j. - hudson river...this report is a part of the new york/new jersey harbor estuary program, whose...

NEARSHORE WILDLIFE HABITATS AND POPULATIONS

IN THE NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY

by

D. F. Squires

Marine Sciences Institute

and

J. S. Barclay

Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering

The University of Connecticut

Storrs, Connecticut

November 1990

,

[

CONTENTS

• •1• .2· .3

. 3.·3. 4

•• 5

urban wildlife resources ..

limitations of report ..

Introduction.

Concept ofPurpose andDefinitions .

Study area ..Hildlife .

Information ...

Nearshore habitats in the ~ew York/New Jersey HarborEstuary ...•.•..

Description of the study area ••.Geography .Geology ...

Modification of nearshore habitats

Modifications resulting from port and portrelated development ••••••.•••.••••.•.

Modifications resulting from urbanization •.Summary .....•.•..........•.•..

Fu ture Trends ....•

Impacts of physical alteration on nearshore habitats

• 7• 7• 8

..9

.11

... 11•••• 14

.. 19• . 24.27

Nethods ....Atlas of documented

Mapping .Habitat modification

Uildlife populationsData .

Bird surveys .

natural areas ..

recommendations

.. 31

.. 31.36•.39.39.39.41

Results and discussion .•.Time frame and data ..Uildlife habitats .

Natural areas

Parks and open space.Wildlife populations ......•

Matrix of wildlife species ..Amphibians and reptilesBirds ..l'tamma1s

Wildlife values •.

• 44.44

••••. 44.44

••. 46.47

....... 41.50

••• 55.84

• • • 86

Conclusions and recommendationsHa bit at .....•..•....

Recommendations 1-3.Habitat modification .

Wildlife populations

.67.. 88.88.91.92

Recommendations 4-8 .........•........................ 92llildlife habitats .................•.•..................... 93

Re commen dation s 9-16 93

Peop Ie 94Rec0mm end ation s 18-20 .•...•••...••.......•.•........• 94

tv i 1 d 1 i f e 94Recommendations 21-22 94

Pe-op 1 e 95Rec0mm end ation s 23 -28 95

References Ci ted ...............•.•...............•.•.•.............. 97

Appendices

A. List of vertebrate species cited in this report 102

B. Atlas of parks and natural areas within the vicinity of the NewYork/NelJ Jersey Harbor Estuary· ................•........l08

C. Species matrix for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles forInatural areas within the vicinity of the New York/New JerseyHa rb 0 rEs tu ary ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••. 182

D. Maps of wetlands and open space in the New York/New Jersey HarborEs tuary 251

E. The influence of urban structure and human settlement on birdlife

in the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary area 265

F. A bibliography of the habitats and wildlife within the vicinity ofthe New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary •...............298

I II ~I I " illilI ~11 I ,iii, i I "

FIGURES

1. The New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary study area .......•...•.•... 62. Growth of settled areas of New York City from 1800

through 1934 .•....•••.......•••.•.•......••..•...... 133. Growth of human population in the New York/New Jersey

me tr0 pol itan reg ion •••••••.••••.....•.•.•••..••••.... 174. Status of made lands and infilled wetlands as of 1900 .••.••.•.•.. 215. Status of made lands and infilled wetlands as of 1966 226. Status of made lands and infilled wetlands 'as of 1939 •.•.••.•.... 23

7. Map of 39 major natural areas for which wildlife habitat and/orpopulation data were. obtained .•................••.... 32

8. Map of eleven Christmas Bird Count circles whose data vereincluded in the analyses of winter bird

populations as described in this report ••....•.•..... 439. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Red-throated

Loon; Horned Grebe; Northern Gannet; GreatCormorant; Double-crested Cormorant; Great BluetIe r 0 n 57

10. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Black-crowned

Night Heron; Mute Swan; Snow Goose; Brant; CanadaGaasc; Green-1·1inged Tea 1 , 58

11. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Black Duck;Mallard; Northern Pintail; Northern Shoveler;Gad 1-1a11; Am eri can Wig eon •.....•....•....•.••.•.••.•.. 59

12. Population trends from Ch~istmas Bird Counts: Canvasback;Redhead; Ring-necked Duck; Greater Scaup;Lesser Scaup; Old Squal-1.....•...............•......•. 60

13. Population trends from Christmas Bird Count: Black Seater;Surf Seater; White-winger Scoter; CommonGoldeneye; Bufflehead; Hooded Herganser ......••...... 61

14. Population trends from Christmas Bird Count: CommonMerganser; Red-brested Merganser; Ruddy Duck;Northern Harrier; Red-tailed Hawk; Ameri~anKe s t r a 1 ..•.•.••.. '•.....•••••••.••••.•.••••••••••• ' ••.. 62

15. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Ring-neckedPheasant; Ruffed Grouse; Northern Bobwhite;American Coot; Black-bellied Plover; Killdeer .•••••.. 63

16. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Ruddy Turnstone;Sanderling; Purple Sandpiper; Dunlin; LaughingGull; Common Black-headed Gull .•.•.......•••.•....... 64

17. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Bonapart'sGull; Ring-billed Gull; Herring Gull; GreatBlack-backed Gull; Black-legged Kittiwake;Ro c k Do ve ...••••••.•••.•.•.••••••••••••.••••••••••••• 65

18. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Monk Parakeet;Short-eared Owl; Downy Woodpecker; Hairy Wood-pecker; Nor the rn F1icl~er .......•..........••.•.••...• 6'6

19. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Horned Lark;Blue Jay; American Crow; Fish Crow; Black-capped

s

Chickadee; Carolina Chickadee 6720. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Tufted Titmouse;

White-breasted Nuthatch; Golden-crowned Kinglet;American Robin; Northern Mockingbird; Water Pipit .... 68

21. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Cedar Waxwing;European Starling; Yellow-rumped Warbler; NorthernCardinal; American Tree Sparro,.; Chipping SparroY .... 69

22. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Field Sparrow;Savannah Sparrow; Fox Sparrow; Song Sparrow;Sw amp Spa rrOll; l~hite-thr0 ate c1 Spa rrow 70

23. Populations trends from Christmas Bird Counts: White-crownedSparrow; Dark-eyed Junco; Lapland Longspur; SnowBunting; Red-winged Blackbird; Eastern MeadoYlark .... 71

24. Population trends from Christmas nird Counts: Rusty Blackbird;Common Grackle; Brown-headed CoYbird; Purple Finch;House Finch; Common Redpoll .............•.•.......... 72

25. Population trends from Christmas Bird Counts: Pine Siskin;American Golcfipch; Evening Grosbeak;Ho use Spa rr0"1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 73

26. Autumn migrating shorebird population trends on Jamaica Bay,NY, 1981-1988: Black-bellied Plovers;Semipalmated Plover; Greater Yellowlegs;Ruddy Turnstone; Red Knot ····77

27. Autumn migrating shorebird population trends on Jamaica Bay,

NY, 1981-1988: Sanderling; Semipalmated Sandpiper;Least Sandpiper;" Dunlin; Short-billed Do,.itcher 78

28. Spring migrating hawk population trends at Sandy Hook, NJ,1979-1987: Osprey and Northern Harrier 79

29. Spring migrating hawk population trends at Sandy Hook, NJ, ~1979-1987: Sharp-shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk 00

30. Spring migrating hawk population trends at Sandy Hook~ NJ,1979-1987: Red-shouldered Hawk and Broad-w~ngedIia "1k .........•..•...........•.•..•..• ".••••........... e 1

31. Spring migrating hawk population trends at Sandy Hook, NJ,1979-1987: Red-tailed Hawk and American Kestrel 8~

32. Spring migrating hawk population trends at Sandy Hook, NJ,1 9 7 9 - 1 9 8 7: !-ter 1 in ...•..•••••..•..••.•••••••.••...•..• 8 3

'I-Inl I I. ~ , Ij, II., I

"

TABLES

1. Political subdivisions of the New York/New JerseyHarbor Estuary .....•.••......•..........•......••... 9

2. Denography of the Net~ York/Net~ Jersey Harbor Estuary .........•.. 153. Acreage of tidal wetlands loss, New York/New Jersey

Harbor Estuary ..•.".••.•.•.••..•.•...•..•....••.•••. 164. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary tidal mar~h and underwater

lands landfilled, 1609 to present ••....•.•..•...•..• 19

5. Numbers of duelling units scheduled for construction/completionon the New Jersey shore of the Hudson River .....••.. 25

6. Amount of office space scheduled for construction/completionon the New Jersey shore of the Hudson River ......••. 25

7. Amount of commercial retail space scheduled forconstruc~ion/cornpletion on the New Jersey

shore of the Hudson River ..••.•..................••• 26

8. Key to figure 7 for the 39 natural areas and subsites withgeographic coordinates and USGS quadrangles,for which wildlife habitat and/or population datawe reo bta ined .................•...........••....•••. 33

9. US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute quadrangles included in thestudy area .•.•....•........•.....•...........•.•••.• 38

10. Data sets obtained for evaluation of wildlife populations,population trends and habitats within the NewYork/New Jersey Harbor Estuary ............•..•..•••• 40

11. Key to place names, coordinates and survey years for theeleven Christmas Bird Count circles depictedin figure 8 ............•.........................••• 42

12. Summary of documented natural areas, specific sites andreported acreages by management authorityin the Harbor region .............•..............•.•. 45

13. Distribution and size of major park areas in New York City ..•.. 4614. Park land as a percentage of total land and in relation

to population in New York City ...•.............•••.• 4715. Composite list of natural areas by county and number of

vertebrate species reported by class ........•••.•••• 4916. Status summary based on reports by 26 natural areas

in the Estuarv region for 50 amphibian andrepti1e spe cies ....•.......••...••.•.•••..••••..•••• 51

