appendix
A-10 of this plan estimates the Real Property taxes paid by the State Forests in the Unit.
GOAL 4. Provide Sound Stewardship of the State Forest
Objective 4.1: Protect the Cultural Resources on the State Forests.
Action 4.1.1: Protect stone walls, cisterns, fire ponds and old foundations.
Stone walls and old foundations on the State Forests will be protected during management
activities and recreational trail development. Should stone wall disturbances be necessary for
access during forest product sales or oil and gas development, the contract will require that the
structures be returned to their pre-impact condition.
Action 4.1.2: Update archeological information
Add archeological data regarding the location, size and condition of assets such as stone walls,
cisterns and foundations to the DEC’s geo-database during inventory and re-inventory.
Objective 4.2: Protect the Natural Resources on the State Forests.
Action 4.2.1: Protect the natural resources from uncontrolled wildfire.
A wildfire protection program will be maintained to assure minimum risk of loss to humans,
structures and forest resources associated with uncontrolled wildfire. This program is the
responsibility of State Forest Rangers from the Department’s Division of Forest Protection and
Fire Management. Prescribed burning may used to control invasive species, beech or other
woody interference as staff resources permit.
Action 4.2.2: Protect natural resources from insects, disease and invasive species.
The protection of resources from injurious insects, diseases and invasive exotic (non-native)
species will be accomplished through a program of integrated pest management. This program
includes elements of reconnaissance, analysis and determination of thresholds and controls
when necessary. The use of pesticides, mechanical cutting and/or prescribed fire may be
required.
Action 4.2.3: Prohibit target shooting on the Unit.
The shale pits will be posted to prohibit target shooting because of the high level of recreational
use in the Unit. Target shooting takes place at shale pits or at log landings and leaves litter in
the form of spent shell casings and targets. Trees and signs are often damaged as well. As
such, target shooting reduces the quality of outdoor recreation provided by the natural
resources of the Unit. There are numerous rod and gun clubs in the area that provide safe and
appropriate target shooting facilities.
74
Action 4.2.4: Protect the natural resources from damage by beavers.
The colonization of a site by beavers results in the flooding of an area. This on occasion can
inundate sites with rare plants or other rare habitat features. Beavers can also cause flooding
damage to adjoining property owners, recreational trails and roads. Currently there are no
known sites where beaver have damaged adjoining property owners, rare plants or other rare
habitat features. However, there are two sites in the Unit where beavers have caused damage
to roads in the past. In many cases flooding by beavers enhances biodiversity. Ponds created
by beavers can provide valuable habitat for amphibians, aquatic insects, fish, waterfowl as well
as water for a variety of wildlife. Therefore, the Department will only look to control beaver
numbers in sensitive areas and areas that would adversely impact adjoining property owners,
recreational trails and roads. Recreational trapping is a valuable tool in beaver population
control. However, reduced popularity in trapping and fluctuations in the markets for beaver fur
have caused an overall reduction in recreational trapping. If recreational trapping is not effective
in controlling beaver populations on the Unit, the Department may obtain an Article 11 permit
and hire a nuisance wildlife trapper to remove problem beavers.
Objective 4.3: Prevent Illegal Activities on the State Forests.
Action 4.3.1: Patrol and enforce State and local regulations on the Unit.
Communicate closely with the Department’s Forest Rangers and Environmental Conservation
Officers to provide routine patrols and identify specific enforcement needs on the Unit.
Encourage the public and DEC AANR partners to report specific information on illegal activities
they observe to the DEC Forest Ranger and land manager.
Objective 4.4: Maintain Access Trails, Haul Roads and Public Forest Access Roads.
Action 4.4.1: Maintain forest access trails, haul roads and public forest access roads
during forest product sales and through Department operations staff as resources allow.
Forest product sales contracts will be written to include terms for road protection, repair and
maintenance. Routine maintenance for activities such as grading of roads and mowing of road
shoulder may be conducted by DEC Operations staff if resources are available.
Objective 4.5: Maintain Boundary Lines and Identify State Land to Users.
Timber theft and trespass is a significant threat to the natural resource assets of the Unit.
Properly marked and maintained boundary lines deter timber trespass. Periodic maintenance of
the 68.4 miles of boundary lines on the Twin Sheds Unit combined with surveying when
necessary will maintain the integrity of the property lines.
Action 4.5.1: Maintain boundary lines.
Post State Forest signs about 400 feet apart along public roads passing through the State
Forests in the Unit and about 660 feet apart along interior boundary lines. Repaint all 68.4 miles
of boundary lines every seven years according to the following schedule:
Table 18 - State Forest Boundary Line Maintenance Schedule
Ref. Area State Forests Boundary Line
(Miles)
Last Year
Painted/Signed
Next Year
Painted/Signed
Tompkins 2 Hammond Hill 30.4 2011 2018
Tompkins 5 Yellow Barn 13.3 2011 2018
Total 43.7
75
Objective 4.6: Acquire Adjacent Land from Willing Sellers that Consolidate State
Ownership.
Action 4.6.1: State Forest Consolidation and Connectivity
It is the intention of the Department to purchase in fee, or a conservation easement, parcels that
will consolidate State ownership (in-holdings and properties surrounded on three sides by State
property) or will protect endangered species or habitat. The purchase of in-holdings, lands that
will consolidate boundary lines and lands that connect two or more State Forests will facilitate
public and administrative access, reduce management costs and provide larger blocks of
undeveloped forest land on the landscape. Projects listed in the New York State Open Space
Conservation Plan, such as the Emerald Necklace project, will also guide land purchases. As
resources allow, the Department will pursue fee title or a conservation easement of unimproved
parcels which fit the criteria above, if they are offered for sale by their owner. Purchases will
only be made from willing sellers. The Department may be interested in all or only a portion of
larger parcels.
Action 4.6.2: Trail Corridor Easement
Acquire a conservation easement for the trail corridor that connects the town of Dryden parking
area on Hammond Hill road to the multiple use trail network on the State Forest. This is the only
parking available to the public that provides winter access to the multiple use trail system. There
is a .2 mile section of yellow trail #1 that connects that parking area with the multiple use trail
system that is on private land. In order to continue to provide public access to the trails, the
Department will seek to acquire a conservation easement to conserve this gateway trail corridor.
Objective 4.7: Maintain Usable Shale Pit.
Action 4.7.1: Maintain the shale pits on the Unit.
Shale from former pits may be used to repair and resurface portions of the public forest access
road, to build and maintain parking lots and maintain recreational trails on the Unit. Each time a
shale pit is used the active face will be restored upon completion of use. The Regional Mined
Land Reclamation Specialist will be notified and given the opportunity to make an assessment
of materials that will be extracted to determine if a mined land use permit is required. The town
will need a TRP to remove shale from the pit.
APPENDICES
A-1 and A-2. Management Action Schedules
Tables listing the proposed management actions follow. Additionally, maps illustrating land
cover changes and wildlife habitat types are at the end of this plan. The following table presents
a 20-year schedule of planned management actions referenced by stand number and year of
management.
Key to Land Management Action Schedules
To save space, codes have been used in the management action tables. The key to codes are
follow below.
Objective Forest Type Codes
Code Forest Type (Land Classification)
CHP Conifer Plantations with Hardwoods
CP Conifer Plantations
ES Early Successional and Pioneer Hardwoods
HP Hardwood Plantations
NC Natural Conifers
76
Objective Forest Type Codes
Code Forest Type (Land Classification)
NH Natural Hardwoods
NHC Natural Hardwoods with Conifers
NHO Natural Hardwoods with an Oak Component
NHOC Natural Hardwoods with Oaks and Conifers
NOA Natural Hardwoods, Mostly Oak
Forest Type Codes Tree Type Codes
Code DEC Type Code Species
10 Natural: Northern Hardwood APL Apple
11 Natural: Northern Hardwood-Hemlock ASP Aspen, Bigtooth or Quaking
12 Natural: Northern Hardwood-White Pine BAS American Basswood
14 Natural: Pioneer Hardwood BC Black Cherry
15 Natural: Swamp Hardwood BEE American Beech
16 Natural: Oak BB Black Birch
17 Natural: Black Locust BF Balsam Fir
18 Natural: Oak-Hickory BL Black Locust
19 Natural: Oak-Hemlock BBE Blue Beech
20 Natural: Hemlock ELM American Elm
21 Natural: White Pine EL European Larch
22 Natural: White Pine-Hemlock HEM Eastern Hemlock
30 Natural: Oak-Pine HM Sugar (Hard) Maple
31 Natural: Transition Hardwood IWD Ironwood (hophornbeam)
32 Natural: Other JL Japanese Larch
40 Natural: Red Pine JP Jack Pine
41 Natural: White Pine NS Norway Spruce
42 Natural: Scotch Pine PC Pin Cherry
43 Natural: Austrian Pine RM Red (Soft) Maple
45 Natural: Norway Spruce RO Northern Red Oak
47 Natural: Japanese Larch RP Red Pine
48 Natural: European Larch SP Scotch Pine
49 Natural: White Cedar STR Striped Maple
51 Natural: Balsam Fir TAP Thornapple
52 Plantation: Black Locust WA White Ash
53 Plantation: Pitch Pine WC Northern White Cedar
54 Plantation: Miscellaneous Pure Species WP Eastern White Pine
60 Plantation: Red Pine-White Pine WS White Spruce
61 Plantation: Red Pine-Spruce YB Yellow Birch
62 Plantation: Red Pine-Larch
63 Plantation: White Pine-Spruce
64 Plantation: White Pine-Larch
68 Plantation: Bucket Mix
70 Plantation: Pine-Natural Species
71 Plantation: Spruce-Natural Species
99 Non-forest
Size and Age Class Codes
Size Class Future Age Class Codes
Size Definition Age Definition
S-S Seedling-Sapling; trees up to 5" diameter at breast height EA Even-aged
PT Poletimber; trees 6"-11" diameter at breast height UA Uneven-aged
SST Small Sawtimber; trees 12"-17" diameter at breast height UE Even or Uneven-aged
MST Medium Sawtimber; trees 18"-23" diameter at breast height
77
Management Action Codes and Time Periods
Action Codes Time Period
Action
Codes
Definition Period Time
(Years)
ATR Apple Tree Release A 2014-2018
CTR Crop Tree Release B 2019-2023
FSI Forest Stand Improvement C 2024-2028
GS Group Selection D 2029-2033
ICT Intermediate Commercial Thinning (Includes Thin/Harvest Option)
PTR Patch Retention
NTR No Treatment Recommended
RCH Regeneration Cuts for Habitat
RWST Row or strip thinning
SST Shelterwood/Seed Tree Cut
STGS Single Tree and Group Selection
STS Single Tree Selection
VDT Variable Density Thinning
Please note: Stand acreages in the land management action schedules that follow were generated by geographical information
system (GIS) computations which potentially could vary as much as 1% from land record or deed acreages. These differences
could be caused by cumulative errors in deed or GIS calculations, and/or rounding errors. This slight variation does not affect
management decision making. Additionally, the estimated action acreage does not include fully include additional buffering of visual,
archeological or water resources as required by Department policy as described by the Strategic Plan for State Forest Management
found at http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7792.html.
A-1. Land Management Action Schedule - Hammond Hill State Forest (Tompkins No. 2)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top Five Species Action
Options/Choices
Time Ac
A‐01 31 PT 187 139 NHO EA RM RO WA BE HM ICT CTR C 12
A‐02 11 SST 185 163 NHC UA HEM BE RM RO WA STGS ICT VDT C 23
A‐04 11 SST 184 168 NHC UA HEM RM BE HM WA STGS ICT VDT C 60
A‐05 31 SST 165 157 ES EA RM RO ASP HM BE RCH SST C 6
