A Viewshed Management Plan for the
Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt
National Historic Site:
Reestablishing the River and
Mountain View From the South Lawn
Final Report, March 2010
CITATION
This report was prepared by:
Christopher A. Nowak, PhD
State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Syracuse, New York 13210
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by the State University of New York College of Environmental
Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF) as an account of work sponsored by National Park
Service (NPS). Neither NPS, SUNY-ESF, nor any person acting on behalf of either:
a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or
that the use of any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report
may not infringe privately owned rights;
OR
b. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the
use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report.
Nothing in this "Notice" shall be deemed a disclaimer of any warranty, guarantee,
representation or covenant or waiver or relinquishment of such right by NPS or SUNY-ESF.
__________________________________________________________
Acknowledgments
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the following people and organizations for their contributions to
the successful completion of this viewshed analysis and management planning project. These
people and organizations were instrumental in supporting and finishing these projects.
To the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
(SUNY-ESF) and the National Park Service (NPS) as supporting organizations. I appreciate
the monetary and logistical support provided primarily by the NPS.
Special acknowledgements are extended to the following key people involved in the work:
Dave Hayes (NPS) as Project Manager
Rebecca McGuire (SUNY-ESF) as Project Research Assistant and Master of Science
graduate student
Additionally, it is acknowledged that John Auwaerter, George Curry, and Robin Hoffman
(SUNY-ESF) were co-principal investigators; John and George introduced me to Dave
Hayes and the opportunities to work with the NPS. Susan Blair, a Student Conservation
Association intern, contributed to the project by assisting Rebecca McGuire and Dave Hayes
in field data collection. John Auwaerter and Bob Page provided critical reviews of the draft
of this report.
I appreciate the opportunity to work with the NPS on this important site—the Franklin D.
Roosevelt National Historic Site. It has been revealing to learn about the property and the
man. The opportunity to contribute to the idea of establishing the viewshed according to
Roosevelt’s wishes was an honor and a privilege.
Christopher A. Nowak
iii
___________________________________________________________
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
EnVision
Environmental Visualization System
FDR
Franklin D. Roosevelt
GIS
Geographic Information System
HOFR
Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site
LMS
Landscape Management System
NPS
National Park Service
SUNY-ESF
State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
iv
Contents
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... III
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. IV
CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................................................V
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... vii
1
VIEWSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................... 1-10
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-10
Goal and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1-15
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 1-15
Location and Setting ....................................................................................................................... 1-18
Project Setting ............................................................................................................................. 1-18
Project Background .................................................................................................................... 1-18
Project Area ................................................................................................................................. 1-19
Planning Process and Methods ..................................................................................................... 1-19
Management Direction ................................................................................................................... 1-26
Recommended Treatment of Stands in the Primary Viewshed .......................................... 1-26
Other Treatment Alternatives: Considered But Not Chosen ............................................... 1-26
Desired Future Condition .............................................................................................................. 1-29
Even-Aged Condition Path ....................................................................................................... 1-29
Multi-Aged Condition Path ...................................................................................................... 1-30
Implementation Procedures........................................................................................................... 1-34
Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 1-34
Plan Revision .............................................................................................................................. 1-35
Standards and Guides ............................................................................................................... 1-35
Opportunities and Constraints for Management ....................................................................... 1-36
____________________________________________________________
Contents
Water ............................................................................................................................................ 1-36
Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 1-36
“Virgin” Stand of Hemlocks ..................................................................................................... 1-36
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 1-37
Hiking and Biking Trails ........................................................................................................... 1-37
Trees in the Red House Lower Field ........................................................................................ 1-37
Non-Native Invasive Plants ...................................................................................................... 1-37
Views From the River ................................................................................................................ 1-38
Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................ 1-38
Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................... 1-39
2
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................ 2-41
Appendix 1. Stand Inventory of Tree Populations ..................................................................... 2-42
Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 2-42
Appendix 2. Viewshed Landscape Visualization Analysis ....................................................... 2-56
Appendix 2. Viewshed Landscape Visualization Analysis ....................................................... 2-56
Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 2-56
Visualizing Stand-Level Treatments to Reestablish the River and Mountain
Views ............................................................................................................................................ 2-59
Appendix 3. Views from the River – Analysis of the treated Viewshed Areas on
HOFR ................................................................................................................................................. 2-68
vi
Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Description of stands in the primary and secondary viewshed areas (see
Appendix 1 for more detailed stand information). ................................................................. 1-24
Table 1-2. Tree species observed (X indicates presence of a species in a stand) across
the viewshed project area. .......................................................................................................... 1-25
Table 2-1. Groupings of grid points into different stands. NOTE that Stands 21, 22
and 23 were effectively combined into a single “Stand 2”, and Stands 61 and 62
were combined into a single “Stand 6”..................................................................................... 2-43
Table 2-2. Stand table data for Stand 2 in the primary viewshed area. ........................................ 2-45
Table 2-3. Stand table data for Stand 4 in the primary and secondary viewshed areas. ............ 2-46
Table 2-4. Stand table data for Stand 5 in the primary viewshed area. ....................................... 2-47
Table 2-5. Stand table data for Stand 6 in the primary viewshed area. ....................................... 2-49
Table 2-6. Stand table data for Stand 7 in the primary viewshed area. ....................................... 2-50
Table 2-7. Stand table data for Stand 8 in the primary viewshed area. ....................................... 2-52
Table 2-8. Stand table data for Stand 10 in the secondary viewshed areas. ................................ 2-54
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Drawing of the river and mountain view from the South Lawn, circa 1880
(unknown source). ....................................................................................................................... 1-11
Figure 1-2. FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt on the south lawn in 1933 showing the
historic character of the river and mountain view. The Poughkeepsie railroad
bridge is visible in the background. Illinois Mountain is not visible in this
photograph. (Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, photograph NPx 62-53) (Figure 17
in Auwaerter and Curry 2007) ................................................................................................... 1-12
Figure 1-3. 1942 photograph of the project area which begins at the far end of the
field. The view is looking southwest from Springwood, FDR’s lifelong home,
towards the Hudson River and Illinois Mountain, Hyde Park, New York.