17. Total species, average per site, and estimated percent ofpossible species of amphibians and reptilesas reported for 26 natural areas within theEstuary ...............•..••.....•......•........•••• 53

18. Summary of Table 16 area report frequencies depicting thestatus as extinct/extirpated, rare, uncommon,occasional, present, common, introduced,orestablished for 50 amphibian and reptile speciesin 26 natural areas of the Estuary .•.........•.•••.• S4

19. Bird species richness as a measure of seasonal and annualstatus for 21 natural areas in New York and New

Jersey 55

/JJ

20. Linear regression probabilities for the 1UU most commonChristmas Bird Count species in the project area,1961-1968, taxonomically by trend class 74

21. Su~mary of the population trends for 100 wintering birdspecies in the Estuary by feeding strategy 75

22. Summary of autumn migrating shorebird population trendsplus minimal and peak years for 11 speciesobserved within the Jamaica Bay National WildlifeRefuge, Brooklyn, 1981-1988 .......................•. 76

23. List of mammal species reported from 31 natural areas in theEstuary, in order of frequency reported 85

1 , H HI

II H 'I

I"

NEARSHORE WILDLIFE HABITATS AND POPULATIONSIN THE NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY

INTRODUCTION

by

D. F. Squires and J. S. Barclay

This report is a part of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, whosegoal it is to establish and maintain a healthy, productive ecosystem together with its fullbeneficial use. Among the program's objectives related to wildlife and habitat addressedin this report are: the restoratiGn and maintenance of an ecosystem which suppOrts anoptimum diversity of living resources on a sustained basis; the preservation and restorationof ecologically important habitats; and the restoration and enhancement of the aestheticquality of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary ("Estuary").

In this report we review the present status of nearshore habitats and wildife, assessthe changes in wildlife and habitat which have occurred, and make some preliminaryobservations and recommendations which contribute to the objectives of conservation andrestoration.

The general objectives identified for this program module were to provide a baselineof information on the present condition of the Estuary with regard to living terrestrialvertebrate resources and their habitats; and to identify valued wildlife habitats for futurepreservation or enhancement. Subsequent to the start of the project, another "objective"was suggested: to make recommendations for the improvement of the aesthetic qualitiesof the Estuary through marginal habitat enhancement.

Our involvement in the New York/New Jersey Harbor project began in October,1989. Co-investigator Robert Craig resigned from the program in June 1990 to accept aposition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our team was responsible for Task 5.3- habitat mapping (Squires) and wildlife resources assessment (Craig and Barclay). Inorder to fulfill the above objectives, the goals of our portion of the project were to:

1. characterize the species composition of wildlife presently inhabiting theharbor area;

2. determine the population trends and current status of wildlife species;3. survey the composition and extent of wildlife habitat in the Harbor

area; and4. evaluate shifts in habitat location and coverage within the Harbor.

These goals were fulfilled within the body of the report and by means of thefollowing special report components:

1

Goal 1 (wildlife: species composition) -

A. Christmas bird count species tabulations.B. Species matrix (bird, mammal, amphibian and reptile relative

abundance by site by season), Appendix C.

Goal 2 (wildlife: trends and current status) -

A Trend analysis, 100 most frequent Christmas Bird Count species,1961-1988.

B. Short-term trend summary (autumn shorebird and raptor migrations.C. Status evaluation, species matrix data (Appendix C).

Goal 3 (habitat: composition and extent)

A Atlas of Natural Areas - description, features, management authorityand information sources (Appendix B).

B. Maps of wetlands, open space and similar potential and existing.wildlife habitat (Appendix D).

Goal 4 (habitat: status and trends)

A Project area description - historical overview of changes in land use,alteration and current status.

The additional objective (habitat enhancement) is addressed as Goal 5 (habitat:modification recommendations) based on information utilized in this study, personalobservations and professional experience: -. '

A. Aesthetic benefits via marginal habitat enhancement.B. Important, unique and critical habitats for wildlife and plants.

Concepts of urban ~ildlife resources

Awareness, acceptance and management of wildlife resources in the context ofurban environments are becoming widespread. As human modification of the environmentexpands as a consequence of population growth, development for human housing,commerce and industry leave fewer areas of unmodified habitat, while those remaining aremore distant from urban centers. A recent phenomenon has been ~he notion ofestablishing some as yet quantitatively undefined modicum of wildlife resource even withinthe environs of a major metropolis such as New York City and its surrounding urban coreareas. Human fascination with "things alive," even in such obviously artificial settings, hasevolved into some conscious efforts to preserve those representative indigenous specieswhich have managed to survive; and to encourage the presence of other, often moreappealing species less likely to prosper otherwise. To accomplish this in a geographicallywidespread and highly modified urban environment is a commendable, if somewhatformidable, challenge.