A‐06 63 SST 274 187 CHP EA NS RM WP WA BC REST ICT ATR A 6
A‐08 10 SST 138 117 NH UA RM RO BBE BB HM STGS ICT VDT C 9
A‐09 11 SST 166 160 NHC UA HEM RO RM WA HM STGS ICT C 3
A‐10 31 SST 128 135 NHO EA RO RM BE ASP HEM ICT CTR SST C 5
A‐11 40 SST 212 146 PH EA RP SP RM WA BC RCH SST A 67
A‐13 65 SST 154 126 CHP EA NS SP BC WA RM RWST SST ICT D 8
A‐14 10 SST 174 150 NH UA BC HM WA RM ELM STGS ICT A 2
A‐17 45 SST 217 150 CHP EA NS ASP RM RO BC ICT RWST SST D 12
A‐18 45 PT 274 173 CHP EA NS RM WP ASP BC ICT RWST D 8
A‐19 32 PT 210 147 NHC EA RM BB HEM ASP WA ICT SST A 14
A‐20 40 PT 261 163 NHC EA RP HM RM SP BC SST PTR A 16
A‐21 11 PT 285 217 NHC UA HEM RM RO BE HM ICT VDT STGS A 7
A‐23 40 SST 352 233 NHO UE RP RM HM SHR BC ICT VDT SST A 8
A‐26 14 SST 164 144 NH UE RM BC WP ASP BBE ICT STGS VDT A 10
A‐27 11 SST 152 155 NHC UA HM RM HEM WA YB STGS ICT VDT A 16
A‐28 20 SST 254 195 NC UA HEM RM YB BAS WA STGS ICT VDT C 12
A‐29 10 PT 199 160 NH UA RM SHR RO ASP YB ICT CTR A 4
A‐30 31 PT 168 153 NHO EA RM BC RO HEM HM ICT CTR A 11
A‐31 10 SST 231 185 ES EA RM ASP HEM WP HM RCH SST A 21
78
A-1. Land Management Action Schedule - Hammond Hill State Forest (Tompkins No. 2)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top Five Species Action
Options/Choices
Time Ac
A‐32 45 SST 271 194 CHP EA NS RM ASP BL WA ICT RWST C 10
A‐33 10 SST 126 120 NH UA HM RM BE WA BC STGS GS STS A 9
A‐34 22 SST 159 163 NC UA WP HEM RM BE WA STGS ICT VDT D 6
A‐35 10 SST 125 113 NH UA RM BC BB WA WP STGS ICT VDT A 8
A‐36 61 SST 161 130 ES EA RM NS ASP RP BC RCH SST D 22
A‐37 61 SST 146 153 CHP EA NS RP RM ST WA RWST ICT SST D 37
A‐38 10 MST 162 145 NHC UA BE HEM RM RO HM STGS GS VDT A 5
A‐39 45 SST 224 220 CHP UE NS RM BC ICT RWST C 3
A‐40 10 SST 154 163 NHO UA RM RO BE WA HM STGS ICT VDT B 12
A‐41 31 MST 118 155 NHO EA RO BE WA HM BC SST ICT B 2
A‐42 19 SST 192 187 NHOC EA RM HEM RO HM WA SST ICT B 5
A‐43 31 SST 131 138 NHO EA RO RM BE WA HM ICT CTR SST B 10
A‐44 31 SST 175 140 NHO EA RM RO WA HM ASP ICT CTR SST B 9
A‐45 61 SST 332 227 CHP EA RP NS RM BB RO RWST ICT A C 14
A‐46 10 MST 136 152 NH UA HM BE RO WA RM STGS GS VDT B 25
A‐47 31 PT 228 170 NHO EA RO RM BE HM WP ICT CTR B 13
B‐01 31 SST 135 125 NHO EA HM BE RO WA IWD ICT CTR SST B 6
B‐02 31 SST 172 136 NHO EA RO RM ASP BE HM ICT CTR SST B 7
B‐03 61 SST 341 229 CHP EA RP NS RM WA WP RWST ICT A C 25
B‐04 10 MST 134 155 NHO UA RO HM RM BE WA GS STGS VDT B 2
B‐05 61 SST 316 220 CHP EA NS RP RM RO WP RWST ICT A C 18
B‐06 31 MST 118 136 NHO EA RO RM BE WA WO SST ICT B 6
B‐07 45 SST 153 165 CHP EA NS RM WA RO BB ICT RWST C 3
B‐08 45 SST 248 205 CHP EA NS RM ASP WA WP ICT RWST C 14
B‐09 16 MST 145 157 NHO EA RO RM BE WP IWD SST ICT B 4
B‐10 11 SST 236 178 NHC UA RM HEM RO ASP WA STGS ICT B 3
C‐01 10 SST 143 127 NH UA WA RM BC BE HM STGS ICT C 4
C‐02 31 PT 162 134 NHO EA RM RO BE HM BC ICT CTR C 11
C‐03 10 SST 152 140 NHC UA RM WA HM BC RO STGS ICT VDT B 17
C‐04 11 PT 160 154 NHC UA HEM RM RO BE HM ICT VDT STGS B 43
C‐05 12 SST 187 145 NHC UA RM HEM WP HM RO STGS GS VDT C 10
C‐06 11 SST 133 130 NHC UA BB RM BE HM RO STGS ICT VDT C 13
C‐07 11 SST 175 142 NHC UA RM HEM BB BE WP STGS ICT VDT C 15
C‐08 42 SST 181 125 ES EA RM SP ASP WA WP RCH SST C 11
C‐09 10 SST 237 180 ES EA RM ASP WA RO BB RCH SST B 8
C‐10 61 PT 309 173 CHP UE RM RP NS WA ASP RWST VDT PTR C 11
C‐11 10 SST 192 186 NHO UA HM WA RO RM BE STGS ICT VDT B 15
C‐12 10 SST 158 143 ES EA HM RM ASP BC YB RCH SST B 4
C‐13 61 SST 168 122 CHP UE NS RP WA RM BC RWST ICT VDT D 55
C‐14 44 PT 143 101 NH UE WA RM JP BC RO RWST ICT ATR D 19
79
A-1. Land Management Action Schedule - Hammond Hill State Forest (Tompkins No. 2)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top Five Species Action
Options/Choices
Time Ac
C‐15 32 PT 158 128 NHO UE HM NS BC WA RO RWST ICT ATR A 7
C‐16 72 SST 155 150 HP UE RO WA BC ASP ICT VDT CTR A 5
C‐18 11 SST 222 193 NHC UA HEM RM RO HM BE STGS ICT VDT A 32
C‐19 44 PT 218 110 ES EA RM JP ASP BC RCH SST D 15
C‐20 16 SST 158 145 NOA EA RO RM HM WP IWD ICT SST A 11
C‐21 11 PT 221 138 NHOC EA RM RO BB HEM BE ICT CTR C 22
C‐22 11 SST 235 183 NHC UA RM WA BB HEM BE STGS ICT VDT A 10
C‐23 10 SST 115 123 NHC UA HM BE RM WA HEM STGS ICT A 4
C‐24 31 PT 202 167 NHO EA RM RO HM WA ASP ICT CTR A 36
C‐25 31 PT 148 123 NHO EA RO RM HM HEM WP ICT CTR A 10
C‐27 12 PT 259 0 NHC UA RM WP WA BC RO NTR E 16
D‐01 31 MST 170 200 NHO EA RO BE RM SST ICT C 5
D‐03 11 SST 125 147 NHC UA RM RO HEM BE WP STGS ICT VDT C 9
D‐04 31 SST 181 163 NHO EA RM BE RO WA ASP ICT CTR SST C 14
D‐05 11 SST 178 154 NHC UA HEM RM RO BE BC STGS VDT ICT C 24
D‐06 11 PT 245 174 NHC UA ASP RM HEM HM BE ICT VDT STGS C 19
D‐07 10 PT 157 105 ES EA RM HEM ASP BE RO RCH SST C 30
D‐08 31 SST 105 135 NHC EA HEM RM BE RO HM ICT SST B 11
D‐09 11 SST 186 169 NHC UA RM HEM ASP RO HM STGS ICT VDT A 24
D‐10 20 SST 198 168 NC UA HEM RM RO BB HM STGS ICT VDT A B 28
D‐11 12 PT 245 183 NHC UA RM WP HEM ASP RO ICT VDT STGS C 20
D‐12 31 SST 149 145 NHO EA RO BB HEM RM ASP ICT CTR SST C 12
D‐13 31 SST 216 175 ES EA WP RO ASP RM WO RCH SST C 4
D‐14 42 SST 143 124 PH EA PP RM SP JP WA RCH SST C 50
D‐15 10 PT 248 130 NH UA RM WP HM SP WA ICT VDT STGS C 7
D‐17 42 SST 168 133 ES EA ASP RM HM SP YP RCH SST C 18
D‐18 31 SST 120 131 NHO UA HM RO RM BE IWD GS STGS VDT C 29
D‐19 31 SST 162 155 NHC UA BE HEM HM RM RO STGS STS VDT C 26
D‐20 10 SST 148 142 NH UA HM WA BE HEM RM STGS ICT VDT C 17
D‐21 31 SST 154 120 NHO EA RO HM ICT CTR SST A 4
D‐22 10 SST 164 123 NH UA HM BE BAS BB WA STGS ICT A 4
D‐23 11 SST 122 128 NHC UA HM WA HEM BE RM NTR E 34
D‐24 10 PT 289 190 ES EA RM HM ASP BB BE RCH SST B 13
D‐25 10 SST 138 138 NHO EA HM RO WA BC BE ICT CTR SST B 14
E‐01 31 SST 163 153 NHO EA HM RM WA RO BE ICT CTR SST B 46
E‐02 10 PT 244 180 NH UA RM WA BAS RO ASP STGS ICT B 2
E‐03 14 PT 270 160 ES EA ASP RM RO WA HM RCH SST B 16
E‐04 45 SST 278 200 CHP EA NS RM BL ASP BC ICT RWST SST D 10
E‐05 16 PT 269 176 ES EA RO RM ASP HM BC RCH SST B 18
E‐06 10 SST 146 145 NH UA HM BE RM WA RO STGS ICT VDT B 8
80
A-1. Land Management Action Schedule - Hammond Hill State Forest (Tompkins No. 2)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top Five Species Action
Options/Choices
Time Ac
E‐08 10 SST 213 170 NH UA BE RM RO HM HEM STGS ICT VDT B 11
E‐09 31 PT 176 130 NHO EA RM WA ASP BE RO ICT CTR B 27
E‐10 11 PT 300 195 NHC UA HEM ASP RM YB BB STGS ICT B 1
E‐11 31 SST 200 158 NHO UA RM HM RO BE ASP GS STGS VDT B 62
E‐13 10 PT 487 98 PH EA WS RM ASP RO WP NTR E 43
E‐14 45 SST 249 170 CHP UE NS RM ASP HM WP ICT RWST VDT D 8
E‐15 31 PT 172 133 NHO EA RO RM WA HM PC ICT CTR A 10
E‐17 12 SST 180 150 NHC UA WP HM ASP RM RO STGS ICT VDT C 5
E‐18 31 PT 206 163 NHO EA RM RO BE WA HEM ICT CTR A 36
E‐19 12 SST 166 147 NHC EA RM WA RO HM BE ICT SST C 21
E‐20 10 PT 157 133 NHO UA RM RO HM WA BE ICT VDT STGS A 6
E‐21 11 SST 189 158 NHC UA HEM RM HM RO BAS STGS ICT VDT C 11
E‐22 20 SST 211 187 NC UA HEM RM BE ASP WA STGS ICT C 4
E‐23 12 PT 202 142 NHC UA RM WP ASP WA NS ICT VDT STGS C 14
E‐24 10 PT 198 144 NHC UA BE RM RO ASP WA ICT VDT STGS A 14
E‐25 61 SST 178 115 CHP EA NS RM RP BC WP RWST ICT SST D 10
E‐26 10 SST 173 153 NHO EA RO RM HM BE WA ICT CTR SST A 20
E‐27 45 SST 186 207 CHP UE NS RM BC SHR RO ICT RWST VDT D 27
E‐28 10 MST 123 165 NHO UA WA RO HM IWD RM GS STGS VDT B 4
E‐29 71 PT 191 135 CHP UE NS BC WA RO HM ICT RWST VDT C 8
E‐32 10 PT 175 133 ES EA RM ASP RO WP BE RCH SST B 47
E‐33 31 SST 175 150 NHO EA RO BE RM ASP HEM ICT CTR SST B 15
E‐34 11 PT 232 170 NHC UA HEM RM YB RO WA ICT VDT STGS B 11
E‐35 31 PT 218 150 ES EA RO RM ASP WP BE RCG SST B 6
E‐36 12 PT 173 125 NHO UA WP RM ASP RO NTR E 5
E‐37 61 SST 181 170 CHP UE NS RP RM EL WA RWST ICT VDT D 6
E‐38 14 PT 170 127 ES EA ASP RO WA HM BAS RCH SST B 2
E‐40 61 SST 242 196 CHP EA NS RP RM WP WA RWST ICT SST D 15
E‐42 45 SST 287 213 CHP EA NS RM ASP YB RO ICT RWST SST D 4
E‐43 45 PT 333 183 CHP UE WA ASP RM NS HEM ICT RWST VDT D 9
E‐44 14 PT 208 148 ES EA RO RM ASP WA HEM RCH SST A 15
E‐45 68 SST 214 145 CHP UE NS EL RM SP RO RWST ICT VDT D 5
E‐48 11 PT 269 187 NHC UA HEM RM RO BE YB ICT VDT STGS A 26
E‐49 10 SST 216 174 NHC UA RM RO HEM HM WA STGS GS VDT A 11
E‐50 31 SST 99 123 NHO EA HM RO RM BC WA ICT CTR SST A 3
E‐51 10 SST 169 147 NH UA RM HM RO BE HEM STGS ICT VDT A 20
E‐52 31 SST 206 151 NHO EA RM RO WA BAS WP ICT CTR SST A 17
E‐53 31 PT 195 156 ES EA RO RM ASP BE SHR RCH SST A 15
E‐55 19 SST 219 169 NHOC UA RM RO HEM HM BE ICT SST VDT A 36
E‐56 10 SST 154 157 NH UA HM WA BAS BC RM STGS ICT VDT A 5
81
A-1. Land Management Action Schedule - Hammond Hill State Forest (Tompkins No. 2)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top Five Species Action
Options/Choices
Time Ac
E‐57 31 SST 178 158 NHO UA RO RM HM HEM BE GS STGS VDT C 39
E‐58 40 PT 315 200 ES EA RP ASP RM BB WA RCH SST A 3
E‐59 31 PT 213 138 ES EA RM RO ASP HEM WA ICT SST B 2
E‐60 19 PT 250 170 NHOC EA BE HEM RM RO WO ICT RWST C 7
E‐61 40 SST 247 159 NHO EA RP EL RO RM BE ICT CTR SST A 26
E‐62 61 SST 213 130 CHP EA RP NS RM ICT SST A C 2
F‐02 30 PT 213 150 NHOC EA RO RM WP HEM WA ICT RWST C 4
F‐03 40 SST 197 140 CHP EA RP EL RM BB BE RCH SST A 11
F‐04 31 PT 213 138 ES EA RM RO ASP BB WA RCH SST C 8
F‐05 40 SST 274 220 PH EA RP RM RCH SST A 4
F‐06 31 SST 178 160 ES EA RO RM ASP BE IWD RCH SST C 8
F‐07 46 PT 294 178 NHO EA RM WS RO WP BC ICT CTR A 4
F‐08 10 PT 188 130 NH UA HM WA RM BE BAS ICT VDT STGS C 9
F‐09 11 SST 193 160 NHC UA HEM HM WA RM BE ICT VDT STGS C 12
F‐10 11 PT 256 167 NHC UA RM HEM WP WA ASP ICT VDT STGS C 19
F‐11 41 PT 153 75 CHP UE BC WA WP RM HM NTR E 4
F‐13 32 PT 239 143 ES EA RM RO ASP WP NS RCH SST C 17
F‐14 70 PT 203 136 ES EA WP RM ASP BC WA RCH SST D 12
F‐15 31 PT 180 120 ES EA RM RO ASP WP HM RCH SST C 24
F‐16 19 SST 99 115 NHOC EA RO RM HM HEM BC ICT CTR SST D 8
F‐17 11 PT 191 125 NHC UA HEM RM HM BE WA STGS VDT GS D 25
F‐18 10 SST 157 148 NH UA HM BC WA RM BAS STGS ICT VDT C 7
F‐19 10 SST 175 135 NH UA HM WA BE BB RM STGS ICT VDT B 9
F‐20 31 PT 192 160 NHO EA RO BE RM HM BC ICT CTR B 9
F‐21 31 PT 195 145 NHO EA RO RM BE HEM HM ICT CTR B 38
F‐22 12 PT 204 145 NHC UA RM HEM WP WA BB ICT VDT STGS D 17
F‐24 40 PT 292 130 PH EA RP BC RM HM RCH SST A 7
F‐25 19 PT 802 160 PH EA RM BC HM WP NTR E 1
F‐26 45 PT 460 188 CHP EA NS RM WP RWST ICT A 14
F‐27 31 SST 148 115 NHO EA RM RO BC WP HM ICT CTR SST B 4
F‐28 10 SST 112 100 NH UA HM BE BAS ST WA STGS VDT GS D 10
F‐30 31 PT 560 121 NHO EA RM RO ASP HEM PC NTR E 40
F‐31 16 MST 94 103 NHO EA RO BE HM RM BB SST ICT D 8
F‐32 40 PT 375 175 PH EA RP RM WP WA ASP RCH SST A 11
F‐34 30 MST 87 117 NHOC EA RO RM BE WP HEM SST ICT D 7
F‐35 12 MST 101 138 NHC EA WP RM RO HM BE SST ICT D 11
F‐36 45 PT 25 197 CHP EA NS NTR E 2
F‐37 12 SST 228 177 NHC EA WP RM WA BB BC ICT SST B 19
F‐38 31 SST 143 160 NHO UA BE RM RO HM HEM GS STGS VDT B 12
F‐39 31 SST 167 150 NHO UA HM BC RO WA BE GS STGS VDT B 8
82
A-1. Land Management Action Schedule - Hammond Hill State Forest (Tompkins No. 2)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top Five Species Action
Options/Choices
Time Ac
F‐40 31 SST 203 138 NHO EA BE RM RO BC HM ICT CTR SST B 16
F‐41 31 PT 190 115 NHO EA BE RO RM HM BB ICT CTR B 11
F‐42 10 SST 150 128 NH UA WA HM RM BAS RO STGS ICT VDT B 12
F‐43 45 PT 245 153 CHP EA NS RM ASP ICT RWST A 6
F‐44 32 PT 258 140 NH EA RM ASP WA HM RO ICT CTR B 11
F‐45 10 SST 166 118 NH UA HM BC WA RM BAS NTR E 26
G‐03 10 PT 76 68 NH UA HM BE RM PC BB ICT VDT STGS D 18
G‐04 30 MST 147 140 NHOC EA RM WP RO BE ST SST ICT D 4
G‐05 31 SST 92 105 NHO EA RM RO BE HM ST ICT CTR SST B 5
G‐06 12 SST 109 145 NHC UA WP RM RO ASP STGS GS ICT D 2
* Table does not include natural and protection areas or non‐forested areas. Total 2,746
A-2. Land Management Action Schedule - Yellow Barn State Forest (Tompkins No. 5)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top 5 Species Actions
Options/Choices
AcTime
A‐01 16 SST 113 105 NHO EA RO HM WA IWD ICT CTR SST D 5
A‐02 32 SST 177 120 NH EA RM WA RO HM BH ICT CTR SST D 9
A‐04 10 SST 135 103 NH UA HM BE SH WA BU STGS GS VDT D 7
A‐06 47 PT 339 173 NH EA JL WA RM HM BC RWST SST A B C 10
A‐08 12 SST 179 137 NHC UA HM BH RM RO WP STGS GS ICT D 2
A‐09 14 PT 171 104 NHO EA WA RM WP RO HM CTR FSI ICT D 16
A‐10 47 PT 358 191 NH EA JL WA BH RM RO RWST SST A B C 18
A‐11 32 PT 373 180 CHP EA JL WA RM BC RWST SST A 11
A‐13 62 SST 174 123 NH UE WA RP JL RM APL RWST VDT ATR D 7
B‐01 10 PT 216 110 NH UA WA BC ICT CTR FSI D 2
B‐02 47 PT 346 165 NH EA JL WA HM RO RM RWST SST A B C 7
B‐03 47 PT 358 210 NH EA JL RM RWST SST A B C 3
B‐04 52 PT 200 125 NH EA BC BL HM ICT CTR FSI D 5
B‐05 67 SST 214 163 CHP EA HM JL NS RM BC RWST ICT SST D 7
B‐06 40 SST 243 155 PH EA RP RM RCH SST A 7