Source: National Park Service .................................................................................................... 1-13
Figure 1-4. 2007 spring photograph of the study area which begins at the far end of
the field. The view is looking southwest from the South Lawn next to
Springwood, FDR’s lifelong home, towards the Hudson River and Illinois
Mountain, Hyde Park, NY. Source: R. McGuire...................................................................... 1-14
Figure 1-5. Stylized diagram of the re-established viewshed as envisioned by
Auwaerter and Curry (2007) (see fig. 18 in the 2007 Auwaerter and Curry
report). NOTE: reference to Shawangunk Mountains should be Illionois
Mountain. ...................................................................................................................................... 1-17
Figure 1-6. Primary and secondary viewshed boundaries originating from the
viewpoint (filled dot) on the South Lawn, as referenced in Figure 1-1 and 1-2.................. 1-21
vii
____________________________________________________________
Contents
Figure 1-7. Delineation of stand boundaries in the primary and secondary viewshed
areas based on a 2004 color-infrared aerial photo. Photo source: National Park
Service. Stand delineation by R. McGuire and C. Nowak. ..................................................... 1-22
Figure 1-8. Stand designations in the primary and secondary viewshed areas based
on Figure 1-6 and ground truthing in 2007. Stand designations by R. McGuire
and C. Nowak. Stands 21, 22 and 23 were subsequently combined into Stand 2,
and Stands 61 and 62 into Stand 6. ............................................................................................ 1-23
Figure 1-9. Computer-generated pre-treatment view from the South Lawn. ............................. 1-27
Figure 1-10. Restored view of river and mountains from the South Lawn after
clearcut removal of interfering trees, leaving well spaced 3 to 5 inch diameter
(dbh) trees as reserves in the treated stands. ............................................................................ 1-28
Figure 1-11. Diagram of complete tree removal (clearcutting) in association with an
even-aged path for the viewshed. Clearcutting removes the entire overstory (the
mature trees) in one operation to establish a new cohort of desirable species
across the site. Source: after Nyland 2002 ................................................................................. 1-31
Figure 1-12. Diagram of shelterwood method in association with an even-aged path
for the viewshed. A shleterwood method seed cutting creates permanent
openings in the main crown canopy and establishes natural regeneration
underneath the overwood of the mature trees. A later removal cutting takes
away the remaining mature age class, leaving a new cohort of regular
constitution that develops into an even-aged community. Source: Nyland 2002 ............... 1-32
Figure 1-13. Diagram of the two-age system in association with a two-aged
condition path for the viewshed. To initiate two-aged silviculture in an
immature single-cohort stand of seed bearing age, foresters cut all but carefully
selected residual trees of upper-canopy positions. The second age class forms
and developes underneath the widely spaced tall trees. When the younger trees
reach midrotation age, foresters will remove the scattered overstory and reduce
the others to a low-density residual of widely spaced trees. They will repeat this
process at intervals equivalent to one-half the rotation for each age class. Source:
Nyland 2002 .................................................................................................................................. 1-33
Figure 2-1. Overstory tree sample point layout and designation across the primary
and secondary viewshed areas. .................................................................................................. 2-44
Figure 2-2. 2007 photograph of the primary viewshed from the South Lawn view
point toward the Hudson River (view is blocked by trees), the Mid-Hudson
Poughkeepsie Bridge (view is blocked by trees), and Illinois Mountain (compare
to computer generate image of same in following Figure 2-3). ............................................. 2-57
Figure 2-3. Computer-generated image of the primary viewshed from the South
Lawn view point toward the Hudson River (view of river is blocked by trees),
the Mid-Hudson Poughkeepsie Bridge (view of bridge is blocked by trees), and
Illinois Mountain (compare to photo image of same in preceding Figure 2-2). .................. 2-58
Figure 2-4. Comparison of computer generated landscape view of the primary
viewshed from the South Lawn view point between the current lower woods
condition (upper image) to that created by a a restoration treatment (lower
image) leaving regularly spaced tree reserves at 3 to 5 inches dbh. ..................................... 2-60
viii
Contents
Figure 2-5. Comparison of restored viewshed (computer image) with 1942 view.
NOTE the bridge in the computer image (black shape at the head of the river)
and the railroad bridge in the photograph. Also NOTE that it appears that the
1942 view is from the second floor of the house, so that more of the river can be
seen than from the lawn itself. ................................................................................................... 2-61
Figure 2-6. Mapped vernal pools, wetlands, marshes or fens (palustrine), and
streams across the HOFR site. Source: NPS. ............................................................................ 2-62
Figure 2-7. Comparison of restored viewshed with all of the area treated (A) versus
the same area with an uncut 50 foot buffer around included wetlands and the
stream along the south side of the site (B) – the images are essentially the same. ............. 2-63
Figure 2-8. Location of trails (formal and informal) across the viewshed project area
and 50 –foot wide uncut buffer zones. ...................................................................................... 2-64
Figure 2-9. Comparison of restored viewshed with an uncut 50 foot buffer around
wetlands (A) with a similar image that includes an uncut buffer along trails
within the area (B). ....................................................................................................................... 2-65
Figure 2-10. Comparison of restored area with reserve up to 5 inches dbh (A) versus
the area with trees at a maximum of 3 inches dbh (B). ........................................................... 2-66
Figure 2-11. Comparison of retored viewshed using 3- to 5-inch reserves (A) with a
shelterwood seed cut in Stand 5 and 7 with a minimum tree size of 20 inches
dbh (B). .......................................................................................................................................... 2-67
Figure 2-12. Points of landscape view (filled dots) from the center of the Hudson
River (as if on a boat) toward the viewshed management area. ........................................... 2-69
Figure 2-13. View of the unrestored and restored viewshed area from the middle of
the Hudson River near the southwestern corner of the historic site. ................................... 2-70
Figure 2-14. View of the unrestored and restored viewshed area from the middle of
the Hudson River ata point 1-mile south the historic site...................................................... 2-71
Figure 2-15. View of the unrestored and restored viewshed area from the middle of
the Hudson River from the old railroad bridge about 3 miles south the historic
site. ................................................................................................................................................. 2-72
ix
VIEWSHED Management Plan
1 VIEWSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site (HOFR) was opened to the public
in 1946, following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s (FDR) death. Both FDR, and his father before
him, requested in their wills that the view from the South Lawn (next to Springwood, the
FDR home) to the Hudson River and the Shawangunk Mountains, be preserved and
maintained (Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
From the current project’s Task Agreement (NPS and SUNY-ESF 2006):
In donating his family home to the American people in December 1943, FDR
requested that it “…be preserved as a National Historic Site and in a
condition as nearly possible approximating the condition of the residence and
grounds prevailing at the expiration of the life estate of Franklin D. Roosevelt,
as herinafter reserved” (Deed of conveyance, Liber 613 page 209). The view
from the FDR Home southwest toward the Mid-Hudson Bridge in
Poughkeepsie was beloved by FDR. It was FDR’s desire that this view to the
southwest be preserved.
Since NPS opened the property to the public in 1946, it has been balancing
preservation with the need to accommodate public visitation and address the
natural dynamics of growth and decline. However, lack of funding has
prevented this area from being maintained. A 20-acre meadow restoration
project completed in 1989 partially addressed this need. In 2002, all lands
within the primary viewshed area were acquired by HOFR, giving the park
for the first time the ability to manage the viewshed.
In the time since FDRs death, forest vegetation has continued to grow and today
obstructs the view of the Mid-Hudson Bridge and Illinois Mountain (locally and
colloquially referred to in the past as the “Shawangunk Mountains”) (Figures 1-3 and
1-4). Management of this interfering forest vegetation is the focus of this planning
and analysis project, and future work in the viewshed area.
1-10
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-1. Drawing of the river and mountain view from the South Lawn, circa 1880
(unknown source).
1-11
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-2. FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt on the south lawn in 1933 showing the historic
character of the river and mountain view. The Poughkeepsie railroad bridge is visible in
the background. Illinois Mountain is not visible in this photograph. (Franklin D.
Roosevelt Library, photograph NPx 62-53) (Figure 17 in Auwaerter and Curry 2007)
1-12
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-3. 1942 photograph of the project area which begins at the far end of the field.
The view is looking southwest from Springwood, FDR’s lifelong home, towards the
Hudson River and Illinois Mountain, Hyde Park, New York. Source: National Park Service
1-13
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-4. 2007 spring photograph of the study area which begins at the far end of the
field. The view is looking southwest from the South Lawn next to Springwood, FDR’s
lifelong home, towards the Hudson River and Illinois Mountain, Hyde Park, NY. Source:
R. McGuire
1-14
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Goal and Objectives
The management goal associated with this plan is to reestablish the FDR viewshed from the
South Lawn, near FDR’s home Springwood, to the southwest so that the view after
management looks like the view as it existed in the 1940s.
The management objective is to remove existing interfering vegetation (tall trees) using
silviculture while maintaining a full set of ecological and social functions in the treated areas.
Ecological functions will be maintained by:
-
protecting wetlands, vernal pools, and streams
-
conserving soils
-
developing diverse vegetative cover (grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees) while
minimizing the presence of non-native, invasive plants
Social functions will be maintained by:
-
maintaining existing hiking trails
-
controlling negative visuals associated with the vegetation management treatments
Two guiding principles were used in developing this plan to management vegetation in
reestablishing the views of the river and mountains:
Principle 1: Apply silviculture
Principle 2: Remove as few trees as possible both within and among stands
It is expected that the silvicultural treatments could be completed in less than 1-year and that
the reestablished view of the river and mountains would last for 20 to 30 years.