2

l 0

"

II I,11111' ,~' 'I "

In one sense, this interest in retaining wildlife values in the urban setting is a furtherevolution of the same instincts which led to the preservation of extensive wildlife habitatsalmost within the core of the city, such as Central Park, the New York Botanical Gardens,and even the Bronx Zoo. A notable example in the New York/New Jersey HarborEstuary region is the preservation of the vast array of marshes and mudflats whichconstitutes the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge of Gateway National Recreation Area. Forover 50 years various individuals and groups have fought off efforts to utilize Jamaica Bayfor, among other purposes, a deep water port, an extension of an international airport, alocus for petrochemical industry, and a sanitary landfill. Similar efforts on both larger andsmaller scale elsewhere in the urban area have resulted in an accumulation of habitatsextending from Palisades Interstate Park at the northern terminus of the Estuary to SandyHook, Gateway National Recreation Area, at its ·southern boundary. One cost ofmaintaining these habitats and their associated wildlife, both in large and small areas, iseternal vigilance on the part of their keepers. The economic pressures brought upon thebody politic for rights to develop these perceived "unused lands", for one or anotherpurpose, are always enormous.

Purpose and limitations

This report has been prepared for use by regulatory agencies and as an educationalresource for organizations and individuals advocating enhanced quality of this Estuary'senvironment. The information contained herein is based upon data and studies reportedby others, in keeping with the specifications in the original Scope of Work, because neitherfunding nor time were available in sufficient quantity to permit primary investigations. Nowarranty can be given for the validity of the data presented, although a conscientiousattempt has been made to use only those data which seemed of the highest quality. Trenddata were found only for birds. No trend data were found for reptiles and amphibians norfor mammals. The existence of some data on invertebrates, particularly butterflies, wasreported - but their use was beyond the mandated scope and resources of this projectcomponent. In the spirit of its educational function, the report should be supplementedwith field verification.

Definitions

Study area. The study area defined by the New York/New Jersey Harbor EstuaryProgram is the complex area often simply called New York Harbor. The area includes thelower reaches of the Hudson and Raritan Rivers and other tributary rivers emptying intothe Estuary. The northern boundary of the study area is the Piermont Marshes in theTappan Zee of the Hudson River; the eastern boundary is the narrows which define theEast River; the western boundary is defined by the head-of-tide of the Raritan and PassaicRivers in north-central New Jersey; the southern boundary is south of the Shrewsbury andNavesink Rivers and is extended by the Transect line delimiting the demarcation betweenthe Hudson and Raritan Estuaries and the New York Bight.

3

Il-

Definition of the, study area in respect to wildlife habitat was intended toincorporate all of those aquatic and adjacent upland areas which are under the influenceof, or are impacted by, the waters of the New York Harbor or the Lower Hudson andRaritan Estuaries. Whether the study area encompasses a natural biological area as mightonce have been constituted is not relevant, as the natural environment of the area hasbeen so extensively modified by human activities as to have become a kind of ecosystemof its own. The New York Metropolitan Area is a subset of the extensively urbanizedcoastal corridor between Boston, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The study areacontains portions of two states, many counties and minor civil divisions and is larger ingeographic extent than the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area defining the metropolisfor the U.S. Census. The study area is discussed in greater detail in the following chapterand is depicted in Figure 1.

Wildlife. The terms "wildlife" and "wildlife resource" may be construed to apply toall living plants and animals indigenous to a particular locale. However, for a variety oflargely historic reasons, most professional resource managers regard 'Wildlife" per se as thewarm-blooded vertebrates (mammals and birds). More recently, the cold-bloodedvertebrate groups of amphibians and reptiles have been included in the term 'Wildlife"because of the growing recognition of their importance to balanced ecosystems. In thisstudy we have given emphasis to the birds, in part because they are particularly sensitivebioindicators, and in part because of the large body of reliable data about their distributionand abundance. Because birds are able to respond quickly to favorable or adverse changesin their environment, they reflect those changes more quickly both in diversity andabundance than do other vertebrates. The availability of a large body of reliableinformation on distribution and abundance of species, gathered by dedicated and expertobservers over the past 30 years, also makes the birds of critical significance to a study ofwildlife and habitats in the New York /New Jersey Estuary region.

Although this report deals with nearshore habitats and wildlife, the fishes were notincluded. The fish resources of the Estuary were the subject of a separate report by Dr.Peter Woodhead entitled "Inventory and Assessment of Habitat and Fish Resources andAssessment of Toxic Effects in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary." Therefore,only terrestrial vertebrates were included in this paper.

Habitat. Wildlife habitats, in ~his study, were recognized as those places, bothaquatic and terrestrial, where any given species could reasonably be expected to be foundfulfilling its requirements at different times of day or season, under "normal" environmentalconditions. The urban context and process typically, and we suspect progressively, inhibitsmany of the specialized species, such as the wood thrush, while encouraging moreopportunistic "generalists" such as the crow and pigeon.