B‐07 31 PT 237 180 ES EA RM ASP WA RO BC RCH SST D 2
C‐01 62 SST 257 173 NH UE RP JL RM BC ASP ICT SST VDT A 16
C‐02 29 PT 401 193 CHP EA JL RM WA SHR BB RWST ICT D 18
C‐03 47 PT 360 195 NH EA JL RM RO BB BC RWST SST A B C 19
C‐04 14 PT 153 90 NH EA RP RM WP BB CTR FSI ICT D 5
C‐05 16 SST 124 113 NHO EA RO RM BE WP BC ICT CTR SST D 10
C‐06 70 PT 220 100 ES EA ASP RM SP HM RCH SST A 5
C‐07 12 PT 172 115 NHC UA ASP WP HM RM BE ICT STS STGS D 4
C‐09 70 SST 191 123 NHC EA RM WP HM RO WA ICT CTR SST D 13
C‐10 12 SST 162 133 NHC EA RM ASP RO WP BE ICT CTR SST D 6
C‐11 16 SST 150 140 NOA EA RO RM BE ICT CTR SST D 5
83
A-2. Land Management Action Schedule - Yellow Barn State Forest (Tompkins No. 5)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top 5 Species Actions
Options/Choices
Time Ac
C‐12 16 PT 165 126 NOA EA RO RM BE WO HM ICT CTR B 12
C‐13 31 S‐S 87 90 PH UE RM JP RO ASP BE CTR FSI VDT D 9
C‐14 12 PT 219 148 NHC UA ASP RM WP RO HM ICT VDT STGS D 28
C‐15 70 SST 180 138 ES EA RM WP ASP RO WA RCH SST D 14
C‐16 31 PT 187 150 NHO EA RO RM BB BC WP ICT PTR B 6
C‐17 31 PT 166 112 NHO EA RM RO BE WA HEM ICT CTR B 57
C‐18 10 LST 103 90 NHOC EA WP RO RM SST PTR B 3
C‐19 16 SST 164 129 NHO EA RO RM WO HM ASP ICT CTR SST B 30
C‐20 16 PT 183 120 NHO EA RM RO YB ASP BE ICT CTR B 8
C‐21 40 SST 222 147 NHOC EA RP RM WP WA RO RCH PTR C 7
C‐22 31 PT 226 140 ES EA RO ASP RM RCH SST D 2
C‐24 31 PT 156 110 NHO EA RO RM BE BS WO ICT CTR FSI D 3
C‐25 10 SST 95 93 NH UA HM BE BC RM STGS GS VDT D 17
C‐26 31 SST 180 130 ES EA RO HM ASP RM RCH SST D 5
C‐27 40 PT 310 141 ES EA RP HM ASP RO RM RCH SST C 18
C‐28 60 SST 260 200 ES EA RP HM ASP WA RM RCH SST C 5
C‐29 31 SST 119 100 ES EA RO YB ASP RM WA RCH SST B 5
C‐30 40 PT 223 140 PH EA RP RM WA BC SHR RCH PTR C 5
C‐31 60 PT 259 154 CHP EA RP RM NS WP BC RWST ICT SST D 10
C‐32 30 PT 444 133 PH EA RM WP RO SHR ASP NTR E 11
C‐33 31 PT 170 108 NHO EA RO RM BB ASP HM ICT CTR B 13
C‐34 16 SST 96 98 NHO EA RO HM BE RM BAS ICT CTR SST D 39
C‐35 16 SST 121 120 NHO EA RO BE RM HM WA ICT CTR SST D 42
C‐36 19 SST 197 135 NHOC EA RO RM ASP BE WA ICT CTR SST D 8
C‐37 14 PT 220 134 ES EA RM ASP WP WA BB RCH SST D 21
C‐38 40 SST 218 147 NH EA RM WA WP RP BC RCH PTR C 6
C‐39 12 SST 114 90 NHC EA HM WP RO WA BC ICT CTR SST D 5
C‐40 10 SST 171 138 NHO EA RO SH RM BE ASP ICT CTR SST D 15
C‐41 40 PT 449 207 ES EA RP WA ASP RM DF RCH SST D 12
C‐42 16 PT 243 200 NHO EA RO BE RM WA IWD ICT CTR FSI D 4
C‐43 60 PT 260 157 NH EA RP RM WP WA ASP RWST ICT SST D 41
C‐44 11 SST 205 167 NHC UA HEM HM RM BAS WA STGS STS GS D 4
C‐46 11 SST 159 155 NHC UA HEM RO HM BE WA STGS VDT GS D 13
C‐47 12 PT 177 120 NHC UA RM RO WP WA ASP ICT VDT STGS D 28
C‐48 41 PT 234 116 ES EA WP ASP WA RM BB RCH CTR A 24
C‐49 11 SST 205 140 NHC UA HEM RM HM BE STGS VDT GS D 3
C‐50 11 SST 211 150 NHC UA HEM HM RM WA BB STGS ICT GS D 2
C‐51 11 SST 225 145 NHC UA HEM RM HM WA BE STGS VDT GS D 13
C‐52 12 PT 202 122 NHOC EA RM WP WA BB WO ICT CTR FSI D 12
C‐53 63 SST 175 125 CHP EA RP NS SP WP RM NTR E 4
84
A-2. Land Management Action Schedule - Yellow Barn State Forest (Tompkins No. 5)
Stand Type Size TPA BA Obj
Typ
Fut.
Age
Top 5 Species Actions
Options/Choices
AcTime
D‐01 31 SST 97 85 NHO EA RO BE WA RM BC ICT CTR SST D 7
D‐02 31 SST 97 85 NHO EA RO BE WA RM BC ICT CTR SST D 16
D‐03 10 SST 131 115 NH UA BE HM RM BC WA STGS GS VDT D 5
D‐04 11 SST 109 100 NHC UA RM
HE
M WA BB RO NTR E 2
D‐06 31 SST 134 103 NHO EA RO BE RM WO BC ICT CTR SST D 8
D‐07 16 SST 119 121 NHO EA RO RM WO BE HM ICT CTR SST D 20
D‐08 71 PT 297 182 CHP EA NS WP RM RO WO ICT
RW
ST D 12
D‐09 42 SST 166 110 PH EA JL SP RM WP NS RWST SST ICT D 10
D‐10 14 SST 156 124 ES EA RM ASP RO WO BB RCH SST D 20
D‐11 10 PT 219 134 NH UA BC BL RM HM RO ICT VDT FSI D 32
D‐12 67 SST 201 165 CHP EA HM NS BC JL WA RWST ICT SST D 1
D‐15 31 SST 145 114 NHO EA RO WA BC BB RM ICT CTR SST D 18
D‐17 52 PT 171 112 NH UE BC BL RO RM HM ICT VDT CTR C 32
D‐18 10 SST 145 120 NHO EA BC RM SHR HM RO ICT CTR SST C 5
D‐19 52 PT 236 150 NH EA RM BL WA BC RO ICT CTR C 16
D‐22 11 SST 233 187 NHC UA HEM RM RO BE BB NTR F 6
D‐23 41 PT 196 107 NHOC EA RM WP HM WA BC ICT CTR A 14
D‐24 14 PT 163 110 NH UA RM BC WA WP RO ICT VDT STGS C 7
D‐25 31 PT 152 117 ES EA ASP WA RM RO BE RCH SST C 10
D‐26 70 PT 142 85 NHOC EA RM JP WA SHR RO ICT SST A 2
D‐27 31 SST 152 116 ES EA RO HM ASP RM WA RCH SST C 12
D‐28 16 SST 97 90 NHO EA RO HM RM WA BB ICT CTR SST C 9
D‐29 10 PT 183 128 NHO UA RM RO HM WA ASP ICT VDT STGS C 8
D‐30 71 PT 140 100 CHP EA NS RO RP RM ASP ICT SST A 11
D‐31 63 SST 177 144 CHP EA NS RM RP HM BC ICT SST A 19
D‐32 63 SST 174 127 CHP EA RP NS SP WP HM ICT SST A 6
* Table does not include natural and protection areas or non‐forested areas. Total 1,091
A-3. Facility Maintenance and Improvement Projects by Priority
Annual Projects
State Forest Project Description Priority
Tompkins #2 Inspect and clear about 1 mile of MAPPWD trail; replace trail signs as necessary. 1
Unit wide Mark and inspect commercial forest product sales and wildlife habitat improvement
projects as staff, forest product markets and weather permit (on average 183 acres
per year if the plan is fully implemented). Monitor and address forest regeneration as
described in the plan.
1
Unit wide Communicate with DEC ANNR volunteer partners regarding management actions
outlined in the plan.
1
Unit wide Communicate and collaborate with other DEC Divisions, including DEC Forest
Rangers, Environmental Conservation Officers, town and county highway
departments.
1
Unit wide Administer temporary revocable permits (TRP’s) for special events. 1
Tompkins #2 Collaborate with the Friends of Hammond Hill to inspect and maintain the multiple
use trail network, clear brush and deadfall and maintain trail markers.
2
85
A-3. Facility Maintenance and Improvement Projects by Priority
Annual Projects
State Forest Project Description Priority
Tompkins #2 Collaborate with the Finger Lakes Trail Conference to inspect and maintain the
Finger Lakes trail, clear brush and deadfall and maintain trail marking.
2
Unit wide Monitor forest health, including participating in the annual aerial survey over the
region.
2
Unit wide Collaborate with the Caroline Drifters Snowmobile Club to inspect, maintain and
groom the snowmobile trail network; clear deadfall and maintain trail markers/signs.
2
Unit wide Pick-up trash on the Unit each spring. Work with AANR volunteer partners, town
highway departments and correction facility crews (if available) to pick up trash.
3
New Projects
Tompkins #2 Seek to acquire a trail network gateway conservation easement across private land
to maintain and improve access from the town parking lot on Hammond Hill road to
the Unit’s trail network through trail Y1. Based on GIS analysis, the easement would
be about 825 feet long. If acquired, develop an action plan and seek funds along
with broad based stakeholder support to upgrade the trail base, trail tread and water
drainage system. Upgrading of the trail easement segment would require
collaboration between the Friends of Hammond Hill, the town of Dryden and the
DEC.
1
Tompkins #5 Block with rocks or a dirt berm the former snowmobile connector trail on that crosses
the west section of the forest, west of Yellow Barn road.
1
Unit wide Design, develop and install a two or three panel kiosk with input from AANR partners
and collaborate with the town of Dryden to install it at the public parking lot on
Hammond Hill road. Include Yellow Barn State Forest on the kiosk and update the
Hammond Hill brochure to include Yellow Barn.
1
Tompkins #2 Build a new 2 car parking lot for MAPPWD trail off of Star Stanton Hill road; inspect
and replace culverts as resources allow and smooth/drain the trail tread as required.
2
Tompkins #2 Replace the large wood State Forest ID sign at the corner of Hammond Hill and Irish
Settlement roads. Plan on replacing the sign every 5 years.
2
Tompkins #2 Collaborate with the Finger Lakes Trust, Cayuga Trails Club and other AANR
partners to build a 1 mile pedestrian connector trail that provides access to Six Mile
Creek from the town of Dryden public parking lot on Hammond Hill road. Consider
upgrading the trail to allow for cross country ski use if demand is sufficient and
resources are available.
2
Tompkins #2 Build vernal up to 20 vernal pools 300 to 3,000 square feet in size. Fund
construction through grants, partnerships or forest products harvesting management
actions.
2
Tompkins #2 Grade, smooth, resurface or reroute about 2,200 feet of trail as shown on the
Stewardship Needs Map.
2
Tompkins #2 Grade, smooth, surface or reroute about 500 feet of wet trail sections as shown on
the Stewardship Needs Map.
2
Unit wide Install water bars and broad-based dips at the estimated 20 trail segment locations
shown on the Stewardship Needs Map with a small trail dozer (SWECO) or a mini
excavator. An estimated 700 feet of trail needs new water bars and dips. This need
will increase over time as trail use increases.
2
Unit wide Collaborate with AANR groups to inspect, flag and rebuild existing water bars and
dips throughout the trail network on the Unit; especially at the locations noted on the
Stewardship Needs Map.
2
Tompkins #2 Block the Canaan road shale pit with several large rocks and the entrance to Y6.
Leave enough space for trail users to pass through.
3
Tompkins #2 Build and install 3 heavy duty gates 15 feet wide help to restrict ATV and 4 x 4 traffic
- especially on the snowmobile trail network (see Stewardship needs Map for
locations). Large 3 to 4 ton rocks may be needed in some instances to supplement
the gates.
3
Tompkins #2 Install a new large wood State Forest ID sign on Harford-Slaterville road; work with
DEC Operations on the final sign location.
3
Tompkins #5 Collaborate with the Finger Lakes Land Trust and other Conservation Partners to 3
86
A-3. Facility Maintenance and Improvement Projects by Priority
Annual Projects
State Forest Project Description Priority
establish a connector trail from Hammond Hill State Forest to Yellow Barn State
Forest west towards the City of Ithaca.
Tompkins #5 Install a new large wood State Forest ID sign on Yellow Barn Rd.; work with DEC
Operations on the final sign location. Once installed, plan on replacing the sign every
5 years.
3
Periodic Projects
Tompkins #2 Grade, rake and mow the shoulders of the 1.6 mile Canaan Rd. PFAR and 1.0 miles
of Red Man Run PFAR once every 5 years. Remove fallen tree limbs and branches
from the road shoulders. Clean and inspect culverts prior to grading; replace as
necessary. Mow the road shoulders no more than 10 feet from the ditch line.
Consider conducting culvert replacement, resurfacing, grading and mowing as part
of forest product sale related work.
1
Unit wide Paint and maintain 43.7 miles of boundary lines; replace small State Forest ID signs,
placing signs about 400 feet apart along maintained public roads and 660 feet apart
along interior lines. Replace witness posts as needed every 7 years.
1
Tompkins #2 Inspect and maintain the two wood 25 MPH signs on the Canaan road PFAR;
replace the signs every 5 years.
2
Tompkins #5 Inspect and maintain the existing large wood State Forest ID sign on Irish Settlement
road; replace the sign every 5 years.
2
Tompkins #5 Determine boundary along the north line of Tract 12 east of Irish Settlement Road,
mark, monument corners and paint line, Survey 7-55-595.
2
Unit wide Seek fee simple acquisition and/or purchase of development rights through
conservation easements to consolidate boundary lines and/or to provide landscape
connectivity for wildlife and recreationists as described by the Emerald necklace in
the New York State 2009 Open Space Plan. Information on the Open Space Plan is
available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/47990.html
2
Tompkins #2 Inspect and resolve boundary line discrepancy along the west side of Hammond Hill
road, east line of sub lot 2 in lot 98, tracts 106A, 125A.
3
Tompkins #2 Monument the corners and blaze the exterior lines of Proposal M, Survey No. 7-55-
50.
3
Tompkins #5 Inspect, monument corners and paint boundary lines along 4 acres of private land
north of Card Road, Survey No. 7-55-491 (1991) Proposals B and C.
3
Unit wide Encourage design and development of a method to monitor the effectiveness of
adaptive ecosystem management principles and strategies outlined by this plan.
Embrace opportunities to collaborate with educational institutions to develop and
employ internships for qualified undergraduate and graduate students in an
ecosystem monitoring project. Develop job descriptions and expectations in
collaboration with educational institutions.