PURPOSE
This plan is one element of an overall cultural landscape treatment plan for Springwood,
which is the historic core of the Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site. The overall
treatment plan has been presented in a report entitled Cultural Landscape Report for
Springwood, Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site, Volume II: Treatment
(Auwaerter and Curry 2009). The overall goal of this site-wide treatment plan is to enhance
the historic character of the Springwood cultural landscape. Included in the treatment plan is
a task to reestablish the river and mountain view from the South Lawn (referenced as Task
1-15
VIEWSHED Management Plan
HGR-1 in the Auwaerter and Curry 2009 report), with involved features (river and mountain
view) and settings (Red House lower field and lower woods) for the viewshed management,
as presented by Auwaerter and Curry (2009) in the following text (p. 58):
The view of the Hudson River and Shawangunk Mountains looking south from
the Home was a character-defining feature of the landscape. It was specified
for preservation in both James Roosevelt’s will (1900) and FDR’s deed of
conveyance of the Home to the federal government (1943). From ground level
on the south lawn, the view was directed south and slightly west on axis with
the Hudson Valley, with the river and Poughkeepsie railroad bridge visible in
the distance across the Red House lower field and lower woods of the
Kirchner Place (Figures 1-1 and 1-2 of this report; referenced as fig. 18 in
original report). Following FDR’s death, the park and private property
owners did not maintain the view and it became obscured by growth of the
lower woods in the Kirchner Place and natural succession on the Red House
lower field. This field was cleared in the 1989, but the lower woods on the
Kirchner Place continue to obscure the view. While the mountains are today
partially visible from the south lawn, the Hudson River is not.
The general treatment plan as part of the Cultural Landscape report went on to describe the
focus for a viewshed management plan (this project report) as follows (Auwaerter and Curry
2007, pp. 48-49).
The park is presently developing a viewshed management plan to reopen the
view. This plan will prescribe appropriate forest management practices to
lower the interfering forest canopy. Treatment of this view from the south
lawn should maintain three components: the Red House lower field in the
foreground; deciduous woods in the middle ground (lower woods on the
Kirchner Place); and the river, west bank, railroad bridge, and Shawangunk
Mountains in the distance visible through a dip in the lower woods following
the natural topography (fig. 18). Since the lower woods existed during the
historic period, they should be maintained as a feature in the landscape
(rather than cleared as a field), with a natural, continuous canopy as viewed
from the Home. The viewshed management plan should also address the
vegetation in the bottom of the ravine adjoining the south lawn, which has the
potential to obscure the eastern edge of the view.
The subject viewshed management plan is this report, and it has accomplished what
was set for it by Auwaerter and Curry.
1-16
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-5. Stylized diagram of the re-established viewshed as envisioned by Auwaerter
and Curry (2007) (see fig. 18 in the 2007 Auwaerter and Curry report). NOTE: reference to
Shawangunk Mountains should be Illionois Mountain.
1-17
VIEWSHED Management Plan
LOCATION AND SETTING
Project Setting
From the Task Agreement (NPS and SUNY-ESF 2006):
The Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site (HOFR) , a unit of
Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites (ROVA) , is listed in the National
Register for its national significance as the lifelong home of President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, called by some the most important President in
U.S. history. HOFR preserves a portion of the Roosevelt Family Estate, which
at the time of FDR’s death in 1945 encompassed over 1,500 acres. In 1939,
Congress passed a joint resolution accepting FDR’s intention to gift a portion of
his estate to the people of the United States. One part, encompassing sixteen acres
was given by FDR and his mother to the federal government in September 1939
and developed as the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library and Museum, which opened
to the public in 1941. The second part encompassed thirty-three adjoining acres,
which FDR gave to the federal government in December 1943, subject to his
family’s life estate. This tract encompassed the main house, gardens and
gravesite, and extended from the Post Road (Route 9) to just below the main
house. Following FDR’s death and the family’s relinquishment of their right to
life estate, NPS took over administration the thirty-three acres, which opened to
the public in April 1946 as the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic
Site.
In subsequent years, the surrounding estate lands were subdivided and in part
developed for commercial and residential purposes. In an on-going effort to
preserve estate lands and the historic setting, various parcels were added to
HOFR between 1952 and 2002. When NPS acquired a thirty-five acre parcel
in 2002 from the Beaverkill Conservancy it gained the ability to manage the
primary viewshed from the FDR Home.
Project Background
From the Task Agreement (NPS and SUNY-ESF 2006):
This project builds on a number of contemporary planning documents for
HOFR. These include a master plan completed in 1977, and a Statement of
Management completed in 1978. In 1999, a Cultural Landscape Report for
HOFR, focusing on the original 33-acre historic site, was completed through
a cooperative agreement between the NPS Olmsted Center for Landscape
Preservation (OCLP) and ESF. The CLR encompassed Part I (Site History,
Existing Conditions, Analysis and Evaluation), documenting the evolution of
the landscape over time and determining its significance and integrity. In
2004, a 95% draft of a Land-Use History of the Roosevelt Estate (part of a
1-18
VIEWSHED Management Plan
HRS for the Roosevelt Estate) was completed through the same cooperative
agreement. This history supplements the documentation in the CLR,
providing contextual documentation on the lands surrounding the original
historic site, as well as some new documentation on the landscape of the
historic site. A new General Management Plan (GMP) was begun in 2004 for
all of ROVA, an effort that is ongoing with anticipated completion in 2006.
Lastly, HOFR and ESF are currently developing a Cultural Landscape Report
Part II (Treatment Plan) for HOFR which will include recommendations for
the treatment of the river view from the big house (Springwood). This
viewshed management plan will serve as an implementation plan for the
treatment recommendation.
Project Area
From the Task Agreement (NPS and SUNY-ESF 2006):
The project area consists of a primary viewshed area of approximately 60
acres and a secondary viewshed area of an additional 65 acres. These project
areas are south and west of Springwood, the FDR home. The viewshed
management plan will be integrated into a forthcoming overall forest
management plan for the site. This task agreement is limited to project
planning and treatment prescriptions. Implementation and monitoring will be
addressed as separate projects.
Primary and secondary viewshed areas are shown in Figure 1-6. Subsequent to the
Task Agreement, Curry and Auwaerter (2009) recommended reestablishment of the
primary view, and not the secondary view to the west/southwest. The reasoning for
this is that the secondary view was only minor (circa 1941) and that it only showed
the highlands along the west bank, but not the Hudson River itself; and that reopening
this view would impact the main part of the lower woods along River Road.
Viewshed work as part of the current report focuses on the primary view.
PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODS
A conventional strategic planning process for silviculture and forest management was
applied, using both routine and innovative tools, to determine how to treat which stands in
order to reestablish the river and mountain views from the South Lawn. The following series
of steps were used in the planning process.
YEAR 2006
1) Define objectives (see section entitled Goal and Objectives in the INTRODUCTION of
this report). Goal and objectives were generally set by the NPS.
YEAR 2007
1-19
VIEWSHED Management Plan
2) Define the viewsheds as a set of two 60 degree angle viewing areas, with the primary
viewshed focused to the south/southwest and the secondary viewshed to the southwest/west
(Figure 1-6)
3) Define and inventory stands within the viewshed areas, with a focus on the primary
viewshed (Figures 1-7 and 1-8; also see methods and stand condition results in Appendix 1)
4) Develop an innovative, 3-D, computer-generated model of the viewshed landscape
from the South Lawn to the Poughkeepsie Bridge (see Appendix 2)
5) Evaluate different silvicultural alternatives to the stands in the viewshed landscape using
the computer model developed in Step 4 and determine which silvicultural interventions to
what stands are needed to create a new viewscape that closely matches the 1942 view of the
river and the mountains (Appendix 2)
YEARS 2008, 2009 and 2010
6) Develop and finalize strategic viewshed management plan (this report)
1-20
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-6. Primary and secondary viewshed boundaries originating from the viewpoint
(filled dot) on the South Lawn, as referenced in Figure 1-1 and 1-2.
1-21
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-7. Delineation of stand boundaries in the primary and secondary viewshed areas
based on a 2004 color-infrared aerial photo. Photo source: National Park Service. Stand
delineation by R. McGuire and C. Nowak.
1-22
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-8. Stand designations in the primary and secondary viewshed areas based on
Figure 1-6 and ground truthing in 2007. Stand designations by R. McGuire and C. Nowak.