On the maps incorporated in this report (Appendix D) we include any "open space"areas which might be expected to meet some of the needs of one or more wildlife species.Because the program constraints incorporated within this study stressed synthesis of existinginformation and precluded field verification, these "open space" areas are those whichappeared on the latest series of the V.S.DJ. National Wetlands Inventory maps and the

4

IV

I II ~I ,

" ,I ", 'I' "'1,,, ,,',', "II I·"" ,,,' r11:tll "

u.s. Geological Survey's topographical maps of the study area and may not reflect currentconditions. We conducted several reconnaissance surveys within the Estuary to validateour observations and conclusions.

Lands which appeared from our map sources to be untraditional wildlife habitatsbut propably capable of supporting or producing indigenous animal communities weremapped. Thus, extensive mowed areas or weedy vacant lots might well be mapped as"potential wildlife habitat." However, in virtually all cases, a minimal 50 meter buffer zonewas depicted between all such open space areas and urban development such as utilities,industrial or commercial areas and residential precincts. While this buffer reduced thetotal area of park, wetland and potential habitats, its purpose was to recognize, provide forand accomodate the social dislocations between humans and wildlife. We have notattempted to depict those habitats frequented by the 'ubiquitous ''wild'' exotics such aspigeons, rats, mice and other commonplace urban species ..

Information

The accuracy of this report depended largely on the quality and accessibility ofavailable information. Even to an experienced student of the metropolitan New Yorkregion it is surprising to find the depth and richness of existing information. This is notto suggest that the distribution of information is even, for it is not. That informationdealing with the core of the Estuary region, Manhattan Island, is the richest. That dealingwith northern New Jersey is the sparsest. Information about wildlife of general interest tohumankind is not easily accessed for it is scattered among agencies and other sources.Many promising studies of habitat and wildlife have been initiated, but have fallen victimto financial exigencies and remain incomplete. Turnover among park department technicalstaff results in loss of corporate memory about existing information gathered by the agency,or of studies initiated but unfinished.In the latter instance methodological details are oftenlost so that renewal or completion of those projects is not possible.

To have gathered all the information on Estuary habitat and wildlife, and to haveanalyzed it fully, would have been the work of several years. Because of constraints oftime, we have been limited to those data sets which came promptly to our hands. Somepromised data sets did not reach us in time for analysis. It is evident that data gatheringof the sort undertaken here requires nearly a year to complete. Nearly three quarters ofthe time allocated for this project was spent in the data acquisition and editorial workpreparatory to data analysis.

Data on the occurrence of wildlife and of the distribution of habitats· represent asnapshot of a temporal continuum of change. For many purposes it would be desirableto have these data in a format which would allow for regular updatin. Such systems doexist under the general rubric of geographic information systems, but neither time norfunding was available for use of such a system.

5

13

NY/NJHARBOR I?

ESTUARY 'Iff.~

MONMOUTH CO,

t'NEW YORK

WESTCHESTER CO

v

QUEENS

//// Sandy Hook-Rockaway Transect//

NEW YORK BIGHT

II

iI

~,r I;J

(f

Figure 1. The New York/New Jer~ey Harbor Estuary Study Area.

6

'11 n I I i ~ 1 II. I I

""1')I,!q, l'flI' I.' "

NEARSHORE HABITATS IN THE

NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY

by

Donald F. Squires

Description of the Study Area

The New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary is central to one of the largestmetropolitan areas of the Unites States. The study area is dominated by the activities andpresence of one species, Homo s~piens. While the geologic history of the Estuary and thelarger surrounding region worked to create a physiography rich in habitat diversity, thatphysiography was also one particularly suited for exploitation by humans. Themetropolitan area owes its rich heritage, its central position as the financial capital of theNation, and its recognition as the Nation's largest city to the success of the Estuary, formany decades, as the Nation's largest port. The excellence of that port, in turn, dependedupon the geologic framework of the Estuary and the abitlity of the European colonists toturn the port into an economic asset (Albion, 1970). Two major factors which haveworked to deleteriously affect nearshore habitats of the Estuary have been the constructionof port and port-related facilities and the urbanization of the upland area. The effectsstemming from port development and urbanization are many, and among them are thepartial or total destruction of habitats and an accelerated conflict between human activitiesand those of wild species to the detriment of the latter.

This report is only one of several which deal with the aquatic habitats of theEstuary. In addition to this study, the interested reader should consult Woodhead (1991)fora discussion of fish and of immediate shoreline modification (i.e. bulkheading, pierconstruction, etc.). Thatcher and Mendozo (1991) examines the modification of theEstuary floor by dredging and dumping and considers the hydrologic significance of thosemodifications.