3
A-4. Amphibians & Reptiles New York GAP Analysis Data EMAP Hexagon 420 and HERP * Atlas
No. Common Name Scientific Name Model Status
1 Allegheny Dusky Salamander * Desmognathus ochrophaeus Confirmed & Predicted
2 American Toad * Bufo americanus HERP Atlas Only
3 Black Rat Snake Elaphe o. obsoleta Confirmed & Predicted
4 Bullfrog * Rana catesbeiana Confirmed & Predicted
5 Common Garter Snake * Thamnophis sirtalis Confirmed & Predicted
6 Common Map Turtle Graptemys geographica Predicted
7 Common Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus Predicted
8 Common Snapping Turtle * Chelydra s. serpentina Confirmed & Predicted
9 E. Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus Predicted
10 Eastern American Toad Bufo a. americanus Confirmed & Predicted
11 Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene c. carolina Predicted
12 Eastern Milk Snake Lampropeltis t. triangulum Confirmed & Predicted
13 Four-Toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Confirmed & Predicted
87
A-4. Amphibians & Reptiles New York GAP Analysis Data EMAP Hexagon 420 and HERP * Atlas
No. Common Name Scientific Name Model Status
14 Gray Treefrog * Hyla versicolor Confirmed & Predicted
15 Green Frog * Rana clamitans melanota Confirmed & Predicted
16 Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Confirmed & Predicted
17 Jefferson Salamander Complex Ambystoma jeffersonianum x later Predicted
18 Longtail Salamander Eurycea l. longicauda Predicted
19 N. Red Salamander Pseudotriton r. ruber Confirmed & Predicted
20 Northern Black Racer Coluber c. constrictor Predicted
21 Northern Brown Snake Storeria d. dekayi Confirmed & Predicted
22 Northern Coal Skink Eumeces a. anthracinus Confirmed & Predicted
23 Northern Dusky Salamander * Desmognathus fuscus Confirmed & Predicted
24 Northern Leopard Frog * Rana pipiens Confirmed & Predicted
25 Northern Redback Salamander * Plethodon c. cinereus Confirmed & Predicted
26 Northern Redbelly Snake Storeria o. occipitomaculata Confirmed & Predicted
27 Northern Ringneck Snake * Diadophis punctatus edwardsii Confirmed & Predicted
28 Northern Slimy Salamander * Plethodon glutinosus Confirmed & Predicted
29 Northern Spring Peeper * Pseudacris c. crucifer Confirmed & Predicted
30 Northern Spring Salamander * Gyrinophilus p. porphyriticus Confirmed & Predicted
31 Northern Two-lined Salamander * Eurycea bislineata Confirmed & Predicted
32 Northern Water Snake * Nerodia s. sipedon Confirmed & Predicted
33 Painted Turtle * Chrysemys picta Confirmed & Predicted
34 Pickerel Frog * Rana palustris Confirmed & Predicted
35 Red-spotted Newt * Notophthalmus v. viridescens Confirmed & Predicted
36 Smooth Green Snake Liochlorophis vernalis Confirmed & Predicted
37 Spotted Salamander * Ambystoma maculatum Confirmed & Predicted
38 Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata Predicted
39 Spring Peeper * Pseudacris crucifer Herp Atlas Only
40 Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Predicted
41 Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata Predicted
42 Wood Frog * Rana sylvatica Confirmed & Predicted
43 Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta Confirmed & Predicted
Please note: Species with an “*” are listed in the Dryden USGS quadrangle of the New York State Reptile and
Amphibian Reptile (also known as HERP Atlas Project0. Additionally, data from the NY GAP project was reviewed
with regional wildlife biologists and edited based on their recommendations. Additional information on the HERP Atlas
Project is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7140.html.
A-5. Mammals New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420
No. Common Name Scientific Name Model Status
1 American Beaver Castor canadensis Confirmed & Predicted
2 Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Confirmed & Predicted
3 Black Bear Ursus americanus Predicted
4 Bobcat Lynx rufus Predicted
5 Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Confirmed & Predicted
6 Common Raccoon Procyon lotor Confirmed & Predicted
7 Coyote Canis latrans Confirmed & Predicted
8 Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Confirmed & Predicted
9 E. small-footed Myotis Myotis leibii Predicted
10 Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Confirmed & Predicted
11 Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Confirmed & Predicted
12 Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Confirmed & Predicted
13 Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus Confirmed & Predicted
14 Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Confirmed & Predicted
15 Fisher Martes pennanti Predicted
88
A-5. Mammals New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420
No. Common Name Scientific Name Model Status
16 Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Confirmed & Predicted
17 Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargentus Confirmed & Predicted
18 Hairy-tailed Mole Parascalops breweri Confirmed & Predicted
19 Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Confirmed & Predicted
20 House Mouse Mus musculus Confirmed & Predicted
21 Indiana Myotis Myotis sodalis Predicted
22 Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Predicted
23 Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Confirmed & Predicted
24 Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Confirmed & Predicted
25 Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Confirmed & Predicted
26 Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius Confirmed & Predicted
27 Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Confirmed & Predicted
28 Mink Mustela vison Confirmed & Predicted
29 N. Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda Confirmed & Predicted
30 Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Confirmed & Predicted
31 Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis Confirmed & Predicted
32 Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Confirmed & Predicted
33 Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Predicted
34 Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Confirmed & Predicted
35 Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Confirmed & Predicted
36 Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Confirmed & Predicted
37 River Otter Lutra canadensis Confirmed & Predicted
38 Short-tailed Weasel (Ermine) Mustela erminea Confirmed & Predicted
39 Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Confirmed & Predicted
40 Smoky Shrew Sorex fumeus Confirmed & Predicted
41 Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Confirmed & Predicted
42 Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi Confirmed & Predicted
43 Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans Confirmed & Predicted
44 Southern Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi Confirmed & Predicted
45 Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata Confirmed & Predicted
46 Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Confirmed & Predicted
47 Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana Confirmed & Predicted
48 White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Confirmed & Predicted
49 White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Confirmed & Predicted
50 Woodchuck Marmota monax Confirmed & Predicted
51 Woodland Jumping Mouse Napaeozapus insignis Confirmed & Predicted
52 Woodland Vole Microtus pinetorum Confirmed & Predicted
A-6. Birds New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420
No. Common Name Scientific Name Model Status
1 Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Confirmed & Predicted
2 Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Confirmed & Predicted
3 American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Confirmed & Predicted
4 American Black Duck Anas rubripes Confirmed & Predicted
5 American Coot Fulica americana Confirmed & Predicted
6 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Confirmed & Predicted
7 American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Confirmed & Predicted
8 American Kestrel Falco sparverius Confirmed & Predicted
89
A-6. Birds New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420
No. Common Name Model Status Scientific Name
9 American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Confirmed & Predicted
10 American Robin Turdus migratorius Confirmed & Predicted
11 American Wigeon Anas americana Predicted
12 American Woodcock Scolopax minor Confirmed & Predicted
13 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Predicted
14 Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Confirmed & Predicted
15 Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Confirmed & Predicted
16 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Confirmed & Predicted
17 Barred Owl Strix varia Confirmed & Predicted
18 Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Confirmed & Predicted
19 Black Tern Chlidonias niger Confirmed & Predicted
20 Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia Confirmed & Predicted
21 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Confirmed & Predicted
22 Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca Confirmed & Predicted
23 Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Confirmed & Predicted
24 Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Confirmed & Predicted
25 Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Confirmed & Predicted
26 Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Confirmed & Predicted
27 Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Confirmed & Predicted
28 Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Confirmed & Predicted
29 Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarus Confirmed & Predicted
30 Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Confirmed & Predicted
31 Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Confirmed & Predicted
32 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Confirmed & Predicted
33 Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Confirmed & Predicted
34 Brown Creeper Certhia americana Confirmed & Predicted
35 Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Confirmed & Predicted
36 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Confirmed & Predicted
37 Canada Goose Branta canadensis Confirmed & Predicted
38 Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Confirmed & Predicted
39 Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Confirmed & Predicted
40 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Confirmed & Predicted
41 Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Confirmed & Predicted
42 Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Confirmed & Predicted
43 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Confirmed & Predicted
44 Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Confirmed & Predicted
45 Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota Confirmed & Predicted
46 Common Barn-Owl Tyto alba Confirmed & Predicted
47 Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Confirmed & Predicted
48 Common Merganser Mergus merganser Confirmed & Predicted
49 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Confirmed & Predicted
50 Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Confirmed & Predicted
51 Common Raven Corvus corax Confirmed & Predicted
52 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Confirmed & Predicted
53 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Confirmed & Predicted
54 Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Confirmed & Predicted
55 Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Confirmed & Predicted
56 Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Confirmed & Predicted
90
A-6. Birds New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420
No. Common Name Model Status Scientific Name
57 Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Confirmed & Predicted
58 Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Confirmed & Predicted
59 Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Confirmed & Predicted
60 Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Confirmed & Predicted
61 Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio Confirmed & Predicted
62 Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Confirmed & Predicted
63 Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens Confirmed & Predicted
64 European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Confirmed & Predicted
65 Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Confirmed & Predicted
66 Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Confirmed & Predicted
67 Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus Confirmed
68 Gadwall Anas strepera Confirmed & Predicted
69 Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Confirmed & Predicted
70 Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Confirmed & Predicted
71 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Confirmed & Predicted
72 Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Confirmed & Predicted
73 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Confirmed & Predicted
74 Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Confirmed & Predicted
75 Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Confirmed & Predicted
76 Green Heron Butorides virescens Confirmed & Predicted
77 Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Predicted
78 Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Confirmed & Predicted
79 Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Confirmed & Predicted
80 Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Confirmed & Predicted
81 Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Confirmed & Predicted
82 Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Confirmed & Predicted
83 Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Confirmed & Predicted
84 House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Confirmed
85 House Sparrow Passer domesticus Confirmed & Predicted
86 House Wren Troglodytes aedon Confirmed & Predicted
87 Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Confirmed & Predicted
88 Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Confirmed
89 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Confirmed & Predicted
90 King Rail Rallus elegans Confirmed & Predicted
91 Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Confirmed & Predicted
92 Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Confirmed & Predicted
93 Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Predicted
94 Long-eared Owl Asio otus Predicted
95 Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla Confirmed & Predicted
96 Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Confirmed & Predicted
97 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Confirmed & Predicted
98 Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Confirmed & Predicted
99 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Confirmed & Predicted
100 Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia Confirmed & Predicted
101 N. Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Confirmed & Predicted
102 Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Confirmed & Predicted
103 Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Confirmed
104 Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Confirmed & Predicted
91
A-6. Birds New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420
No. Common Name Scientific Name Model Status
105 Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Confirmed & Predicted
106 Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Confirmed & Predicted
107 Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Confirmed & Predicted
108 Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Confirmed & Predicted
109 Northern Parula Parula americana Confirmed
110 Northern Pintail Anas acuta Predicted
111 Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Confirmed & Predicted
112 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Predicted
113 Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Confirmed & Predicted
114 Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Confirmed & Predicted
115 Osprey Pandion haliaetus Confirmed & Predicted
116 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Confirmed & Predicted
117 Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Confirmed & Predicted
118 Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Confirmed & Predicted
119 Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Confirmed & Predicted
120 Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Confirmed & Predicted
121 Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Confirmed & Predicted
122 Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Predicted
123 Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Confirmed & Predicted
124 Purple Martin Progne subis Confirmed & Predicted
125 Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Confirmed & Predicted
126 Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Confirmed & Predicted
127 Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Confirmed & Predicted
128 Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Confirmed & Predicted
129 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Confirmed & Predicted
130 Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Confirmed & Predicted
131 Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Confirmed & Predicted
132 Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Confirmed & Predicted
133 Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Confirmed & Predicted
134 Rock Dove Columba livia Confirmed & Predicted
135 Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Confirmed & Predicted
136 Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Confirmed & Predicted
137 Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Confirmed & Predicted
138 Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Confirmed & Predicted
139 Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Confirmed & Predicted
140 Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Predicted
141 Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Confirmed & Predicted
142 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Predicted
143 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Confirmed & Predicted
144 Sora Porzana carolina Confirmed & Predicted
145 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Confirmed & Predicted
146 Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Confirmed
147 Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Confirmed & Predicted
148 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Confirmed & Predicted
149 Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor Confirmed & Predicted
150 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Confirmed & Predicted
151 Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Confirmed & Predicted
152 Veery Catharus fuscescens Confirmed & Predicted
92
A-6. Birds New York GAP Analysis Data - EMAP Hexagon 420
No. Common Name Scientific Name Model Status
153 Vesper Sparrow Vesper Sparrow Confirmed & Predicted
154 Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Confirmed & Predicted
155 Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Confirmed & Predicted
156 Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Confirmed & Predicted
157 White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Confirmed & Predicted
158 White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus Confirmed & Predicted
159 White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Confirmed & Predicted
160 White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucop Confirmed
161 Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Confirmed & Predicted
162 Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Confirmed & Predicted
163 Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Confirmed & Predicted
164 Wood Duck Aix sponsa Confirmed & Predicted
165 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Confirmed & Predicted
166 Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum Confirmed & Predicted
167 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Confirmed & Predicted
168 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Confirmed & Predicted
169 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Confirmed & Predicted
170 Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Confirmed & Predicted
171 Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Confirmed & Predicted
172 Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons Confirmed & Predicted
173 Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica Predicted
A-7. Breeding Bird Atlas Data Blocks 3869A, 3869B, 3869D, 3870C and 3870D
Common Name Scientific Name New York
Status
Global
Rank*
State
Rank**
Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax viresens Protected G5 S3
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Protected G5 S5
American Black Duck Anas rubripes Game Sp. G4 S4
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Game Sp. G5 S5
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Protected G5 S5
American Kestrel Falco sparverius Protected G5 S5
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Protected G5 S5
American Robin Turdus migratorius Protected G5 S5
American Woodcock Scolopax minor Game Sp. G5 S5
Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Protected G5 S5
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Protected G5 S5
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Protected G5 S5
Barred Owl Strix varia Protected G5 S5
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Protected G5 S5
Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia Protected G5 S5
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus rethropthalmus Protected G5 S5
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Protected G5 S5
Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Protected G5 S5
Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Protected G5 S5
Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca Protected G5 S5
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Protected G5 S5
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Protected G5 S5
Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Protected G5 S5
Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Protected G5 S5
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Protected G5 S5
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Protected G5 S5
93
A-7. Breeding Bird Atlas Data Blocks 3869A, 3869B, 3869D, 3870C and 3870D
Common Name Scientific Name New York
Status
Global State
Rank* Rank**
Brown Creeper Certhia americana Protected G5 S5
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Protected G5 S5
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Protected G5 S5
Canada Goose Branta canadensis Game Sp. G5 S5
Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Protected G5 S5
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Protected G5 S5
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Protected G5 S5
Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Protected G5 S5
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Protected G5 S5
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Protected G5 S5
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Protected
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Protected G5 S5
Common Merganser Mergus merganser Game Sp.
Common Raven Corvus corax Protected G5 S4
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Protected G5 S5
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Pro-S. C. G4 S4
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Protected G5 S5
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Protected G5 S5
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Pro-S. C. G5 S5
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Protected G5 S5
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Protected G5 S5
Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Protected G5 S5
Eastern Screech-Owl Megascops asio Protected G5 S5
Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Protected G5 S5
Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens Protected G5 S5
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Unprotect G5 SE
Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Protected G5 S5
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Protected G5 S5
Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Pro-S. C. G4 S4
Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Pro-S. C. G4 S4
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Protected G5 S5
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Protected G5 S5
Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Protected G5 S5
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Protected G5 S5
Green Heron Butorides virescens Protected G5 S5
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Protected G5 S5
Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Threat G4 S3
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Protected G5 S5
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cullatus Game Sp. G5 S4
Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Protected G5 S5
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Pro-S. C. G5 S5
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Protected G5 SE
House Sparrow Passer domesticus Unprotect G5 SE
House Wren Troglodytes aedon Protected G5 S5
Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Protected G5 S5
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Protected G5 S5
Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Protected G5 S5
Long-eared Owl Asio otus Protected G5 S3
Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla Protected G5 S5
Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Protected G5 S5
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Game Sp. G5 S5
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Protected G5 S5
Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia Protected G5 S5
94
A-7. Breeding Bird Atlas Data Blocks 3869A, 3869B, 3869D, 3870C and 3870D
Common Name Scientific Name New York
Status
Global State
Rank* Rank**
Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Protected G5 S5
Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Game Sp.
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Protected G5 S5
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Protected G5 S5
Northern Goshawk Accipter gentilis Pro-S. C. G4 S4
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Threat G5 S3
Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Protected G5 S5
Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Protected G5 S5
Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Protected G5 S5
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Protected G5 S5
Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Threat G5 S3
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Protected G5 S5
Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Protected G5 S5
Pine Warbler Dendrocia pinus Protected
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Protected G5 S5
Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Protected G5 S5
Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Protected G5 S5
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Protected G5 S5
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Protected G5 S5
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpres
erythrocephalus Pro-S. C. G5 S4
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Threat G5 S4
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Protected G5 S5
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Protected G5 S5
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Game Sp. G5 SE
Rock Pigeon Columba livia Unprotect G5 SE
Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Protected G5 S5
Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Protected G5 S5
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Game Sp. G5 S5
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Protected G5 S5
Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Protected G5 S5
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Protected G5 S4
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Protected G5 S5
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Protected G5 S5
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Protected G5 S5
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Protected G5 S5
Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Protected G5 S5
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Protected G5 S4
Veery Catharus fuscescens Protected G5 S5
Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Pro-S. C. G5 S5
Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Game Sp. G5 S5
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Protected G5 S5
Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Protected
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Protected G5 S5
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Protected G5 S5
Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Game Sp. G5 S5
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Protected G5 S5
Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata Game Sp.
Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Protected G5 S5
Wood Duck Aix sponsa Game Sp. G5 S5
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Protected G5 S5
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Protected G5 S5
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Protected G5 S5
95
A-7. Breeding Bird Atlas Data Blocks 3869A, 3869B, 3869D, 3870C and 3870D
Common Name Scientific Name New York
Status
Global State
Rank* Rank**
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Protected G5 S5
Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons Protected G5 S5
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Protected G5 S5
Key to Breeding Bird Atlas Field Codes
Protection Status (State of New York) - New York State legal status as of January 1994.
Endangered - Any native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction in New York State.
Game Sp. = Game Species - (defined in ECL section 11-0103): any of a variety of big game or small
game species as stated in the ECL; many normally have an open season for at least part of the year, and
are protected at other times.
Protected - (defined in ECL section 11-0103): wild game, protected wild birds & endangered species of
wildlife.
Pro-S. C.= Protected Special Concern - those species which are not yet recognized as endangered or
threatened, but for which documented concern exists for their continued welfare in New York. Unlike the
first two categories, species of special concern receive no additional legal protection under ECL section
11-0535.
Threat = Threatened - any native species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future in New York State.
Unprotect = Unprotected
Global and State Ranks
Each element has a global and state rank as determined by the New York Natural Heritage Program.
These ranks carry no legal weight. The global rank reflects the rarity of the element throughout the world
and the state rank reflects the rarity within New York State. Infraspecific taxa are also assigned a taxon
rank to reflect the infraspecific taxon's rank throughout the world.
Global Rank - New York Natural Heritage program global rank as of January 1994.
G4: Uncommon but not rare; apparently secure, but with cause for some long-term concern; usually more
than 100 occurrences or 10,000 individuals
G5: Common; demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure.
State Rank - The state rank reflects the rarity of the animal within New York State
S3: Typically 21 to 100 occurrences, limited acreage, or miles of stream in New York State.
S4: Apparently secure in New York State.
S5: Demonstrably secure in New York State.
SE: Exotic, not native to New York State.
A-8. Possible Sites for Vernal Pool Creation
State Forest Site
# Acres Soil type Long. (X) Lat. (Y)
Hammond Hill 1 0.9 Alluvial land -76.3139746668 42.4395998293
Hammond Hill 2 2.3 Wayland & Papakating soils -76.3198020984 42.4355691474
Hammond Hill 3 4.9 Middlebury & Tioga silt loam -76.317442507 42.4340765526
Hammond Hill 4 3.1 Volusia channery silt loam -76.2904512774 42.4382047219
Total 11.2
Notes: Project Forest Type Codes are the same as the treatment table.
96
A-9. Streams in the Twin Sheds Unit
State Forest Fisheries Index Number Stream Name Length (Miles)
Yellow Barn ONT-66-12-P296-74-15A No Name 0.2
Hammond Hill ONT-66-12-P296-75-5 Sixmile Creek 0.3
Yellow Barn ONT-66-12-P296-75-5 Sixmile Creek 0.2
Hammond Hill ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-44 No Name 0.7
Hammond Hill ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-46 No Name 0.1
Yellow Barn ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-48 No Name 1.0
Yellow Barn ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-49 No Name 0.4
Hammond Hill ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-51 No Name 0.7
Hammond Hill ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-53 No Name 1.3
Hammond Hill ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-53-1 No Name 0.5
Yellow Barn ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-57 No Name 0.1
Yellow Barn ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-57-1 No Name 0.2
Hammond Hill ONT-66-12-P296-75-5-P345A-1 No Name 0.2
Hammond Hill SR-16-7 West Branch of Owego Creek 1.2
Hammond Hill SR-16-7-24-1 No Name 1.8
Hammond Hill SR-16-7-26 No Name 1.2
Hammond Hill SR-16-7-26-2 No Name 0.2
Hammond Hill SR-16-7-27 No Name 0.2
Hammond Hill SR-16-7-28 No Name 0.3
Hammond Hill SR-16-7-29 No Name 0.6
Hammond Hill SR-16-7-31 No Name 0.6
Unit Total 12
A-10. Taxes Paid on the Unit’s State Forests (2009 Tax Roll)
Town State
Forest Acres Assessment
Town
Taxes
(Jan 10)
School
Taxes (Sept
09)
Special
District Taxes
(Jan 10)
Total Taxes
Caroline Tomp 2 231.71 $431,100.00 $2,552.00 $8,738.00 $595.00 $11,885.00
Dryden Tomp 2 3,466.68 $5,827,900.00 $8,355.00 $118,128.00 $8,988.00 $135,471.00
Tomp 5 45.74 $77,500.00 $111.00 $1,571.00 $119.00 $1,801.00
Total Unit 3,744.13 $7,505,781.00 $11,018.00 $128,437.00 $9,702.00 $149,157.00
A-11. Previous Owners of the Hammond Hill State Forest
Date Acquired Acres Former Owner(s) Town
6/18/1934 310.13 Van Horn Dryden
6/18/1934 50.89 Shurter Dryden
6/18/1934 78.82 Stanton Dryden
6/18/1934 70.26 Druley Dryden
7/10/1934 31.48 Hutchings Dryden
7/10/1934 67.96 Depew Dryden
7/10/1934 190.34 Meier Caroline-25.88 & Dryden-164.46
7/10/1934 190.19 Hunt Caroline-80.06& Dryden-110.13
7/10/1934 74.29 Bates Caroline
10/2/1934 128.63 Tompkins County Dryden
12/29/1937 18.98 Goodrich Dryden
10/17/1950 100.60 Baker Dryden
1/24/1956 55.60 Federal Land – Kelsey Dryden
1/24/1956 165.09 Federal Land – Reynolds Dryden
97
A-11. Previous Owners of the Hammond Hill State Forest
Date Acquired Acres Former Owner(s) Town
1/24/1956 25.50 Federal Land – Van Pelt Dryden
1/24/1956 162.00 Federal Land – Myers Dryden
1/24/1956 51.48 Federal Land – Crispell Caroline
1/24/1956 45.19 Federal Land – Johnson Caroline
1/24/1956 156.10 Federal Land – Meyers Dryden
1/24/1956 48.93 Federal Land – Edsall Dryden
1/24/1956 52.01 Federal Land – Roth Dryden
1/24/1956 34.50 Federal Land – Hunt Dryden
1/24/1956 194.74 Federal Land – Beatty Dryden
1/24/1956 119.18 Federal Land – Beatty Caroline
1/24/1956 51.85 Federal Land – Detrick Dryden
1/24/1956 43.70 Federal Land – Crispell Dryden
1/24/1956 50.00 Federal Land – Williams Dryden
1/24/1956 93.22 Federal Land – Needham Caroline
1/24/1956 182.26 Federal Land – Holl Caroline
1/24/1956 10.00 Federal Land – Johnson Caroline
1/24/1956 61.60 Federal Land – Gallagher Caroline
1/24/1956 200.00 Federal Land – Gallagher Caroline
5/25/1961 23.52 Sherman Dryden
11/13/1962 407.42 Smith Brothers Caroline-103.10& Dryden-304.32
6/12/1980 18.07 Gallager Dryden
10/11/1984 57.80 Gutchess Dryden
1/14/2008 60.00 Ritz-Roth Estate Dryden
1/24/2009 33.48 Wagner Lumber Co. Dryden
-3.25 Resurvey Dryden
Total Acres 3,712.56 Hammond Hill State Forest
A-12. Previous Owners of the Yellow Barn State Forest
Date
Acquired Acres Former Owner(s) Town
1/24/1956 69.74 Federal Land – Mix Dryden
1/24/1956 82.96 Federal Land – Ross Dryden
1/24/1956 130.00 Federal Land – Tehan Dryden
1/24/1956 198.77 Federal Land – Van Auke Dryden
1/24/1956 69.50 Federal Land – Cole Dryden
1/24/1956 108.31 Federal Land – Edsall Dryden
1/24/1956 173.90 Federal Land – Uhl Dryden
1/24/1956 84.80 Federal Land - Armstrong Dryden
1/24/1956 163.00 Federal Land – Slater Dryden
1/24/1956 161.85 Federal Land – Van Pelt Dryden
3/25/1976 8.21 Little Dryden
5/21/1976 20.03 Town of Dryden Dryden
6/9/1976 4.00 Havington Dryden
98
A-12. Previous Owners of the Yellow Barn State Forest
Date Acres Former Owner(s) Town Acquired
2/6/2002 13.50 Tompkins County Dryden
Total Acres 1,288.57 Yellow Barn State Forest
A-13. Stratigraphic Profile of Southwestern New York (Modified after Van Tyne & Copley)
PERIOD GROUP UNIT LITHOLOGY
Pennsylvanian Pottsville Olean
quartz pebble conglomerate &
sandstone,
quartz pebble, conglomerate, sandstone
& minor shale Mississippian Pocono Knapp
Devonian
Upper
Conewango shale & sandstone scattered
conglomerates
Conneaut Chadakon shale & sandstone scattered
conglomerates
Canadaway
Undifferentiated oil/gas shale & siltstone
Perrysburg oil/gas minor sandstone
West Falls Java, Nunda,
Rhinestreet shale & siltstone apollaceous limestone
Sonyea Middlesex gas shale and siltstone
Genesee shale with minor siltstone & limestone
Middle
Tully gas limestone with minor siltstone &
sandstone
Hamilton
Moscow, Ludlowville
Skaneateles,
Marcellus
gas
shale with minor sandstone &
conglomerate
Onondaga oil/gas limestone
Lower
Tristates Oriskany gas sandstone
Helderberg Manlius Rondout limestone & dolostone
Silurian
Upper
Akron oil/gas dolostone
Salina Camilus, Syracuse,
Vernon shale, siltstone, anhydrite & ahlite
Lockport Lockport gas limestone & dolostone
Clinton
Rochester
Irondequoit Shale & sandstone
Lower
Sodus Reynales
Thorold Limestone & dolostone
Medina Grimsby, Whirlpool gas sandstone & shale quartz sandstone
Ordovician Upper Queenston, Oswego,
Lorraine, Utica
gas
gas
shale & siltstone with minor sandstone
Middle Trenton-
Black River Trenton Black River gas limestone & minor dolostone
Cambrian Upper Little Falls, Galway,
(Theresa), Potsdam
gas
gas
quartz sandstone & dolostone;
sandstone
99
A-13. Stratigraphic Profile of Southwestern New York (Modified after Van Tyne & Copley)
PERIOD GROUP UNIT LITHOLOGY
& sandy dolostone; conglomerate base
Precambrian Gneiss, Marble,
Quartzite
Metamorphic & igneous rocks
A-14. Tree Planting Summary by Species - Twin Sheds Unit
HARDWOODS SOFTWOODS
Species Number Species Number
Black locust 119,450 Norway spruce 386,700
Northern red oak 43,050 Red pine 344,100
White ash 13,450 Scotch pine 132,600
Black cherry 4,800 White spruce 127,500
Sugar maple 3,450 Japanese larch 94,300
Total 184,200 White pine 91,100
Percentage 13.0 European larch 32,550
TOP TEN SPECIES Jack pine 10,000
Species Rank White cedar 9,000
Norway spruce 1 Austrian pine 5,000
Red pine 2 Pitch pine 4,100
Scotch pine 3 Total 1,236,950
White spruce 4 Percentage 87.0
Black locust 5
Japanese larch 6
White pine 7
Northern red oak 8 Total
Softwoods 1,236,950 87.0
European larch 9 Total
Hardwoods 184,200 13.0
White ash 10 Unit Totals 1,421,150 100
A-15. Roads Open to Public Use in the Unit
State Forest Road Name Road Jurisdiction and Type Miles
Hammond Hill Canaan Rd. DEC - Public Forest Access Road 1.5
Yellow Barn Card Rd. Town - Public Road (Plowed) 0.1
Hammond Hill Hammond Hill Rd. Town - Public Road (Plowed) 0.8
Hammond Hill Hammond Hill Rd. Town - Public Road (Seasonal) 2.2
Hammond Hill Harford-Slaterville Rd. County - Public Road (Plowed) 1.4
Hammond Hill Irish Settlement Rd. County - Public Road (Plowed) 0.2
Yellow Barn Irish Settlement Rd. County - Public Road (Plowed) 0.7
Hammond Hill Red Man Run DEC - Public Forest Access Road 1.1
Yellow Barn Signal Tower Rd. Town - Public Road (Plowed) 0.1
Yellow Barn Signal Tower Rd. Town - Public Road (Seasonal) 0.1
Hammond Hill Star Stanton Hill Rd. Town - Public Road (Plowed) 0.6
Hammond Hill Star Stanton Hill Rd. Town - Public Road (Seasonal) 0.4
Yellow Barn Tehan Rd. Town - Public Road (Plowed) 0.1
Yellow Barn Yellow Barn Rd. Town - Public Road (Plowed) 1.9
100
A-15. Roads Open to Public Use in the Unit
State Forest Road Name Road Jurisdiction and Type Miles
Unit Total 11.2
A-16. Special Management Zones (SMZ’s)DEC Division of Lands and Forests
Management Rules for Establishment of Special Management Zones on State
Forests Version: June 2008.
The Strategic Plan for State Forest Management (SPSFM) provides specific details. For more
information, please refer to page 93 of the SPSFM available at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html.
The Bureau of State Land Management’s buffer guidelines can be found at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/sfsmzbuffers.pdf
A-17. Examples of Activities that Require a Temporary Revocable Permit (TRP)
TRP Type
Activity Expedited
(* See note)
Routine Non-
Routine
Non-competitive event or activity when the group size involves 21 to 50 (no
permit is required for non-competitive events or activities of 20 individuals or
less).
Yes
Use of metal detectors by an individual for the limited purpose of retrieving
personal property recently lost on State land by that individual or by utility
companies to locate underground utilities.
Yes
Observational research project or falconry-eyas raptor take in accordance
with the required DEC Special License.
Yes
Non-competitive event or activity when the group size involves 51 to 100
individuals.
Yes
Competitive event or activity. Yes
Group activities when the group size more than 100 individuals. Yes
Fishing tournaments when the group size involves 21 to 50 individuals (no
permit is required for fishing tournament of 20 individuals or less).
Yes
Fishing tournaments with over 50 individuals. Yes
An activity for which a Regional Office previously issued a TRP for the same
activity at the same location within the past two years and where (1) there is
no appreciable difference between the proposed activity described in the
new TRP application; (2) the prior activity was conducted in compliance with
all terms and conditions of the TRP issued for that activity; (3) the prior
activity did not cause or create an adverse impact on natural resources or
create a conflict with another user group; and (4) the previously issued TRP
did not contain a condition prohibiting it from being considered a “Routine
TRP” in the future.
Yes
Routine maintenance of utility lines across State Land not involving
vegetation management.
Yes
Military training and exercises where (1) firearms will not be discharged, (2)
motor vehicles or aircraft will not be used, and (3) no adverse environmental
impact or user conflict is likely to occur.
Yes
Any activity involving motorized equipment, all-terrain vehicle use (ATVs and
ORVs), except for motorized equipment allowed under an Adopt-A-Natural
Resource (AANR) Policy.
Yes
Public road disturbance outside a road right of way where such disturbance
temporary in nature.
Yes
Collection of materials, including scientific specimens, historic artifacts, living
materials, minerals, or wildlife on State Land, and projects requiring State
Museum approval under State Education Law §233.
Yes
Oil and gas development projects (with required lease agreement). Yes
Surveying State Land for exploration purposes, including seismic (with
required lease agreement), geodetic and mineral exploration.