Stands 21, 22 and 23 were subsequently combined into Stand 2, and Stands 61 and 62 into
Stand 6.
1-23
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Table 1-1. Description of stands in the primary and secondary viewshed areas (see Appendix 1
for more detailed stand information).
Stand*
2
Number of
sample
Age
points
(approxmiate)
6
90
4
6
5
20
6
3
7
17
8
10
Acreage
Number of Basal area
tree stems (square feet
(per acre)
per acre) Common tree species
6.2
289
156
eastern hemlock, northern red oak, sugar maple, sweet birch
90
6.1
415
105
sugar maple, sweet birch, chestnut oak, yellow poplar
90
27.1
404
97
sugar maple, sweet birch
90
4.8
1052
79
eastern hemlock, sugar maple, sweet birch
90
17.7
403
116
northern red oak, sugar maple
2
150
6.5
273
150
northern red oak, sugar maple
5
90 (150)**
29.4
187
162
eastern hemlock, sugar maple
* Two of the stands listed here were composed from a combination of smaller stands from the original forest typing and
inventory: Stand 2 is composed of Stands 21, 22 and 23; and Stand 6 is compared of Stands 61 and 62. These stands were
combined based on similarity in forest cover and to simplfy organization of the land for management.
** Portions of Stand 10 appear to contain eastern hemlock that could be 150 or more years old. It is believed that some of
these older hemlock may exist in the southern part of Stand 10 and possibly Stand 2 (see Stand 21 in Figure 1-8), which FDR
and Nelson Brown, property Forester, referred to as “virgin” and a “primeval grove of hemlocks, whose pristine beauty is
unmarred by the axe” (quote from p. 273 in: Brown, N.C. 1931. Governor Roosevelt’s Forest. American Forests 37: 273-274).
1-24
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Table 1-2. Tree species observed (X indicates presence of a species in a stand) across the viewshed
project area.
Stand
Common name*
Scientific name**
Ailanthus
American beech
American hornbeam
American sycamore
bitternut hickory
black ash
black cherry
black locust
black oak
black tupelo
chestnut oak
eastern hemlock
eastern hophornbeam
eastern white pine
hackberry
mockernut hickory
northern red oak
pignut hickory
red maple
shagbark hickory
sugar maple
swamp white oak
sweet birch
white ash
white oak
yellow-poplar
Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle
Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.
Carpinus caroliniana Walt.
Plantanus occidentalis L.
Carya cordiformis (Wangenh.) K. Koch.
Fraxinus nigra Marsh.
Prunus serotina Ehrh.
Robinia pseudoacacia L.
Quercus velutina Lam.
Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.
Quercus prinus L.
Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr.
Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch.
Pinus strobus L.
Celtis occidentalis L.
Carya tomentosa (Poiret) Nutt.
Quercus rubra L.
Carya glabra (Mill.) Sweet
Acer rubrum L.
Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch.
Acer saccharum Marsh.
Quercus bicolor Willd.
Betula lenta L.
Fraxinus americana L.
Quercus alba L.
Liriodendron tulipifera L.
2
4
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
6
7
8
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Common names are from: Little, E.L. 1953. Check list of native and naturalized trees of the United States
(including Alaska). U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 41, Washington, D.C.
** Scientific names are from: Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of Northeastern
United States and adjacent Canada, 2nd ed. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronz, New York.
1-25
VIEWSHED Management Plan
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A total of seven stands were differentiated in the project area, with six stands in the primary
viewshed and two stands in the secondary viewshed (Figures 1-7 and 1-8). Size of the stands
ranged from 6.1 to 29.4 acres (Table 1-1). All stands were even-aged and approximately 90
years old (personal observation), except Stand 8 which appeared to be 150 years old and
possibly uneven-aged, and parts of Stand 10, with small pockets of 150-yr-old hemlock. All
stands were fully stocked with basal areas ranging from 79 to 162 square feet per acre.
Maximum tree heights were over 100 feet tall (unpublished data). A total of 26 different tree
species were found across all of the stands (Table 1-2). The most common tree species found
were sugar maple, sweet birch, eastern hemlock and northern red oak (also see stand tables in
Appendix 1).
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
Recommended Treatment of Stands in the Primary Viewshed
It is recommended that clearcuts be applied to Stands 21, 4, 5 and 7 to convert these tall,
mid-successional, even-aged stands to early-succession stages that can lead to maintenance
of the viewshed by the future management of even-aged or multiaged stands. Conversion
cuts will require the removal of all trees greater than 3 to 5 inches dbh (Figures 1-9 [pretreatment] and 1-10 [post-treatment]) (also see results of stand evaluations [Appendix 1] and
landscape visualizations [Appendix 2] for bases and justification of this recommendation).
Such conversion cuts can be likened to the silvicultural method “clearcut with reserves”,
where the reserves are uniformly-spaced, desirable (species and character), 3 to 5 inch dbh
trees. It is expected that the reserves will be ~ 50 maples, oaks and hickories per acre across
the stands at approximate 25 to 35 foot spacing. Wide, uniform spacing will enhance visuals,
promote long-term survival of the reserves, and allow for adequate growing space for the
new age class of tree seedlings and saplings. Leaving well spaced 3 to 5 inch trees as
reserves across the stands will immediately create a view like that associated with the forest
that occupied the stands in the lower woods of the viewshed during the 1930s-1940s, temper
extreme environmental effects, enhance visuals, and provide a commercially valuable
product in 20 to 30 years (small- to medium-sized sawtimber).
Other Treatment Alternatives: Considered But Not Chosen
Shelterwood method: Shelterwood methods are considered to be visually pleasing and
temperate in environmental effect as compared to other even-aged treatments. In the
viewshed area, shelterwood cuts that left all trees greater than 20 inches uniformly across the
found treated stands did not improve views of the river and mountains to any appreciable
degree (see Figure 2-9 in Appendix 2). In 10 years after the initial shelterwood seed cut, all
of the larger, older trees would be removed from the stands in a manner similar to a clearcut
or overstory removal.
1-26
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-9. Computer-generated pre-treatment view from the South Lawn.
1-27
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-10. Restored view of river and mountains from the South Lawn after clearcut
removal of interfering trees, leaving well spaced 3 to 5 inch diameter (dbh) trees as
reserves in the treated stands.
1-28
VIEWSHED Management Plan
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
There are two plausible, desired future conditions paths that could be managed to unfold over
the next century in the managed viewshed area: even-aged stand conditions or multi-aged
stand conditions. All condition paths produce treated stands within the primary viewshed that
have a maximum tree heights of 50- to 60-feet, with taller trees surrounding the included
stream, wetlands and vernal pool complexes (see supporting information in Appendix 2).
Primary viewshed stands
While the primary viewshed has six stands, only four stands need to be treated to reestablish
the historic views of the river and mountains: Stands 21, 4, 5 and 7. Other stands in the
viewshed areas can be left to continue normal patterns of stand development, following a
succession path to old growth forest conditions over the course of the next two to three
centuries.
Maximum tree heights with treated stands
Maximum tree heights of 50- to 60-feet are desired because this size of tree matches the size
of trees as likely existed in the 1930-1940 era, and trees any bigger than this size will block
the historic river and mountain views. Fifty- to 60-foot-tall hardwood trees are expected to
have main stems approximately 5 inches in diameter (dbh) and are expected to take a
maximum of 60 years to develop from seed.
Buffered streams, wetlands and vernal pools
It is conventional best management practices to conserve elements of water in managed
forests by designating uncut, or lightly cut, buffer zones around significant water features.
Buffers are designed to protect water quality. High forest cover from tall-tree communities
are maintained in the buffer so as to provide shade to the water feature with related control of
water temperature, and to absorb movement of any soil and nutrients moving off the
managed sites so as to control water clarity and chemistry.
Even-Aged Condition Path
After the initial treatment and reestablishment of the river and mountain views, it will be
possible to maintain the viewshed by completely removing all trees in the subject stands
every 60 years (Figure 1-10). It is expected that this type of cut would need to occur 30 years
after initial treatment, and then every 60 years thereafter. Instead of a clearcut as this
treatment, the stands could be worked through a shelterwood method (Figure 1-11), but that
too would eventually be cut in the same manner as a clearcut.