For an understanding of the present status of nearshore habitat in the Estuary it isnecessary to appreciate its setting and the way in which human activites have alteredoriginal conditions. It is also important to recognize the "rapidity with which those changeshave occurred. Although humans have been present in the Estuary region for millennia,for much of that time their relationship to the environment was benign. Only in the last .150 years was there an acceleration of physical and biological change resulting from humanactivity and population growth. While the last two decades have seen a diminished rateof impact upon habitat and wildlife, and in some instances improved conditions, there isconstant pressure to utilize nearshore habitat for human purposes. In the followingmaterial physical alteration of the Estuary and nearshore habitat.· will be discussed.Following that discussion will be a brief discussion of human demographics and the effectof population growth on habitat.

7

Geography. The New York!New Jersey Harbor Estuary is a complicated marinesystem surrounded by an urban complex having a high density human population. Fromthe perspective of wildlife and habitat, the region has had a daunting history of industrialand commercial development with concomitant pollution. Measured by some standards,it might be said that a remarkable diversityof habitats and wildlifehas survived:by others,that the Estuary is a human-dominated environment with only straggling assemblages ofhabitat and wildlife remaining.

The core of the aquatic Estuary is New York Harbor, an area of about 1500squaremiles with over 770 miles of waterfront. New York Harbor itself is subdivided into theNorth River, the Upper Bay and the Lower Bay (Figure 1). The North River may betaken as the area extending from the southern tip of Manhattan Island to the PiermontMarshes of the Tappan Zee, Hudson River, New York. Those marshes are the northernextent of marine-rooted-aquatic vegetation in the Estuary, and the southern extent offreshwater-submerged-aquatics in the Hudson River. The actual head-of-tide of theHudson River is about 140 miles to the north at the Federal Dam at Troy, New York.The Upper and Lower Bays of the Harbor are separated by The Narrows, a short strait(0.3 miles) formed by eastern Staten Island and western Brooklyn. New York Harborempties into the New York Bight of the Atlantic Ocean. The artificial boundary betweenthe Bight and Harbor, defined only for geographic convenience, is usually termed the"transect", that is, ·a line drawn from the northern tip of Sandy Hook to the western tip ofRockaway Point.

In addition to the Harbor and its interconnecting waterways the Estuary includesRaritan, Newark and Jamaica Bays. Raritan Bay, a large, shallowwaterbody enclosed bythe recurved spit of Sandy Hook on the east and Staten Island to the north, is the estuaryof the Raritan, Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers. The latter two conjoin and..empty intoRaritan Bay behind Sandy Hook Spit. Newark Bay is now a largely artificial waterbodyimmediately south of the Hackensack Meadowlands and west of the Bayonne Peninsula.Once a broad, shallow, tidal-marsh-rimmed embayment, it is now the focus of commercialport activities in the region. Also included in the Estuary is Jamaica Bay, a complex oftidal mudflats and wetlands, long preserved as a wildlife area by the City of New York,and now the centerpiece of Gateway National Recreation Area. It is bordered on the eastby John F. Kennedy International Airport, Queens County, New York, and on the northand west by sanitary landfills or urban housing built on landfill. On the south, the Bay·isseparated from the New York Bight by Rockaway Spit.

Dominating the aquatic system is the Hudson River, which arises in New YorkState's Adirondack Mountains about 315 miles north of The Narrows, and which drains anarea of 13,370 square miles. Entering the Estuary through Newark Bay are theHackensack and Passaic Rivers. The Hackensack, about 45 miles in length, arises inRockland County, New York, and flows south to the Oradell Reservoir, New Jersey. Atits lower end, the Hackensack River flows through the Hackensack Meadowlands, about50 square miles of highly disturbed and altered marsh. The Passaic River arises south ofMorristown, New Jersey, and flows about 80 miles to Newark Bay. The head of navigationin the Passaic River are the rapids above Passaic, New Jersey. The Shrewsbury and theNavesink Rivers, both about 8 miles in length, are located south of Raritan Bay but reach

8

lfa

I , I H ~I I , I I I 1,111;1 ;~"i j I ,,~, , ,

the Bay through a common outlet west of Sandy Hook, New Jersey.

On the eastern side of the Estuary, there are no true rivers within the study area.The Harlem River, a tidal channel - now a ship channel - connects the former SpuytenDuyvil Creek at the northern end of Manhattan Island with the East River. The HarlemRiver has been highly altered by marginal landfIll and by dredging of its channel. TheEast River is not properly a river, but rather is a tidal strait connecting the Upper Baywith Long Island Sound. Similarly, the Arthur Kill and Kill van Kull which separate StatenIsland from the mainland are narrow tidal straits which are, for practical purposes, shipchannels. The former connects the Lower Bay with Newark Bay, the latter connectsNewark and Raritan Bay. Both are highly trafficked waterways, perhaps the busiest in thePort of New York.