Yes
An activity that may impact rare or endangered or threatened species or Yes
101
A-17. Examples of Activities that Require a Temporary Revocable Permit (TRP)
TRP Type
Activity Expedited
(* See note)
Routine Non-
Routine
species of special concern.
“Contact” research on involving (1) a sensitive site such as sites near known
populations of endangered or threatened species or a species of special
concern, (2) trapping, (3) leaving traps or equipment unattended, (4) digging
soil pits or taking core samples, or (5) physical contact with any fish,
crustacean, shellfish or wildlife species including handling, tagging or
collecting.
Yes
Short‐term access across State Land to private property not to exceed two-
weeks for seasonal opening & closing of camps using existing roadways
where road maintenance or heavy equipment is involved.
Yes
Notes * All activities authorized under an expedited TRP must meet all of the following conditions: no alcohol will be
served; events shall be non-competitive; no trees will be cut; all motor vehicles shall remain on highways open for
such public motor vehicle use; no discharge of firearms will take place during the event. There is no fee for an
expedited permit or for educational institutions. Federal, state, county and local governments are exempt from the
application fee.
A-18. Environmental Impact Statement
This Unit Management Plan (UMP) does not propose any clearcuts of 40 acres or larger,
pesticide applications of more than 40 acres, or prescribed burns in excess of 100 acres.
Therefore the actions in the plan do not exceed the thresholds set forth in the Strategic
Plan/Generic Environmental Impact Statement for State Forest Management.
This Unit Management Plan also does not include any of the following:
1. Forest management activities occurring on acreage occupied by protected species ranked
S1, S2, G1, G2 or G3.
2. Pesticide applications adjacent to plants ranked S1, S2, G1, G2 or G3.
3. Aerial pesticide spraying by airplane or helicopter.
4. Development of facilities with potable water supplies, septic system supported restrooms,
camping areas with more than 10 sites or development in excess of other limits established in
this plan.
5. Well drilling plans.
6. Well pad densities of greater than one well pad in 320 acres or non-compliance with
limitations identified through a tract assessment.
7. Carbon injection and storage or waste water disposal.
Therefore the actions proposed in this UMP do not require any separate site specific
environmental review.
Actions not covered by the Strategic Plan/Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Any action taken by the Department on this Unit that is not addressed in this Unit Management
Plan and is not addressed in the Strategic Plan/Generic Environmental Impact Statement may
need a separate site specific environmental review.
UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Access trails-temporary, unpaved roads which do not provide all weather access within the
Unit. They are not designed for long term and repeated use by heavy equipment. These
corridors were originally constructed for the seasonal removal of forest products by skidding to
log landings or other staging areas. Constructed according to best management practices,
these trails may be used to support other management objectives such as recreational access
corridors. Maintenance is limited to activities which minimally support seasonal access
objectives. (L)
102
Adaptive management-a dynamic approach to forest management in which the effects of
treatments and decisions are continually monitored and used, along with research results, to
modify management on a continuing basis to ensure that objectives are being met. (E)
Aesthetics-forest value, rooted in beauty and visual appreciation and providing a distinct visual
quality. (G)
Age class-trees of a similar size and/or age originating from a single natural event or
regeneration activity. see cohort. (D)
Apple tree release-a management action; the act of removing an overstory of trees and/or
competing vegetation that are shading and potentially inhibiting apple tree growth and fruit
production. (G)
Ash decline-the progressive loss of vigor and health causing the death of ash trees by a
combination of factors. Some factors may include diseases, poor soil/sites, cankers, insects,
winter injury, or drought. (G)
Basal area-the cross sectional area, measured in square feet, of a single stem, including the
bark, measured at breast height (4.5 ft above the ground). (E)
Beech bark disease-a insect and disease pathogen complex involving a scale insect
(Cryptococcus fagi) and a nectria fungus (Nectria coccinea var. faginata). The insect pierces the
bark to feed, allowing a place for the fungus to enter the tree. Fungal activity interrupts the tree's
normal physiological processes and a severely infected tree will most likely die. (G)
Best Management Practices (BMP)-a practice or a combination of practices that are designed
for the protection of water quality of water bodies and riparian areas, and determined to be the
most effective and practicable means of controlling water pollutants. (E)
Biological diversity (Biodiversity)-the variety, abundance and interactions of life forms found
in areas ranging in size from local through regional to global. Biodiversity also encompasses
processes - both ecological and evolutionary that allow organisms to keep adapting and
evolving. Genetic diversity (unique combinations of genes found within and among organisms),
species diversity (number of species in an area), ecological diversity (organization of species
into natural communities and the interplay of these communities with the physical environment -
interactions among organisms and between organisms and their environment is the key here).
Landscape diversity (refers to the geography of different ecosystems across large areas and the
connections between them). (M)
Biological legacy-an organism, living or dead, inherited from a previous ecosystem; biological
legacies often include large trees, snags and down logs left after timber harvesting. (E)
Blowdown-tree or trees felled or broken off by wind. (E)
Browse-portions of woody plants including twigs, shoots and leaves consumed by animals
such as deer. (G)
Buffer zone(s)/buffer strip-a vegetation strip or management zone of varying size, shape, and
character maintained along a stream, lake, road, recreation site or other vegetative zone to
mitigate the impacts of actions on adjacent lands, to enhance aesthetic values or as a best
management practice. (E)
103
Butternut canker-a disease of butternut trees caused by a fungus (Sirococcus clavigignenti-
juglandacearum) that most often kills the tree. (G)
Clast-A fragment of a pre-existing rock or fossil embedded within another rock. (T)
Coarse filter approach-a strategy for conserving biodiversity that involves maintaining a
variety of native ecosystems within a landscape context. A coarse filter approach would ensure
the availability of grasslands, shrublands, open wetlands, forest wetlands, riparian zones,
northern hardwood forest and mixed northern hardwood/conifer forest in various stages of
successional development. This approach assumes that a representative array of native
ecosystems will contain the vast majority of species in a region. (G)
Coarse Woody Material (CWM)-any piece(s) of dead woody material on the ground in forest
stands or in streams. (E)
Cohort-a population of trees that originate after some type of disturbance. (G)
Community-1) an assemblage of plants and animals interacting with one another, occupying a
habitat and often modifying the habitat; a variable assemblage of plant and animal populations
sharing a common environment and occurring repeatedly in the landscape. 2) A group of people
living in a particular local area. (H)(T)
Competitive Events or Activities - Any event or activity on public land in which two or more
contestants compete and at least one of the following apply: a. Participants register, enter, or
complete an application for the event, b. A predetermined course or area is designated. (G)
Conifer-a cone-bearing tree, also referred to as softwood belonging to the botanical group
gymnosperms. (E)
Conversion-a change from one silvicultural system to another or from one tree species to
another. (E)
Coppice-to cut the main stem (particularly of broadleaved species) at the base or to injure the
roots to stimulate the production of new shoots for regeneration. (E)
Corridor-a linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of a designed use
within its boundaries. Examples: recreational trails, transportation or utility rights-of-way. When
referring to wildlife, a corridor may be a defined tract of land connecting two or more areas of
similar management or habitat type through which a species can travel from one area to another
to fulfill any variety of life-sustaining needs. (E)
Cover type(s)-the plant species forming a majority of composition across a given area. (E)
Crown-the part of a tree or woody plant bearing live branches and foliage. (E)
Crown class-a category of tree based on its crown position relative to those of adjacent trees.
Examples:
Dominant-a tree whose crown extends above the general level of the main canopy and
receives full light from above and partial to full light from the sides.
Co-dominant-a tree whose crown helps to form the general level of the main canopy and
receives full light from above and comparatively little from the sides.
Intermediate-a tree whose crown extends into the lower portion of the main canopy and
receives little direct light from above and none from the sides.
104
Suppressed/overtopped-a tree whose crown is completely overtopped by the crowns of
one or more neighboring trees and receives little or no direct sunlight. (E)
Cultural resources-significant historical or archaeological assets on sites as a result of past
human activity which are distinguishable from natural resources. (G)
Cutting interval-the number of years between harvest or regeneration cuts in a stand. (G)
Deciduous-tree and shrub species that lose their leaves or needles in autumn. (G)
Den tree-a tree containing an excavation sufficiently large for nesting, dens or shelter; tree may
be alive or dead. (G)
Designated recreational trail(s)-a Department authorized recreational trail that is signed
and/or mapped. (G)
Diameter (at) Breast Height (DBH)-the diameter of the stem of a tree (outside bark) measured
at breast height (4.5 ft) from the ground. (E)
Disturbance-a natural or human-induced environmental change that alters one or more of the
floral, faunal, and microbial communities within an ecosystem. Timber harvesting is the most
common human disturbance. Wind or ice storms are examples of natural disturbance. (A)
Early successional wildlife habitat-wildlife habitats which have early vegetative stages such
as grass, shrubs or aspen. (G)
Ecosystem(s)-a spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the earth that includes all
interacting organisms and components of the abiotic environment within its boundaries - note:
an ecosystem can be of any size, e.g., a log, pond, field, forest or the earth’s biosphere. (E)
Ecosystem management-the appropriate integration of ecological, economic and social factors
in order to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment to best meet our present and
future needs. Involves management at the landscape level, prompting the biodiversity of natural
communities of plants, animals and seeking to maintain healthy and productive environments.
(D)
Edge-the more or less well-defined boundary between two or more elements of the
environment, e.g., a field adjacent to a woodland or the boundary of different silvicultural
treatments. (E)
Endangered species-any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species
Act of 1976 as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,
and published in the Federal Register. (E)
Even-aged-a class of forest or stand composed of trees of about the same age. The maximum
age difference is generally 10-20 years. (J)
Even-aged (silviculture)-a program of forest management directed to the establishment and
maintenance of stands of trees having relatively little (10-20 yrs) variation in ages. The
guidelines to be applied in using this system at all stages of tree development are uniquely
different from the uneven-aged system. (G)
Exotic-any species introduced from another country or geographic region outside its natural
range. (E)
105
Flood plain-the level or nearly level land with alluvial soils on either or both sides of a stream or
river that is subject to overflow flooding during periods of high water level. (E)
Focused fire-using propane fired torches to burn undesirable plants and an alternative to
pesticide use. Also called flame weeding.
Forestry-the profession embracing the science, art and practice of creating, managing, using
and conserving forests and associated resources for human benefit and in a sustainable
manner to meet desired goals, needs and values. (E)
Forest/Stand development stages-the various stages of forest stand growth and development
ranging from a stand initiation (seedling establishment) stage to an old-growth stage. (I)
Forest type(s)-a community of trees defined by its vegetation, particularly its dominant
vegetation as based on percentage cover of trees. (E)
Forested wetland-an area characterized by woody vegetation where soil is periodically
saturated with or covered by water. (G)
Fragipan-a dense and brittle layer of soil. Its hardness results mainly from extreme density or
compactness rather than from high clay content. The material may be dense enough to restrict
root, nutrient and water penetration. (G)
Fragmentation - 1) the condition by which a landscape is broken into small islands of forest
within a mosaic of other forms of land use or ownership. 2) islands of a particular age class that
remain in areas of younger-aged forest. (E)
Gaps-communities, habitats, successional stages or organisms which have been identified as
lacking in the landscape. (G)
Gap Analysis-a methodology for prioritizing land protection needs by identifying biologically
valuable lands that are threatened by development or degradation. (U)
Geocaching-a high-tech, hide and seek, outdoor activity for utilizing the Global Positioning
System (GPS). (G)
Geographic Information System (GIS) - an organized collection of computer hardware,
software, geographic and descriptive data, personnel, knowledge and procedures designed to
efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, report and display the forms of
geographically referenced information and descriptive information. (E)
Grassland-land on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grasslike plants or forbs. (E)
Group selection-type of uneven-aged forest management used to create openings in the forest
canopy to promote future stand diversity and the establishment of shade intolerant species.
New age classes are established in place of the small groups of trees that were removed. (G)
Habitat-the geographically defined area where environmental conditions (e.g., climate,
topography, etc.) meet the life needs (e.g., food, shelter, etc.) of an organism, population, or
community. (A)
Hardwoods-broad-leafed, deciduous trees belonging to the botanical group Angiospermae. (E)
106
Haul road-permanent, unpaved roads which are not designed for all-weather travel, but may
have hardened or improved surfaces with artificial drainage. They are constructed according to
best management practices primarily for the removal of forest products, providing limited access
within the Unit by log trucks and other heavy equipment. These roads may or may not be open
for public motor vehicle use, depending on management priorities and objectives. They may
serve as recreational access corridors, but are not maintained according to specific standards or
schedules. (N)
Herbicide -a chemical used for killing or controlling the growth of plants. (E)
Improvement thinning-the removal of less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or
larger trees, primarily to improve composition and quality. (E)
Indicator species-species with such specialized ecological needs that they can be used for
assessing the quality, condition or extent of an ecosystem on the basis of their presence and
density or the accumulation and effect of materials in their tissues. (A)
Invasive species-species that have become established outside their natural range which
spread prolifically, displacing other species and sometimes causing environmental damage. (G)
Keystone species-a plant or animal species that strongly influences that functioning of an
entire ecosystem. For example, the way beaver influence wetlands. (G)
Landscape Matrix-the most extensive and connected landscape element type present, which
plays the dominant role in landscape functioning. For example, New York’s South-Central
Highlands (Central Appalachian) landscape is dominantly forest cover; thus, the landscape
matrix is forest cover. (Q)
Late successional forest-a forest beyond the age of economic maturity, generally beyond 100
years of age; typically contain some trees 100 to 200 years old. They may exhibit evidence of
past human or natural disturbances. These forests may exist as entire stands or as smaller
patches within younger stands. Late successional forest implies a forest that is nearing one of
potentially several old stages of forest condition after a relatively long period without a stand-
replacing disturbance (either by humans or natural causes). (P)
Log landing/Log deck-a cleared area to which logs are skidded and are temporarily stored
before being loaded onto trucks for transport. (G)
Long-lived conifers - conifers that are capable of living 135 years or more on forest sites in
Central New York. Tree species typically include eastern hemlock, eastern white pine, Norway
spruce and northern white cedar. (G)
MAPPWD (Motorized Access Permit for People with Disabilities)-a temporary revocable
permit (TRP) that provides a qualified person with a certified disability access to State land by a
suitable motor vehicle, where either the desired location is closed to motor vehicles or is open to
certain motor vehicles, but not the type of motor vehicle desired to be used by that person. By
DEC policy, the MAPPWD permit allows individuals to operate a motor vehicle as designated in
the permit on all roads, trails and geographical areas designated by the Department for such
use and elsewhere as specifically approved, consistent with present law and rules and
regulations. (G)
Mast-all fruits of trees and shrubs used as food for wildlife. Hard mast includes nut-like fruits
such as acorns, beechnuts and chestnuts. Soft mast includes the fleshy fruits of black cherry,
dogwood and serviceberry. (A)
107
Mature forest cover-pertaining to an even-aged stand that has attained most of its potential
height growth, or has reached merchantability standards. Within uneven-aged stands, individual
trees may become mature but the stand itself consists of trees of diverse ages and stages of
development. (E)
Mesic-of sites or habitats characterized by intermediate moisture conditions, i.e., neither
decidedly wet nor dry. (E)
Multiple use-a strategy of land management fulfilling two or more objectives, e.g. forest
products removal and recreation. (G)
Native species-indigenous species that is normally found as part of a particular ecosystem. (E)
Natural area-an area left in a natural condition, usually without direct human intervention, to
attain and sustain a climax condition, the final stage of succession. By management direction,
these areas are not managed for the production of wood products or mineral resources. (G)
Natural regeneration - the establishment of a forest stand from natural seeding, sprouting,
suckering or layering. (E)
Neotropical migratory birds-birds that breed in Canada and the United States and spend our
winter in Mexico, Central America, South America or the Caribbean islands. These species
represent more than 50% (340 of the 600 species) of North American birds. (G)
Nonpoint Source - pollution that arises from an ill-defined and diffuse source, such as runoff
from cultivated fields, agricultural lands, urban areas or forests and wildlands. (E)
Northern hardwood forest-a forest type usually made up of sugar and red maple, American
beech, yellow birch, and to a lesser extent black cherry and white ash. This type represents
about 70 percent of all forests in New York State. (A)
Old growth-an abundance of late successional tree species, at least 180 - 200 years of age in
a contiguous forested landscape that has evolved and reproduced itself naturally, with the
capacity for self perpetuation, arranged in a stratified forest structure consisting of multiple
growth layers throughout the canopy and forest floor, featuring canopy gaps formed by natural
disturbances creating an uneven canopy, and a conspicuous absence of multiple stemmed
trees. Old growth forest sites typically are characterized by an irregular forest floor containing an
abundance of coarse woody materials which are often covered by mosses and lichens; show
limited signs of artificial disturbance and have distinct soil horizons. The understory displays well
developed and diverse surface herbaceous layers. Single, isolated trees may be considered as
old growth if they meet some of the above criteria. (G)
Overstory-that portion of the trees in a forest forming the upper or uppermost canopy layer. (E)
Patch retention-an approach to harvesting based on the retention of structural elements or
biological legacies (trees, snags, logs, etc.) from the harvested stand for integration into the new
stand to achieve various ecological objectives. (E)
Pioneer Hardwood-a plant capable of invading bare sites (newly exposed soil) and persisting
there or colonizing them until supplanted by successional species. (E)
Plantation-a stand composed primarily of trees established by planting or artificial seeding - a
plantation may have tree or understory components that have resulted from natural
regeneration. (E)
108
Poletimber-trees that are generally 6-11 inches diameter at breast height. (G)
Protection area-land excluded from most active management to protect sensitive sites.