1-29
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Multi-Aged Condition Path
After the initial treatment and reestablishment of the river and mountain views, it will be
possible to maintain the viewshed by creating stands with two or more distinct, balanced age
classes. In a two-age stand complex, the older age class would occupy 50 percent of the stand
area and would be harvested very 60 years, and the younger age class tended at 30 years and
left on site to grown into the older age class (Figure 1-12). It is expected that the first twoage regeneration and tending cuts would take place 30 years after this initial viewshed
reestablishment treatments.
It would also be possible to maintain the viewshed by creating stands with three distinct,
balanced age classes, separated by 20 years age each, where each age class occupies 33
percent of the stand area and the older age class is completely harvested very 60 years, and
the younger age classes tended at 20 year intervals and left on site to grown into the older age
class. It is expected that the first uneven-aged regeneration and tending cuts would take
place 20 years after this initial viewshed reestablishment treatments.
1-30
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-11. Diagram of complete tree removal (clearcutting) in association with an evenaged path for the viewshed. Clearcutting removes the entire overstory (the mature trees) in
one operation to establish a new cohort of desirable species across the site. Source: after
Nyland 2002
1-31
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-12. Diagram of shelterwood method in association with an even-aged path for the
viewshed. A shleterwood method seed cutting creates permanent openings in the main
crown canopy and establishes natural regeneration underneath the overwood of the
mature trees. A later removal cutting takes away the remaining mature age class, leaving a
new cohort of regular constitution that develops into an even-aged community. Source:
Nyland 2002
1-32
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Figure 1-13. Diagram of the two-age system in association with a two-aged condition path
for the viewshed. To initiate two-aged silviculture in an immature single-cohort stand of
seed bearing age, foresters cut all but carefully selected residual trees of upper-canopy
positions. The second age class forms and developes underneath the widely spaced tall
trees. When the younger trees reach midrotation age, foresters will remove the scattered
overstory and reduce the others to a low-density residual of widely spaced trees. They will
repeat this process at intervals equivalent to one-half the rotation for each age class.
Source: Nyland 2002
1-33
VIEWSHED Management Plan
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
While implementation is set to be part of a separate, subsequent project (see NPS and SUNYESF 2006; task report), a few ideas on implementation are offered in this plan, as follows.
Idea No.1: Development of a future operational plan, or prescription, for each of the four
stands that need treatment should be based on a contemporary inventory of these stands. It is
expected that the stands will have changed in important way in terms of structure and species
composition from when they were first inventoried (2007) and when they will be treated. A
contemporary inventory will allow the forester to understand more specifically the degree of
work effort and the monetary value of the trees that will be harvested. It is expected that there
will be significant value in the trees for both fiber (“pulpwood”) and sawtimber (value
estimate of $10 to $100 of thousands of dollars for the whole viewshed area).
Idea No. 2: The implementation should be conducted by a professional, consulting forester
(e.g., see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Cooperating
Foresters list; http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/46800.html) working with certified logging crew.
Idea No. 3: Emphasis should be placed on applying highest levels of Best Management
Practices to conserve soil and water resources.
Idea No. 4: Tree tops and whole trees that are felled and left on site may create critical,
negative effects on visuals. Timber harvesting should be done as a whole-tree harvest
operation so that all trees and tree tops are removed from the area. If it is not possible to get a
whole-tree harvest operation, it will be necessary to lop all felled trees to less that 2- to 3-feet
above the ground.
Monitoring
While monitoring is set to be part of a separate, subsequent project (see NPS and SUNY-ESF
2006; task report), a few ideas on monitoring are offered in this plan, as follows.
Idea No. 1: Monitoring of the active timber harvest should occur on a weekly basis (by the
hired consulting forester and by NPS personnel) and documented via written inspection
forms.
Idea No. 2: After the completion of the timber harvest, an inspection of the work site should
be conducted as part of monitoring the level of residual damage to trees and soils and the
state of any Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as water bars and closed skid trails
and landings. BMPs should be re-examined periodically throughout the first year or two after
harvest for status and function, particularly after heavy rain events.
Idea No. 3: All stands should be inspected on a yearly basis to document the development of
vegetation and determine needs for management.
1-34
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Plan Revision
It is expected that the current management plan directions and basic information will be valid
for at least 10 years, barring significant change to the forest (e.g., natural catastrophe).
Standards and Guides
Best Management Practices
Anonymous. 2007. New York State Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality,
BMP Field Guide. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany,
New York. See also the following website (accessed 3/12/2009)
http://www.nycwatershed.org/pdfs/BMP%20Field%20Guide.pdf
General
New Hampshire Divison of Forests & Lands, DRED, and the Society for the Protection of
New Hampshire Forests. 1997. Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary
Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire. The Society for the Protection of New
Hampshire Forests, Concord, New Hampshire. See also the following website (accessed
3/12/2009)
http://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource000294_Rep316.pdf
Helm, A.C., M. Paretti, S. Lindeman and K. Gilges. 2002. Forest Operations Manual. The
Nature Conservancy, Clinch Valley Program, Abingdon, Virginia. See also the following
website (accessed 3/13/2009)
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/virginia/misc/art8139.html
Silviculture
Nyland, R.D. 2002. Nyland, R.D. 2002. Silviculture: Concepts and applications. 2nd Ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
1-35
VIEWSHED Management Plan
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR MANAGEMENT
Water
Stands 5 and 7 have vernal pools and two included wetlands, and Stand 5 has a perennial
stream along its southern border (see Figure 2-6 in Appendix 2). An uncut buffer of 50 feet is
proposed around each of these water features. Timber harvest machinery and felled trees
should be kept out of buffers and the water features.
Soils
Adapted from McGuire (2008):
Soils should be relatively robust and able to support various timber harvest
operations. Soils are relatively uniform in the project area, consisting of deep,
well to somewhat excessively drained soils of the Hoosic series and the
Nassau-Cardigan complex (Natural Resource Conservation Service 2007).
Numerous linear rock outcrops are found throughout the site, the length of
them running north to south. Topography is moderately sloping with
elevations ranging from 50 to 120 feet above sea level. Aspect is generally
southwest facing.
“Virgin” Stand of Hemlocks
FDR wanted to leave Stand 10, and possibly Stand 21, in its natural state. It is recommended
here, and in the CLR treatment plan to follow FDR’s intent. From the CLR treatment plan
(Auwaerter and Curry 2007, p. 126):
“Treatment of the lower woods will be detailed in the park’s forthcoming forest management
plan. This plan should address the guidelines in the 1931 report “Management Plan for
Kromelbooge Woods” that was prepared by Irving Isenberg, a College of Forestry graduate,
with FDR’s input. In the context of the overall goal of timber production, the report provided
the following management guidance for the lower woods (Isenberg 1931, p. 4, provided by J.
Auwaerter): It was thought best to treat this area aesthetically because of topography and
other limiting factors. The numerous rock ledges and hollows offset by larger trees give a
beautiful effect. Dead trees should be removed and thinning should be for beauty effect. John
Auwaerter noted an exception to this treatment was an old-growth (purportedly virgin)
hemlock woods along the ridge south of River Road. In a 1931 edition of the journal
American Forests, Nelson Brown wrote that this was a “primeval grove of hemlocks, whose
pristine beauty is unmarred by the ax. This grove is being preserved [by FDR] for posterity
as a museum of what our original forests looked like when the sturdy Dutch forefathers first
1-36
VIEWSHED Management Plan
settled these shores” (Isenberg 1931). The appropriate treatment for this part of the woods
would be the recommendations from Isenberg’s 1931 report: “Leave entirely alone, not even
removing dead trees unless absolutely necessary” (Isenberg 1931, statistics for Compartment
18).
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources in the project area include a 100+ year old stone wall that extends across
Stands 21, 4 and 7, and a historic refuse pile (scattered, associated with a farmstead) in Stand
5. These should be located more specifically on a map and protected during timber
harvesting.