Politically, the Estuary contains the Boroughs of Manhattan (New York County)and Staten Island (Richmond County) in New York State, and The Bayonne Peninsula(Hudson County) in New Jersey, among others. Bordering the Estuary are: Borough ofQueens (Queens County), New York; Borough of Brooklyn (Kings County), New York;Borough of The Bronx, New York; Westchester County, New York; Bergen County, NewJersey; Essex County, New Jersey; Union County, New Jersey; Middlesex County, NewJersey; and Monmouth County, New Jersey. In addition to the Boroughs and Counties,there are smaller subdivisions which contribute to the political complexity of the coastalregion of the Estuary (Table 1).

Table 1. Political subdivisions· of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary.

Governmental Units State of New York

Counties 6

Townships 17

Municipalities 30+

Total Political Units 54

State of New Jer.sey

9

63

140

212

* Based on data from U.S. Bureau of Census.+ The City of New York, comprised of five counties, which are also theBoroughs of the city, is counted as one municipality in this table.

Geology. The hydrologic and biologic richness and intricacy of the Estuary, as wellas its excellence as a port, derives from its geological complexity. That complexity arisesfrom the geologic framework which underlies the region, a framework which produces inclose proximity: rocky shores, enormous shallow marshes and a network of tidal channelsand islands. There is no other estuary on the eastern coast of the United States whichpossessed a comparable array of different nearshore habitats. The underlying bedrock

9

provides the structure of the Estuary, but its "final statement" was provided by Pleistoceneglaciation, the southern boundary of which extends across the Estuary from northern NewJersey to Long Island, New York. Excellent geologic descriptions of the region may befound in Schuberth (1968), Sanders (1974), and Coch and Bokunicwicz (1968).

The region's core is formed by southward extending prongs of hard igneous andmetamorphic rocks of the New England Province. One prong forms Manhattan Island, theother the Hill and Valley Province of northeastern New Jersey. Extending in anortheasterly direction between these two prongs is a continuation of the Piedmont PlateauProvince sometimes called the New Jersey lowland. This lowland is underlain by softTriassic sandstones and shales. At its eastern margin is a diabase basalt intrusion whichforms the Palisades, the dramatic western shore of the Hudson River. As this sill dipsdown to the south it also forms Bergen Hill and the spine of the Bayonne Peninsula.Although the diabase continues on to Staten Island, its continuity as a highland is breachedby the Arthur Kill. The seaward side of the Piedmont Plateau slopes relatively sharplydownward to the Coastal Plain Province. This boundary, the Fall Line, is marked byvarious rapids and waterfalls which form the head of navigation of the New Jersey riversentering the Estuary. Young Coastal Plain Province sediments lie as a fringe within theharbor, including the margins of Newark Bay and the Hackensack Meadowlands but aremost conspicuous on Long Island.

The spine of Manhattan Island is made of Fordham Schist, Manhattan Gneiss andInwood Marble. The former two are exposed along the length of Manhattan Island, whichrises in elevation irregularly and gradually from south to north. The Inwood Marble, ametamorphic dolomite, is soft and easily eroded. Its outcroppings along north andnortheastern Manhattan were early eroded to form the channel of Spuyten Duyvil Creekand the Harlem River. A sag in Manhattan's spine in which bedrock dips to about 100feet below the surface is conspicuously displayed in the the City skyline. Between thetallest buildings clustered at the southern tip and the skyscrapers of mid-town arenoticeably less tall buildings. Because the tough rocks of the spine are too deep here tobe reached by even the longest pilings, as well as presence of buried marsh and streams,this area does not provide good construction sites. In historic times, at the southern tipof the island, the Battery was separated by tidal marsh, and by water at spring high tides,from the rest of Manhattan.

Pleistocene glacial ice shaped much of the Estuary region, but the blanket of glacialmoraine formed as the ice melted back is more conspicuous. Important in the geologichistory of the region are the deposits which formed in the huge post-glacial lakes Passaic,Hackensack, Flushing and Long Island. Pushed up by the glacial ice was a terminalmoraine extending from northern New Jersey across Staten Island to Long Island andeventually to Cape Cod. Behind that dam-like terminal moraine accumulated the meltwater of the glaciers, and in those lakes formed thick sequences of varved, i.e.lake-deposited, sediments. The great Hackensack Meadowlands and Newark Bay areremnants of former Lake Hackensack.

New York Harbor is a drowned estuary, the result of post-glacial sea level rise.During the periods when glacial ice extended over the region, sea level was much lower,

10

IcJ

I II ~I I

II I, I " 'I"" 1~..lo' I· j I-I,' I -I ·r Ii IIll J I

exposing the continental shelf. The proto-Hudson River flowed across that shelf, erodingthe Hudson Shelf Canyon. As sea level was restored by the melting of the glaciers, thesteep canyon formed by the Hudson River and its tributaries was filled by sediment. Asthe sea level rose, sea water replaced the freshwater in the glacial lakes. About 5,000years ago, sea level rise slowed to its present rate of about 1.5 mm per year. Tidalmarshes became established in many of the shallow embayments. Westward sedimenttransport along the south shore of Long Island, resulting from wave impact on the beaches,formed the Rockaway Peninsula which, as it grew westward, increasingly isolated JamaicaBay from the ocean.