Exclusions may include: wood product management, oil and gas exploration and development
and some recreational activities. These sites most often include steep slopes, wet woodlands
and riparian zones along stream corridors. (G)
Public Forest Access Roads (PFAR)-permanent, unpaved roads which may be designed for
all-weather use depending upon their location, surfacing and drainage. These roads provide
primary access for administration and public use within the Unit. The design standards for these
roads are those of the Class A and Class B access roads as provided in the Unpaved Forest
Road Handbook (8/74). As a general guideline, sufficient access is typically achieved when 1
mile of PFAR is developed for each 500 acres of state land, and no position within the Unit lies
more than 1 half mile from a PFAR or public highway. (L) (N)
Pulpwood-low grade or small diameter logs used to make paper products, wood chips, etc. (G)
Quality Deer Management (QDM) - is a management philosophy/practice that unites
landowners, hunters and managers in a common goal of producing biologically and socially
balanced deer herds within existing environmental, social and legal constraints. This approach
typically involves the protection of young bucks, (yearlings & some 2.5 year-old), combined with
an adequate harvest of female deer to maintain a healthy population in balance with existing
habitat conditions and landowner desires. This level of deer management involves the
production of quality deer (bucks, does & fawns), quality habitat, quality hunting experiences
and most importantly quality hunters. (L)
Reforestation - the re-establishment of forest cover by natural or artificial means. (A)
Regeneration-seedlings or saplings of any origin. (J)
Release-1) a treatment designed to free trees from undesirable, usually overtopping, competing
vegetation. (E) 2) a treatment designed to free young trees not past the sapling stage from
undesirable competing vegetation that overtops or closely surrounds them. (F)
Riparian buffer (zones)-areas of transition between terrestrial and aquatic ecological systems.
They are characterized as having soils and vegetation analogous to floodplains, or areas
transitional to upland zones. These areas help protect the water by removing or buffering the
effects of excessive nutrients, sediments, organic matter, pesticides, or pollutants. (A)
Salvage-the removal of dead trees or trees damaged or dying because of injurious agents other
than competition, to recover economic value that would otherwise be lost. (E)
Sapling-a small tree, defined as being between 1 and 5 inches diameter at breast height. (G)
Sawtimber-trees that are generally 12 inches and larger diameter at breast height. (G)
Secondary forest (second growth forest)-a relatively young forest that has been regenerated
naturally or artificially after some drastic interference such as extensive cutting, wildlife, insect or
disease attack or blowdown. (E)
Seedling-a young tree originating from seed that is less than1 inch in diameter. (A)
Seedling/sapling-trees less than 6 inches diameter at breast height. (G)
109
Seed tree cut-the removal of the mature timber in one cutting, except for a small number of
trees left singly, or in small groups, as a source of seed for natural regeneration. (I)
Shade tolerant-the ability of a tree species to germinate and grow at various levels of shade.
Shade tolerant: having the capacity to compete for survival under shaded conditions
Shade intolerant: having the capacity to compete for survival only under direct sunlight
conditions; light demanding species. (E) (G)
Shelterwood cut/method-a regeneration action designed to stimulate reproduction by
implementing a series of cuts over several years that will gradually remove the overstory trees.
Gradual reduction of stand density protects understory trees and provides a seed source for
stand regeneration. (A)
Silviculture-the art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health,
and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and
society on a sustainable basis. (E)
Site - the area in which a plant or forest stand grows, considered in terms of its environment,
particularly as this determines the type and quality of the vegetation the area can support. (E)
Skid trail(s)-a temporary or permanent trail used to skid or forward felled trees from the stumps
to the log landing. (G)
Snags-standing, dead trees, with or without cavities; function as perches, foraging sites and/or
a source of cavities for dens, roosting and/or nesting for wildlife. (G)
Softwoods-generally refers to needle and/or cone bearing trees (conifers) belonging to the
botanical group Gymnospermae. (G)
Spatial analysis-an examination of data in the context of where it occurs geographically or “on
the ground”. This is usually accomplished by tying database information to GIS based maps.(G)
Species-the main category of taxonomic classification into which genera are subdivided,
comprising a group of similar interbreeding individuals sharing a common morphology,
physiology and reproductive process. (E)
Species richness-the number of different species present within a defined area. (A)
Stand-a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class distribution, composition and
structure and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit.(E)
Stand structure-the horizontal and vertical distribution of components of a forest stand
including the height, diameter, crown layers and stems of trees, shrubs, herbaceous understory,
snags and down woody materials. (E)
State Forest/State Reforestation Area-lands owned by the State of New York, administered
by the Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Lands & Forests, and authorized
by Environmental Conservation Law to be devoted to the establishment and maintenance of
forests for watershed protection, the production of timber and other forest products, and for
recreation and kindred purposes. These forests shall be forever devoted to the planting, growth,
and harvesting of such trees (Title 3 Article 9-0303 ECL). (G)
Stemwood-the wood of the stem(s) of a tree, i.e., of its main axis (or axes) as distinct from the
branches (branchwood), stump (stumpwood), or roots. (E).
110
Stocking-the activity of supplying a stock of something; "he supervised the stocking of the
stream with trout". (T)
Succession-the natural series of replacements of one plant community (and the associated
fauna) by another over time and in the absence of disturbance. (A)
Suite-species similar in their habitat needs which may respond similarly to habitat changes.(A)
Sustainable forest management-management that maintains and enhances the long-term
health of forest ecosystems for the benefit of all living things, while providing environmental,
economic, social and cultural opportunities for present and future generations. (A)
Temporary revocable permits (TRPs)-a Department permit which authorizes the use of State
land for a specific purpose for a prescribed length of time. (G)
Thinning-a silvicultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve
growth of remaining trees, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality. (E)
Threatened species-a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future,
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, unless protected. (A)
Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) - pre-commercial silvicultural treatments, intended to
regulate stand density and species composition, while improving wood product quality and
fostering individual tree health and vigor through the removal of undesirable trees. (G)
Understory-the smaller vegetation (shrubs, seedlings, saplings, small trees) within a forest
stand, occupying the vertical zone between the overstory and the herbaceous plants of the
forest floor. (A)
Uneven-aged system(s)-a planned sequence of treatments designed to maintain and
regenerate a stand with three or more age classes. (E)
Uneven-aged stand/forest-a stand with trees of three or more distinct age classes, either
intimately mixed or in small groups. (E)
Universal Design-Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by
all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.
For additional information, see http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm (S)
Watershed-a region or area defined by a network of stream drainage. A watershed includes all
the land from which a particular stream or river is supplied. (G)
Wetland(s)-a transitional area between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that is inundated or
saturated for periods long enough to produce hydric soils & support hydrophytic vegetation. (E)
Variable Density Thinning(s)-a type of thinning used by forest managers to increase the
variation in tree spacing across the stand to promote the development of multiple canopy layers.
Such thinnings usually maintain large numbers of tree in some areas and reduce stand density
or create gaps in other areas.
GLOSSARY REFERENCES
(A). Audubon-New York. Wildlife and Forestry in New York Northern Hardwoods: A Guide for
Forest Owners and Managers. Audubon-New York. Albany, NY.
111
(B). Burns, R.M. & B.H. Honkala (Eds) (1990). Silvics of North America. Volume 1, Conifers.
Volume 2, Hardwoods. United States Forest Service (USFS), Agric. Handbook. 654.
(C). Chambers, Robert. Integrating Timber and Wildlife Management Handbook. Chapter 1.
(D). Gelburd, Diane. Implementing Ecosystem Based Assistance for the Management of Natural
Resources in the Soil Conservation District. USDA SCS.
(E). Helms, John A. (1998). The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters,
Bethesda, MD.
(F). Nyland, Ralph D. 2002, (1996). Silviculture: Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. McGraw-
Hill. New York, NY.
(G). New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Division of Lands
and Forests. Internal references.
(H). Reshke, Carol (1990). Ecological Communities of New York State. NYSDEC.
(I). Smith, D.M., B.C. Larson, M.J. Kelty, P.M.S. Ashton. (1997). The Practice of Silviculture. 9th
ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY.
(J). USFS. Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States. USFS, Agric.
Handbook. 445.
(K). Woolf, H.B. (Ed.) (1977). Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. G. & C. Merriam Co.
Springfield, MA.
(L). Swartz, Kurt C., Editor (2004). State Forest Infrastructure Development Handbook. NYS
DEC, Bureau of State Land Management.
(M). Biodiversity Project Working Group (2004). Terms and definitions.
(N). Swartz, Kurt C., Editor (2004). Unpaved Forest Road Handbook. NYS DEC, Bureau of
State Land Management.
(P). Late Successional (LS) Forests (2011). The Manoment Center for Conservation Sciences.
World Wide Web: http://www.manomet.org/science-applications/natural-capital/late-
successional-forests
(Q). Forman, Richard & Gordon, Michel (1986). Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
(R). The Finger Lakes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006). USFS,
Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, Rutland, VT.
(S). Mace, Ron. The Center of Universal Design. (2007). North Carolina State University. World
Wide Web http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm
(T). Webster’s on-line dictionary. World Wide Web http://www.websters-online-
dictionary.org/definition/english/
(U). Perlman, D.L & Milder, J.C. (2005). Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers and
Citizens. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
112
(V). Quality Deer Management Association (2011). World Wide Web, www.qdma.com/qdm/.
(W). Olympic Habitat Development Study (2011). Word Wide Web
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/silv/ohds/
(X). Clancy, John. M (2011). NYS DEC, Division of Lands and Forests, Cortland, NY.
UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN REFERENCES
Ailes, I.W. (1976). Ecology of the Upland Sandpiper in Central Wisconsin. MS thesis, Univ. of
Wisconsin, Stevens Point, WI. 55p.
Barnes, T.G. (2000). Landscape Ecology and Ecosystems Management. University of
Kentucky, College of Agriculture Report FOR-76, Lexington, KY.
Bell, T. (2008). Personal communication. NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife, Cortland, NY.
Biebighauser, T.R. (2003). A Guide to Creating Vernal Pools. World Wide Web:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/documents/resources.vernal.pdf
Birds of Conservation Concern (2002). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (USFWS) Division of
Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA.
Birch, T.W. (1994). Private Forest Landowners of the Northern United States. USDA Forest
Service Technical Report RB-NE-136, Radnor, PA.
Blossey, B. and Dobson, A. (2011). Assessment of Deer and Earthworm Impacts on Native
Plants study proposal. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Blum, A. and Owens, G. (2009). Five Streams Unit Management Plan. NYSDEC, Sherburne,
NY.
Brierley, E. et al. (2004). Environmental Impacts of the Extraction of Forestry Residues. A report
prepared for Cranfield Unifersity with the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, UK.
Brown, B., M. Koenen and D.W. Mehlman. 1999. Species Management Abstract: Louisiana
Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla). The Nature Conservancy, 3245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100,
Arlington, VA.
Cadwell, D.H. (1991). Surficial Geologic Map of New York. Map and Chart Series No. 40. New
York State Museum, Albany, NY.
Campell, J.L. et al. (2007). Long-term Research at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest.
USDA General Technical Report NRS-17, USDA Forest Service , Newtown Square, PA.
Carter, J.W. (1992). Upland sandpiper. in Schneider, K. J. and D. M. Pence (eds.) Migratory
Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the Northeast. USFWS, Newton Corner, MA. 400p.
Clancy, J.M. (2008). Trail Improvement Plan for The Hammond Hill State Forest
Portions of Trails Y1, Y5, Y6 and B1 - An Amendment to the Friends of Hammond Hill
Adopt-A-Natural Resource (AANR) Agreement. NYSDEC, Cortland, NY.
Clancy, J.M. (2010). Twin Sheds Unit Management Plan Initial Public Information Meetings
Public Comment Summary. NYSDEC, Cortland, NY.
113
Collart, L (2011). Personal communication. NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources, Avon, NY.
Cowardin, L.M. et al. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States. USFWS, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC.
Crawford, J. A., and Semlitsch, R.D. (2007). Estimation of Core Terrestrial Habitat for Stream-
Breeding Salamanders and Delineation of Riparian Buffers for Protection of Biodiversity.
Conservation Biology Volume 21, No. 1, 152-158.
Davis, M.B. and Davis, John (1996). Eastern Old Growth Forests - Prospects for Rediscovery
and Recovery. Island Press, Washington, DC.
DeGraff, R.M., and Rudis, D.D. (1986). New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and
Distribution. USDA Northeastern Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report NE-108.
Dessecker, D.R., and McAuley, D.G. (2001). Importance of Early Successional Grouse Habitat
to Ruffed Grouse & American Woodcock. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29 (2):456-465.
Dieckman, J.M. (1968). A Short History of Tompkins County, DeWitt Historical Society of
Tompkins County, Ithaca, NY.
Draft Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Northeastern United
States (2003). Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation.
Durhans, D.E. (2002) Conservation Assessment–Hanslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii.
USFS North Central Research Station General Technical Report NC-226.
Recreation Master Plan for DEC Region 7 State Forests (2001). NYSDEC, Cortland, NY.
Driscoll, M. (2001). Landscape and Edge Effects on the Distribution Abundance and Nesting
Success of Wood Thrushes in Central New York. M.S. Thesis, SUNY College of Environmental
Science and Forestry, (SUNY CESF).
Dwyer, T.J., G.F. Sepik, E.L. Derleth, & D.G. McAuley. (1982). Demographic characteristics of a
Maine woodcock population and effects of habitat management. USFWS, Fish and Wildlife
Research Report 4.
Edinger, G.J., et. al (2002). Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition. New
York Natural Heritage Program. NYSDEC, Albany, NY.
Ellis, D.M., et.al. (1967). A History of New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY.
Evans, D.J. et al. (2005). State Lands Assessment Project: Biodiversity Inventory of Region 7
State Forests. NYS Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY.
Evers, D.C. (1994). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of Michigan. Michigan State
University Press, East Lansing, MI.
Fisher, D.W., Isachsen, Y.W. and Rickard, L.V. (1970). Geologic Map of New York State. Map
and Chart Series No. 15. New York State Museum, Albany, NY.
Forness, D and Messenger, R. et al. Ed. (2010). Strategic Plan and
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for State Forest Management. NYS DEC, Albany, NY.
114
Franzreb, K. et. al. (2004). Management Strategies for the Conservation of Forest Birds. USFS,
Southern Research Station, Department of Forest Resources, Clemson University, Clemson,
SC.
Frelich, L.E. (1986). Natural Disturbance Frequencies in the Hemlock-Hardwood Forests of the
Upper Great Lakes Region. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 222 p. Ph.D. dissertation,
Madison, WI.
Graham, J.J., et al. (2006). Tioga Unit Management Plan. NYSDEC, Cortland, NY.