Hiking and Biking Trails
There are a series of hiking and biking trails, primarily by day hikers and occasional
mountain bikers, across the project area. One trail bisects the site (see Figure 2-8 in
Appendix 2). Timber harvesting will directly impact trail use both during (safety issues) and
after (visual impact issues) timber harvesting. It is not possible to buffer the trail system with
uncut areas, as tall, uncut trees will block a large portion of the desired views of the river and
mountains (see Figure 2-9 in Appendix 2).
Trees in the Red House Lower Field
There is a small population of trees in the Red Hourse lower field, between the South Lawn
and Stand 7 (Figures 1-9 and 1-10), that will need to be removed or otherwise lowered in
height, or they will block the view. Historically, there was a small amount of young trees
and shrubs in the lower field in the same areas as today, but the concern is that today’s trees
will continue to grow in height and become a problem.
Non-Native Invasive Plants
The current understory of most of the project area, and particularly Stands 5 and 7, have
significant amounts of non-native invasive plants (McGuire 2008; Master of Science thesis
completed in association with this planning project), including the following problem
species: ground-ivy, Indian strawberry, Japanese barberry, Japanese stilt grass, multiflora
rose, tree-of-heaven, and swallow-wort. The silvicultural treatment planned for the primary
viewshed will likely cause many of these non-native species to expand in abundance across
the project area. Tree-of-heaven was observed to occupy sections of Stands 5 and 7 where the
overstory canopy was opened by natural and anthropogenic (high grade cutting in Stand 5)
disturbances over the past few decades (McGuire 2008). It will be necessary to develop a
species-by-species, non-native invasive plant control program in conjunction with the
silvicultural treatment of overstory trees. Uncontrolled non-native, invasive plants may
reduce native tree regeneration and cause other untoward environmental damage.
1-37
VIEWSHED Management Plan
Views From the River
Silvicultural treatments of the lower woods will change the visuals of the project area from
the Hudson River (see computer images in Appendix 3), though this may occur only from
directly adjacent to the site. The creation of uniformly spaced 3 to 5 inch reserves of sugar
maple, oak and hickory throughout the treated stands will temper the negative visuals
associated with the timber harvest. It is expected that within 5 to 10 years after timber harvest
it will be difficult to discern the harvested stands from the river due to the complete
reoccupancy of the site by the growth of the reserves and other understory plants, and the
regeneration of open space by new tree seedlings.
LITERATURE CITED
Auwaerter, J.E., and G.W. Curry. 2009. Cultural landscape report for Springwood, Home of
Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site, Hyde Park, New York. Volume II Treatment
2009. Olmstead Center for Landscape Preservation, Boston, Massachusetts.
Isenberg, I. 1931. Management Plan for Kromelboge Woods. Unpublished report.
McGuire, R.A. 2008. A retrospective on anthropogenic forest disturbances: Patterns and
response in two Hudson River Valley hardwood stands. Master of Science thesis, State
University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New
York.
Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2007. Soils Information. Available online at
http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi; last accessed August 2007.
NPS and SUNY-ESF (National Park Service and SUNY College of Environmental Science
and Forestry). 2006. Develop a viewshed management plan for the Home of Franklin D.
Roosevelt National Historic Sites. Great Lakes Northern Forest Cooperative Ecosystem
Studies Unit Task Agreement, Cooperative Agreement, H6000C02000.
Nyland, R.D. 2002. Silviculture: Concepts and applications. 2nd Ed. New York: McGrawHill Book Co., New York.
1-38
VIEWSHED Management Plan
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1
basal area
the cross-sectional area of a single stem, including the bark, measured at breast height (4.5 ft
or 1.37 m above the ground)--note the international symbol for basal area is square feet. the
cross-sectional area of all stems of a species or all stems in a stand measured at breast height
and expressed per unit of land
clearcut
a stand in which essentially all trees have been removed in one operation—note depending
on management objectives, a clearcut may or may not have reserve trees left to attain goals
other than regeneration
crown class
a category of tree based on its crown position relative to those of adjacent trees
dbh/DBH/diameter (at) breast height
the diameter of the stem of a tree measured at breast height (4.5 ft or 1.27 m) from the
ground
forest management
the practical application of biological, physical, quantitative, managerial, economic, social,
and policy principles to the regeneration, management, utilization, and conservation of
forests, to meet specified goals and objectives while maintaining the productivity of the
forest—note forest management includes management for aesthetics, fish, recreation, urban
values, water, wilderness, wildlife, wood products, and other forest resource values
fully stocked
see “stocking”; a stand condition defined by a high degree of occupancy by trees, meaning
that the trees dominate the ecology of the site, e.g, wildlife habitat, nutrient cycling, water
dynamics, energy flow; conversely, an understocked stand means that trees have lowered
effect on the ecology of a site compared to a fully stocked stand
live crown ratio (crown length rato)
the ratio of the crown length to total tree height
overstory removal
the cutting of trees constituting an upper canopy layer to release trees or other vegetation in
an understory
pulpwood
roundwood, whole-tree ships, or wood residues that are used for the production of wood pulp
1
Definitions of all terms adapted from: Helms, J.A. (ed.). 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of
American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland.
1-39
VIEWSHED Management Plan
reserve tree
a tree, usually pole-sized or larger, retained in either a dispersed or aggregated manner
sawtimber
logs (sawlogs) cut from trees with minimum diameter and length and with stem quality
suitable for conversion to lumber
shelterwood
the cutting of most trees, leaving those needed to produce sufficient shade to produce a new
age class in a moderated microenvironment—note the sequence of treatments can include
three types of cuttings: (a) an optional preparatory cut to enhance conditions for seed
production, (b) an establishment cut to prepare the seed bed and to create a new age class,
and (c) a removal cut to release established regeneration from competition with the overwood
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
skid
to haul a log from the stump to a collection point (landing) by a skidder
skid trail, skid road
an access cut through the woods for skidding
stand
a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class distribution, composition, and
structure, and growing on a site of sufficient uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit
stocking
an indication of growing space occupany relative to a pre-established standard, usually the
total abundance of trees that a site can support is in the absence of abnormal disturbance
(e.g., a catastrophic wind event)—note common indices of stocking are based on percent
occupancy using measures of basal area
variable radius method, variable-radius plot sampling, point sampling
a type of forest sampling in which the sample is selected with a probability proportional to
tree size—note 1.the variable plot size is proportional to the size of the tree being sampled—
note 2. an angle device (prism) is used to project a constant angle, and all trees wider than
that angle are tallied
water bar
a shallow channel or raised barrier of soil or other mateiral lair diagonally acorss the surface
of a road or skid trail to lead water off the road and prevent soil erosion
1-40
Appendices
2
APPENDICES
2-41
Appendices
APPENDIX 1. STAND INVENTORY OF TREE POPULATIONS
Methods
A 200 x 200 foot grid system was overlain on the primary and secondary viewshed area
using compass, pacing and global positioning system equipment (Figure 2.1). Overstory tree
data was collected at each grid point from May to July 2007 using a variable radius method
with a 10-factor basal area prism. Species, crown class (dominant, codominant, intermediate
and overtopped) and diameter at breast height (dbh; nearest 0.1 inch using a steel tape) were
recorded for each sample tree. All white oak species were combined as “white oak” and all
hickory species were combined as “hickory” for viewshed analysis purposes. Total tree
height was measured for four trees at each grid point plot using a clinometer, one each in the
four different crown classes. Live crown ratio data was collected at approximately 50% of
the plots (lines 8 to 13). Six dominant species were selected to measure live crown ratio.
These included: American sycamore, eastern hemlock, oak, sugar maple, and sweet birch.
These species were most abundant on the property and cover each category of shade
tolerance. Data was collected by dividing the sampled plots into four quadrants N, S, E, and
W and a tree from each of the six dominant species and the four crown classes was selected
in separate quadrants and measured using ocular estimation. Crown ratio was judged for
three to five individuals of each species per crown class. Height and live crown ratio data
were used exclusively in the landscape visualization work.
Stand boundaries were delineated in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) using 2004
aerial photographs provided by the National Park Service (NPS). These delineations were
checked in the field while conducting the forest inventory during the summer of 2007.
Grid point data were combined together to develop stand-level descriptions of tree
community conditions (Table 2-1). All together, there were eight stands in the viewshed,
with two stands comprising the secondary viewshed (part of Stand 4 and Stand 10) and seven
stands comprising the primary viewshed (part of Stand 4 and all of the other stands except
Stand 10).
2-42
Appendices
Table 2-1. Groupings of grid points into different stands. NOTE that Stands 21, 22 and 23 were
effectively combined into a single “Stand 2”, and Stands 61 and 62 were combined into a
single “Stand 6”.
Stand
Grid Point*
21
9,6; 9,7; 10,6; 10,7; 11,6; 11,7
22
9,6; 9,7; 10,6; 10,7; 11,6; 11,7
23
9,6; 9,7; 10,6; 10,7; 11,6; 11,7
4
11,8; 11,9; 12,7; 12,8; 13,6; 14,6
5
1,2; 1,3; 2,1; 2,2; 3,1; 3,2; 4,1; 4,2; 5,1; 5,2; 5,3; 5,4; 6,1; 6,2; 6,3; 6,4; 7,2; 7,3; 7,4; 7,5
61
2,3; 3,3; 4,3
62
2,3; 3,3; 4,3
7
8,3; 8,4; 8,5; 8,6; 9,3; 9,4; 9,5; 10,2; 10,3; 10,4; 10,5; 11,3; 11,4; 11,5; 12,4; 12,5; 12,6
8
7,1; 8,2
10
12,9; 13,7; 13,8; 14,7; 14,8;
* Each grid point is referenced by row and column, e.g., Grid Point 9,6 is row 9 and column 6, with each row
and column line in the field separated by 200 feet distance.
Note that the grid points are the same for Stands 21, 22 and 23, consistent with combining these stands into one
Stand 2, and for Stands 61 and 62 which were combined into a single Stand 6.
2-43
Appendices
Figure 2-1. Overstory tree sample point layout and designation across the primary and
secondary viewshed areas.
2-44
Appendices
Table 2-2. Stand table data for Stand 2 in the primary viewshed area.
American
chestnut
beech
black oak
oak
DBH
eastern
eastern northern
hemlock white pine red oak
pignut
hickory
red maple
sugar
maple
sweet
birch
white oak
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
34.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.5
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
43.3
0.0
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.6
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
0.0
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
6.2
0.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
5.2
2.6
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.4
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
3.7
3.7
0.0
14
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.6
0.0
15
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
1.4
0.0
16
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
1.1
2.2
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
18
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
20
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.8
0.0
2.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
21
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-45
Appendices
Table 2-3. Stand table data for Stand 4 in the primary and secondary viewshed areas.
American
American sycachestnut
beech
more
black oak oak
DBH
eastern
hemlock
northern
red oak
shagbark sugar
hickory
maple
sweet
birch
yellowpoplar
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155.8
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
69.3
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.5
39.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.2
11.5
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
3.1
0.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
0.0
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
2.2
0.0
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
1.8
0.0
3.7
0.0
1.8
14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
15
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.8
21
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
22
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
2-46
Appendices
Table 2-4. Stand table data for Stand 5 in the primary viewshed area.
AmeriAmeriAmerican can
can
black
Ailanthus beech
hornbeam sycamore cherry
DBH
black
locust
black
black oak tupelo
chestnut
oak
eastern
hemlock
eastern
hophornbeam
hackberry
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
114.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
10.2
0.0
10.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
5
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
1.4
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
12
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-47
Appendices
Table 2-4. Continued.
mockernut northern
hickory
red oak
DBH
pignut
hickory
shagbark striped
red maple hickory
maple
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
6
0.0
7
swamp
sweet
white oak birch
white ash white oak
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
68.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.2
40.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.0
11.0
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.1
0.0
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
4.5
0.0
2.3
0.0
1.1
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.9
11
0.0
0.8
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
0.0
13
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
14
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.9
15
0.0
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
16
0.0
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
18
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
21
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
22
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
25
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-48
1
sugar
maple
Appendices
Table 2-5. Stand table data for Stand 6 in the primary viewshed area.
American black
beech
tupelo
DBH
eastern
hemlock
eastern
hophornbeam
pignut
hickory
sugar
red maple maple
sweet
birch
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
605.1
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
302.5
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
67.2
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
9
0.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.1
0.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.0
0.0
7.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
2.1
2.1
0.0
18
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
21
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-49
Appendices
Table 2-6. Stand table data for Stand 7 in the primary viewshed area.
American
black
sycamore black ash locust
DBH
chestnut
black oak oak
eastern
hemlock
northern
red oak
pignut
hickory
shagbark sugar
red maple hickory
maple
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
220.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
17.6
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.9
12
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
14
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.1
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.0
16
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
2.1
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.7
17
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
18
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.3
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
20
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
21
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.7
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
23
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
31.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
2-50
Appendices
Table 2-6. Continued.
swamp
sweet
white oak birch
DBH
white ash white oak
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
9
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
0.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
18
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
19
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-51
Appendices
Table 2-7. Stand table data for Stand 8 in the primary viewshed area.
bitternut
Ailanthus hickory
DBH
black
locust
eastern
black oak hemlock
northern
red oak
sugar
red maple maple
swamp
white oak
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
101.9
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.3
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.7
0.0
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
7.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
18
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
2.8
0.0
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
27
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
29
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
36
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
37
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
38
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-52
Appendices
Table 2-7. Continued.
sweet
birch
DBH
yellowwhite ash poplar
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
18.7
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.0
0.0
3.6
17
0.0
0.0
3.2
18
0.0
0.0
0.0
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
0.0
0.0
0.0
21
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
0.0
1.9
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
1.7
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
31
0.0
0.0
0.0
32
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
0.0
0.0
0.0
34
0.0
0.0
0.0
35
0.0
0.0
0.0
36
0.0
0.0
0.0
37
0.0
0.0
0.0
38
0.0
0.0
0.0
39
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-53
Appendices
Table 2-8. Stand table data for Stand 10 in the secondary viewshed areas.
American American black
beech
sycamore locust
DBH
chestnut
oak
eastern
hemlock
eastern
northern
white pine red oak
pignut
hickory
shagbark sugar
hickory
maple
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
40.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.2
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
8
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
18
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.8
0.9
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.9
21
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
37
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-54
Appendices
Table 2-8. Continued.
sweet
birch
DBH
yellowwhite oak poplar
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
10.2
0.0
0.0
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
5.7
0.0
0.0
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
2.5
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
1.9
0.0
0.0
15
3.3
0.0
0.0
16
4.3
0.0
0.0
17
0.0
0.0
1.3
18
0.0
0.0
0.0
19
1.0
0.0
0.0
20
0.0
0.9
0.0
21
0.8
0.0
0.0
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.5
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
30
0.0
0.0
0.0
31
0.0
0.0
0.0
32
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
0.0
0.0
0.0
34
0.0
0.0
0.0
35
0.0
0.0
0.0
36
0.0
0.0
0.0
37
0.0
0.0
0.0
50
0.0
0.0
0.0
2-55
Appendices
APPENDIX 2. VIEWSHED LANDSCAPE VISUALIZATION ANALYSIS
Methods
Graphic, 3-D portrayals of stand management alternatives for the primary viewshed area
were created using:
Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
ArcGIS Desktop 2007 (ArcGIS Version 9.1.0.722)
Landscape Management System (LMS) (LMS Version 2.0.46, August 2002)
http://lms.cfr.washington.edu/publication/, accessed 03/11/2009
Environmental Visualization System (EnVision) (EnVision Version 2.20, March 2004)
http://forsys.cfr.washington.edu/envision.html, accessed 03/11/2009
Individual tree and other data for each stand (see Appendix 1) that were entered into the LMS
program included stand boundary delineations in GIS, tree species, diameter at breast height
(dbh), height and live crown ratio.