Hagan, J.M. and Grove, S.L. (1999). Bird Abundance and Distribution in Managed and Old-
Growth Forest in Maine. The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Report No. MM-9901,
Brunswick, ME.
Hagan, J.M. and Whitman, A.A. (2004). Late Successional Forest: A Disappearing Age Class
and Implications for Biodiversity. Forest Mosaic Science Notes. The Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences. FMSN-2004-2.
Historical and Statistical Gazetter of New York State (1860). RP Smith Publishing Company,
Syracuse, NY.
Homer, C. et al (2007). Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the
Conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. Vol. 73, No.
4, April 2007 pp. 337-341.
Hornbeck, J. H. et al (2003). Conservation Assessment for the Large Round-leaved Orchid in
the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Hornbeck, J.H and Swank, W. T. (1992). Watershed Ecosystem Analysis as a Basis for
Multiple-Use Management of Eastern Forests. Ecological Applications, 2(3), 1992, pp. 238-247.
Horsley, S. B., and D. A. Marquis. (1983). Interference by weeds and deer with Allegheny
hardwood reproduction. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 13:61-69.
Horsley, S. B., S. L. Stout, and D. S. DeCalesta (2003). White-tailed deer impact on the
vegetation dynamics of a northern hardwood forest. Ecological Applications 13:98-118.
Hunter, M.L. (1989). What Constitutes an Old-Growth Stand? Journal of Forestry. 87(8):33-35.
Isachsen, Y.W. et al, editors (2000). Geology of New York: A Simplified Account, 2nd Edition.
New York State Musuem, Albany, NY.
Johnsgard, P.A. (1981). The Plovers, Sandpipers and Snipes of the World. University of
Nebraska Press. Lincoln, NE.
Kammen, C. (2003). History of Tompkins County. Tompkins County, NY.
Karig, D. (2001). Letter and map to Region 7 Supervising Forester David Forness detailing the
location and botanical importance of round leafed orchid.
115
Kirsch, L.M. and Higgins, K.F. (1976). Upland sandpiper nesting and management in North
Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 4(1):16-20.
Kelty, M.J., and Kittredge, D.B. (2003). The Conversion of Even-aged Stands to Uneven-Aged
Structure in Southern New England. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 20:109-116.
Kwasnowski, D. (2010). Notes and Town of Dryden Planning Map provided to the DEC Real
Property Office. NYSDEC, Syracuse, NY.
Leak, W.B. (2003). Regeneration of Patch Harvests in Even-Aged Northern Hardwoods in New
England. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry: 20:188-189.
Leonard, A.G. (2007). History of Hammond, personal communication.
Leopold, D. J. (2002). Field visit and personal communication regarding the Hammond Hill
orchid glade and round leafed orchid populations. SUNY CESF, Syracuse, NY.
Likens, G.E. and Bormann, F.H. (1970). Chemical Analyses of Plant Tissues from the Hubbard
Brook Ecosystem in New Hampshire, Bulletin 79. Yale University School of Forestry, New
Haven, CT.
Litvaitis, J.A. (2003). Shrublands & Early Successional Forests: Critical Habitats Dependent on
Disturbance in the Northeastern United States. Forest Ecology & Management 185: 1-4.
Lovett, G. M. and M. J. Mitchell (2004). Sugar maple and nitrogen cycling in forests of eastern
North America. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:81-88.
Marquis, D. A. (1981). Effect of Deer Browsing on Timber Production in Allegheny Hardwood
Forests of Northwestern Pennsylvania. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Broomall, PA. Page 12.
Marquis, D.A.,R.L. Ernst, S.L. Stout (1992). Prescribing Silvicultural Treatments in Hardwood
Stands of the Alleghenies (Revised). General Technical Report NE-96. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.
McKendree, W. and Isachen, Y.W. (1977). Preliminary Brittle Structure Map of New York. Map
and Chart Series No. 31. New York State Museum, Albany, NY.
Miller, G. T. (2004). Environmental Science - Working with the Earth, 10th Edition (Pacific
Grove, CA: Thomson Learning).
Mix Kone, B.B. (1994). A History of the Town of Caroline, Tompkins County, New York, United
States of America: “People, Progress, Pride 1794-1994.” Slaterville Springs, Town of Caroline
Bicentennial Committee.
Munson, E. (2006). SUNY Cortland Intern. Recreational Analysis of Hammond Hill State Forest.
NYSDEC Lands & Forests Cortland NY.
New York State of Economic Development, State Data Center (2000). Population of New York
State by County 1790 to 2009.
116
New York State Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality Field Guide (2011).
NYSDEC, Empire State Forest Products Association and the Watershed Agricultural Council
Forestry Program, Albany and Walton, NY.
Nyland, R. D. (2003). Even-to uneven-aged: the Challenges of Conversion. Forest Ecology and
Management: 172:291-300.
Perlman, D. L., and Midler, J. (2005). Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers and Citizens
(Washington: Island Press).
Pierce, R.S et al. (1993). Whole-tree Clearcutting in New England: Manager’s Guide to Impacts
on Soils, Streams and Regeneration. USFS Northeastern Experiment Station General Technical
Report NE-172.
Prossner, D., and Brooks, R. (1998). A Verified Habitat Suitability Index for the Louisiana
Waterthrush. Journal of Field Ornithology 69: 288-298.
Puettmann, K.J. (2011). Silvicultural Challenges and Options in the Context of Global Change:
“Simple” Fixes and Opportunities for New Management Approaches. Journal of Forestry, 109:6,
pp. 321-331.
Rawinski, T.J. (2008). Impacts of white-tailed deer overabundance in forest ecosystems: An
overview. USDA Forest Service, Newton Square, PA. Available online at:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/special_interests/white_tailed_deer.pdf.
Riehlman, D. (2007). Personal communication. NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife, Cortland, NY.
Roads, A. F. (2005). Deer Impact on Herbaceous Plants and Shrubs in the Forest. Morris
Arboretum, University of Pennsylvania. World Wide Web (2005)
www.audubon.org/chapter/pa/pa/Rhoads.htm
Robins, J. (2007). Personal communication. NYSDEC, Bureau of Fisheries, Cortland, NY.
Rooney, T. P., and D. M. Waller (2003). Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest
ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 181:165-176.
Rooney, T.P (2001). Deer impacts on forest ecosystems: a North American perspective.
Forestry 74(3): 201-208.
Roth, D. et al (2002). Federal Rural Policy Development in the Twentieth Century. USDA
Economic Research Service.
Royo, A. A., and W. P. Carson (2006). On the formation of dense understory layers in forests
worldwide: consequences and implications for forest dynamics, biodiversity, and succession.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:1345-1362.
Runkle, J. R. (2007). Impacts of Beech Bark Disease and Deer Browsing on the Old-Growth
Forest. American Midland Naturalist 157:241-249.
Russell, R.L, D.B. Zippin, and N.L. Fowler. (2001). Effects of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) on plants, plant populations and communities: A review. American Midland
Naturalist 146: 1-26.
117
Sage, R. W., Jr., W. F. Porter, and H. B. Underwood. (2003). Windows of opportunity: white-
tailed deer and the dynamics of northern hardwood forests of the northeastern United States.
Journal for Nature Conservation 10:213-220.
SaintOurs, F.H. (2002). Conservation Perspectives: Drainage to Dragonflies: Conservation of
Aquatic Invertebrates in Rivers and Streams of Eastern Massachusetts. Department of Biology,
University of Massachusetts Boston, MA.
Sepik, G. F., R. B. Owen, Jr., and M. W. Coulter (1981). A Landowner's Guide to Woodcock
Management in the Northeast. University of Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Misc. Rep.
253. 23 pp. World Wide Web: http://cecommerce.uwex.edu/pdfs/G3578.PDF
Seymour, R. S. et. al. (2002). Natural Distrubance Regimes in Northern North America -
Evaluating Silvicultural Systems using Natural Scales and Frequencies. Forest Ecology and
Management. 155:357-367.
Shirer, R. and Zimmerman, C. (2010). Forest Regeneration in New York State. The Nature
Conservancy. Eastern New York Chapter, Albany, NY.
Smith, C.R., et. al. (2001). A GAP Analysis of New York, NY-GAP. Final Report and Data. U.S.
Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, National GAP Office, Moscow, ID.
Soil Survey of Tompkins County, New York (1965). Series 1961, Number 25. United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Staples, J. (2008). NYSDEC Forest Ranger. Personnel communication.
Swartz, K. C., editor (2004). Unpaved Forest Road Handbook. NYSDEC Bureau of State Land
Management, Albany, NY.
Talbott, S. C. and Yahner, R.H. (2003). Temporal and Spatial Use of Even-Aged Reproduction
Stands by Bird Communities in Central Pennsylvania. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry.
20:117-122.
Tyrrell, L. E. et al. (1998). Information about Old Growth for Selected Forest Type Groups in the
Eastern United States. USFS General Technical Report NC-197, St. Paul, MN.
Vandrei, C. (2009). Videoconference – Archeological Training for State Forest
Management Staff, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany,
NY.
Ward, J.S. (2002). Crop Tree Release Increases Growth of Mature Red Oak Sawtimber.
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry: 19:149-154.
Wasilco, M.R. (2010). Early Successional Forest Habitat - A Study of Private Landowner
Decision-Making in New York State. New York State DEC Bureau of Wildlife, Division of Lands
and Forests and Cornell Cooperative Extension.
White, R.P. (1988). Wintering grounds and migration patterns of the upland sandpiper.
American Birds 42(5):1247-1253.
Wolford, G. (2011). Real Property Summary for the Twin Sheds Unit. NYSDEC, Region 7 Real
Property Office, Syracuse, NY.
118
Yanai, R. D. et al. (2005). New Insights into Calcium Depletion in Northeastern Forests. Journal
of Forestry, January/February 2005 Issue.
Yanai, R. D. (1998). The Effect of Whole-Tree Harvest on Phosphorus Cycling in a Northern
Hardwood Forest. Forest Ecology and Management 104:281-295.
Yachi, S. and Loreau, M. (1999). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Productivity in a Fluctuating
Environment: The Insurance Hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
USA Vol. 96, pp. 1463-1468.
Web Resources/the Net:
Achieving the Policies of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (2006). World Wide Web:
http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/planning/IndicatorsofSuccess.htm
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004). World Wide Web: http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
Conserving New York State’s Biodiversity (2006). The New York State Biodiversity Project.
World Wide Web: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/bri/publications/legacy.html
Cornell Lab of Orthinology (2005). World Wide Web: http://www.birds.cornell.edu
Early Montgomery History. World Wide Web http://www.hopefarm.com/montgony.htm
Ecological Resource of Tompkins County by Tompkins County Planning (2008).
World Wide Web: http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/planning/NRI/eco_resources_page.htm
Federal Rural Development Policy in the Twentieth Century (2002). World Wide Web:
www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/rural_development_policy.html
Finger Lakes Trail Conference. World Wide Web: http://www.fingerlakestrail.org/
Finger Lakes Land Trust - Preserved Lands (2008). World Wide Web:
http://www.fllt.org/protected_lands/index.php
Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources Publications (2005). NYSDEC Division of Fish Wildlife &
Marine Resources. World Wide Web:
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/locator/fwmr.html#hunting
Forest Operations Manual - The Nature Conservancy of Virginia (2004). Available World Wide
Web: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/virginia/misc/art8139
The GAP Analysis Program, Striving to Keep Common Species Common (2004). Available
World Wide Web: http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt
Global Perspectives on Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation in the Northeast: Long-term
Responsibility vs. Immediate Concern (2004). World Wide Web:
http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay/rosenburg_wells.htm
Goodchild on Spatial Analysis (2004). World Wide Web: http://www.csiss.org/learning-
resources/content/goodsa
Hayword Brook Watershed Study: Breeding Birds (1998). Faculty of Forestry and Environmental
Management at the University of New Brunswick, Canada. World Wide Web:
http://www.unbf.ca/forestry/centers/cwru/soe/bredbird.htm
119
The History of New York State Book VII, Chapter VII, Editor Dr. James Sullivan. World Wide
Web: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/state/his/bk7/ch7.html
History of Settlement. World Wide Web: http://www.tompkins-
co.org/planning/compplan/3%20overview.pdf
History of Tompkins County. World Wide Web: http://www.tompkins-
co.org/historian/essay/page2.html
Hunting Wild Turkey (2005). NYSDEC, Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources. World
Wide Web: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/turkey/index.html
Index of Bill Hecht's Scanned Images for Tompkins County (2008). World Wide Web:
www.nytompki.org/hecht_index.htm
Is Acid Rain Killing Off Wood Thrushes? (2002). Winkler, Robert. The National Geographic
News. World Wide Web: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/08
13_020813_acidrain.html
Lake Ontario -Physical and Environmental Features of the Lake Ontario Basin (2008). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. World Wide Web: http://epa.gov/greatlakes/ontario.html
Land Manager’s Guide to Improving Habitat for Scarlet Tanagers and other Forest-Interior Birds
(2004). World Wide Web: http://birds.cornell.edu/conservation/tanager/appalachian.html
Landowners’ Decisions about Early Successional Habitat Study (2011). Available World Wide
Web: http://sites.google.com/site/earlysuccessionalhabitat1/the-study
Manomet Forest Conservation Program - Patch Retention Project (2003). World Wide Web:
http://www.manomentmaine.com/patch.html
Manoment Forest Conservation Program - The Shifting Mosaic Project (2008). World Wide
Web: http://www.manometmaine.org/shiftmosaic.html
MRLC Consortium, National Land Cover Database 2001. World Wide Web: http://www.mrlc.gov
National Audubon Society’s Forest Biodiversity Research Project (2004). World Wide Web:
http://ny.audubon.org/FOREST/index.html
The Nature Conservancy (2005). World Wide Web: http://tnc-ecomanagement.org/
NYSDEC (2010). Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) Plan. World Wide
Web: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/30483.html
NYSDEC (2011). Deer Management Assistance Program. World Wide Web:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/33973.html
NYSDEC (2011). Division of Water NYS Watersheds Management, Monitoring and Assessment
Page and Reports. World Wide Web: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/60135.html.
NYSDEC(2011). Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in New York State, 2012-2016.
World Wide Web: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7211.html
120
NYSDEC (2010). Strategic Plan for State Forest Management. World Wide Web:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html
NYSDEC (2008). World Wide Web: http://www.dec.ny.gov
The NYS Amphibian and Reptile (HERP) Atlas Project (2009). World Wide Web:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7140.html
NYS Office of Real Property Services (2008). World Wide Web: http://www.orps.state.ny.us/
NYS Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (2004). World Wide Web: http://www.dec.ny.gov
Northeast Regional Climate Center, Climate of Ithaca, New York (2005). World Wide Web:
http://met-www.cit.cornell.edu/climate/ithaca/
Ruffed Grouse Facts from the Ruffed Grouse Society (2005). World Wide Web:
http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/ruffed_facts.asp
Stage One: Separate Worlds. World Wide Web (2011). World Wide Weg:
http://caid.ca/RRCAP1.4.pdf
Status of U.S. Species: Setting Conservation Priorities (2005). World Wide Web:
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+tnoframe/u175.htm.
Tompkins County Conservation Plan (2007). World Wide Web:
http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/planning/nri/nri.htm
Tompkins County Forest Management Plan (2007). World Wide Web:
http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/planning/Rural%20Resources/index.htm
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (2008). World Wide Web:
http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/emc/educational_materials.htm
Tompkins County New York Cemetery Records (2008). World Wide Web:
http://www.nytompki.org/tcem.htm
Unique Natural Areas of Tompkins County Brochure (2009). World Wide Web:
http://www.tompkins-co.org/emc/docs/11_una_brochure.pdf
Upper Susquehanna Watershed Coalition (2008). World Wide Web: http://www.u-s-
c.org/html/Aboutus.htm
U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (2004). Available World
Wide Web: http://www.epa.gov/emap/
U.S. Census Bureau Factfinder (2005). World Wide Web: http://factfinder.census.gov/
Valley Heads Moraine (2011). Word Wide Web:
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/RWA/EAS_210/General/FL_topo/Valleyheads.html
Who We Are, How We Got Here. Available World Wide Web:
http://www.ithacajournal.com/communities/tompkinsindex/whoweare.html
121
122
MAPS