Vegetation near the South Lawn and in the open field (small clumps and scattering of trees,
and a patch of phragmites) was digitized in GIS from 2004 aerial photographs provided by
the NPS. Areas that included small stands of vegetation were digitized as polygons and
individual trees were digitized as individual points with XY coordinates. Dbh, total height
and live crown ratio of the individual trees and one tree from each height group in the stands
of vegetation were measured in the field in summer 2007.
The Hudson River was digitized as a polygon in GIS from the LMS terrain model and added
to the EnVision project as an overlay.
Length, width and height of the two bridges located 3 miles south of the project area – the
Mid-Hudson Bridge in Poughkeepsie and an adjacent, old railroad bridge (the one from the
historic photos) – were obtained from the New York State Bridge Authority and the “Walk
Over the Hudson” non-profit organization. These bridges were then digitized off of 2004
aerial photographs provided by the NPS and added to the EnVision project as overlays.
The viewpoint of interest for the landscape visualization, as applied to the EnVision program,
was the historically defined point on the South Lawn (where FDR and Eleanor were
photographed together in 1933; see Figure 1-2 of this report). The viewpoint or “camera”
settings in Envision were adjusted to most accurately represent images of the primary
viewshed found in historic and contemporary photographs.
A comparison of the 2007 photograph from the viewpoint on the South Lawn into the lower
woods and through the primary viewshed (Figure 2-2), with the computer-generate landscape
visualization (Figure 2-3), shows that the landscape visualization analysis worked – the
computer generated image is a close facsimile to the real image.
2-56
Appendices
Figure 2-2. 2007 photograph of the primary viewshed from the South Lawn view point
toward the Hudson River (view is blocked by trees), the Mid-Hudson Poughkeepsie
Bridge (view is blocked by trees), and Illinois Mountain (compare to computer generate
image of same in following Figure 2-3).
2-57
Appendices
Figure 2-3. Computer-generated image of the primary viewshed from the South Lawn view
point toward the Hudson River (view of river is blocked by trees), the Mid-Hudson
Poughkeepsie Bridge (view of bridge is blocked by trees), and Illinois Mountain (compare
to photo image of same in preceding Figure 2-2).
2-58
Appendices
Visualizing Stand-Level Treatments to Reestablish the River and Mountain
Views
A long series of simulated treatment trials of individual stands in the LMS and EnVision
programs was used to detemine that only four of the original 10 stands need restoration
treatment in order to reestablish the river and mountain view (primary viewshed): Stands 21,
4, 5 and 7. Two basic types of silvicultural treatments were applied to these stands: 1)
overstory removals to varying diameters; and 2) shelterwood method. These cuts represent a
continuum of tree removal intensity that leds to a more expanded view of the river and
mountains with more intensive removals. The general height of the overstory trees on the two
primary stands in the viewshed today – Stands 5 and 7 – are about 100 feet. It is these tall
trees (apparently any trees between 50 and 100 feet tall) that are interfering with the view of
the river, the bridges, and the mountains. Principally, the desired silvicultural treatment set
was one that left as many trees on the site as possible in each stand, yet promoted the
reestablishment of the desired view. It was determined that a series of high diameter residual
cuts, effectively overstory removals to certain minimum diameters of trees (dbh), met both
principles.
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show the best silvicultural solution to the problem of interfering trees:
remove all interfering trees leaving well distributed 3 to 5 inch dbh trees as reserves.
The restoration treatment shown in Figures 2-4 and 2-5 does not take into account a potential
need to buffer the wetlands and stream using uncut strips of forest vegetation (see wetlands
and stream map from NPS; Figure 2-6). Figure 2-7 shows the restoration treatment solution
from Figure 2-4 in contrast with the same treatment that includes a 50-foot uncut buffer
around the wetlands and the stream. The images are essentially the same, showing that the
wetlands and stream system can be protected by uncut buffers without significantly affecting
the restoration of the view.
A series of formal and informal trails run through the primary and secondary viewshed areas
(Figure 2-8). These trails could be buffered from the restoration treatments by leaving an
uncut buffer zone around each trail, but these buffers would effectively block the view
(Figure 2-9).
Figure 2-10 shows how leaving smaller residual trees does not significantly reduce the view
of the river and the mountains. This is consistent with the idea that removal of tall trees
improves the view. The final, recommended treatment of leaving as many well spaced, 3 to 5
inch trees (Figures 2-4 and 2-5) can be seen as a compromise between maximum restoration
of the view, yet not making the site an open field devoid of trees. Short trees were part of the
1940s viewshed—the tree reserves in the recommended treatment provide for a population of
short trees.
Figure 2-11 shows the preferred restoration treatment with a conventional shelterwood
treatment method. The shelterwood does not produce a desired effect in the short term.
2-59
Appendices
Figure 2-4. Comparison of computer generated landscape view of the primary viewshed
from the South Lawn view point between the current lower woods condition (upper
image) to that created by a a restoration treatment (lower image) leaving regularly spaced
tree reserves at 3 to 5 inches dbh.
2-60
Appendices
Figure 2-5. Comparison of restored viewshed (computer image) with 1942 view. NOTE the
bridge in the computer image (black shape at the head of the river) and the railroad bridge
in the photograph. Also NOTE that it appears that the 1942 view is from the second floor
of the house, so that more of the river can be seen than from the lawn itself.
2-61
Appendices
Figure 2-6. Mapped vernal pools, wetlands, marshes or fens (palustrine), and streams
across the HOFR site. Source: NPS.
2-62
Appendices
A
B
Figure 2-7. Comparison of restored viewshed with all of the area treated (A) versus the
same area with an uncut 50 foot buffer around included wetlands and the stream along the
south side of the site (B) – the images are essentially the same.
2-63
Appendices
Figure 2-8. Location of trails (formal and informal) across the viewshed project area and 50 –
foot wide uncut buffer zones.
2-64
Appendices
A
B
Figure 2-9. Comparison of restored viewshed with an uncut 50 foot buffer around
wetlands (A) with a similar image that includes an uncut buffer along trails within the
area (B).
2-65
Appendices
A
B
Figure 2-10. Comparison of restored area with reserve up to 5 inches dbh (A) versus the
area with trees at a maximum of 3 inches dbh (B).
2-66
Appendices
A
B
Figure 2-11. Comparison of retored viewshed using 3- to 5-inch reserves (A) with a
shelterwood seed cut in Stand 5 and 7 with a minimum tree size of 20 inches dbh (B).
2-67
Appendices
APPENDIX 3. VIEWS FROM THE RIVER – ANALYSIS OF THE TREATED
VIEWSHED AREAS ON HOFR
Three sets of computer generated images of the viewshed area were made from the middle of
the Hudson River, as if on a boat (Figures 2-12) from the southeastern corner of the historic
site (Figure 2-13), 1-mile south (Figure 2-14) and about 3 miles south from under the railroad
bridge (Figure 2-15).
Visual impact of the view from the river can be readily seen only from the southeastern
corner of the site (Figure 2-13), and even in this image only a portion of the restored area can
be seen from the river. A border of uncut trees that will be left along the river edge on the
ridges (Stand 6 tree communities will not be cut) blocks much of the view of the viewshed
restoration treatment area. The restoration cuts can just barely be seen from 1-mile south of
the site (Figures 2-14) and are not discernible from 3 miles away (Figure 2-15).
2-68
Appendices
Corner view point
Mile south view point
Bridge view point
Figure 2-12. Points of landscape view (filled dots) from the center of the Hudson River (as if
on a boat) toward the viewshed management area.
2-69
Appendices
Unrestored
Restored
Figure 2-13. View of the unrestored and restored viewshed area from the middle of the
Hudson River near the southwestern corner of the historic site.
2-70
Appendices
Unrestored
Restored
Figure 2-14. View of the unrestored and restored viewshed area from the middle of the
Hudson River ata point 1-mile south the historic site.
2-71
Appendices
Unrestored
Restored
Figure 2-15. View of the unrestored and restored viewshed area from the middle of the
Hudson River from the old railroad bridge about 3 miles south the historic site.
2-72