The diverse geological history of the Estuary contnbutes extensively to the diversityof its habitat types, differentiating the western, or New. Jersey, portion from the eastern,or New York, portion. Lying mostly in the Piedmont Province and the low-lying lands ofthe Triassic, the New Jersey portion of the Estuary was characterized in pre-Europeancolonization times by extensive tidal and freshwater marshes extending up each river fora considerable distance. The lower Hackensack and Passaic Rivers emptied into the hugetidal, brackish and freshwater marsh complex of the Meadowlands and thence into theshallow, broad, tidal marsh-rimmed Newark Bay. West of Staten Island, the Ne'l' Jerseyshore of the Kill van Kull was also extensive marsh. East of the Bayonne Peninsula werebroad, shallow mudflats extending over a mile offshore, terminating in a long series ofoyster reefs aligned parallel to the shore. In contrast, the New York shore was in largepart rocky or bluff: deeper water was found close to the shoreline, particularly on thewestern shore of Manhattan. Tidal marshes were present, especially on lower Manhattanand on the northern shore of Brooklyn. The largest eastern shore tidal wetlands wereprobably those of the Hutchinson River system in The Bronx.

Modification of Nearshore Habitats

For reasons more explicitly stated later (p.20) the term "tidal marsh" is used in thefollowing sections to connote a variety of nearshore habitats not always defined moreprecisely in historical documents. While many other nearshore habitats are of equalimportance to tidal marsh, documentation, particularly quantitative documentation, ofchange in their occurrence is sorely missing. It is necessary therefore to use "tidal marsh"as a representative term in measuring of all nearshore habitat changes. In the following,reference is made to nearshore habitat tYPesas referred to in the literature, but the readershould be acutely conscious of potential ommissions of :=.abitattypes other than marsh.

Modification resultingfrom pon and pon-related development. The Europeancolonists were quick to discover those geological attnbutes which made New York Harborone of the finest. However, this did not deter them from initiating "improvements." Theirneed to establish commerce expeditiously with their ''home'' countries resulted in docksbeing built and cribs and bulkheads emplaced to permit land to encroach on the Harbor.Behind those bulkheads and cribs, fill was emplaced - some containing household refuse,but most being soil and rocks resulting from the levelling of the land and from excavationsfor basements. The traditions of European port development emphasizing bulkheadedwharves resulted in the establishment of a sharp, steep interface between land and water

11

replacing the shelving beaches or rocky shores of pre-Colonial time.

Manhattan was the first portion of the Harbor to develop, particularly along theEast River which was more protected from winter ice floes. Public policy dictated thecreation of new lands by filling of the waterfront, and by 1800 most of the southern tip ofManhattan was bulkheaded and landfilled, about 729 acres of new land having beenformed (Buttenwieser, 1987). Development extended slowly northward on Manhattan asland transportation permitted the City to spread. Figure 2 shows that growth from 1900through 1934. As the City spread northward, both fresh and tidal marsh areas were filledand the shoreline bulkheaded and filled to make space for the growing number of piers,wharves and other facilities of commerce. The once existing large marshy areas north ofCod ears Hook on the East River and at about 14th Street on the North River, reputed'to almost bisect Manhattan Island at highest tides, were filled. The East River shorelinedeveloped more rapidly, but by the beginning of the 18th Century, the deeper, rockywestern shore of Manhattan saw increased numbers of piers. Concern about pierheadfilling and extension of land "further and further into the East River led to theestablishment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the regulatory agency responsiblefor establishing lines beyond which piers, wharves and landfilling could not exte"nd withouta permit from that agency (Klawoon, 1977).

Brooklyn's waterfront developed more slowly but by the early 1800's extensivemodification had taken place as the high bluffs of northern Brooklyn were pushed outwardinto the East River to form new land. The shoreline from Brooklyn Bridge south to BayRidge was the first to develop. Three major constructions anchored the Brooklynwaterfront: Atlantic Basin (construction begun in 1841), Erie Basin (begun in 1864) andthe Brooklyn Navy Yard in Wallabout Bay (begun in 1867). They obliterated extensivemarsh complexes and, finally, connected Red Hook Island to the mainland (Stiles, 1870;Raber, et al 1984). These massive masonry constructions filled " ...broad areas ofseemingly useless territory, nor was there any prospect that this property would ever bemore than a pestilent swamp, receiving the sewerage and waste of adjacent high grades"(Stiles, 1870, p.581)

The New Jersey coast was much later to develop port facilities. In part this latenessof development resulted from the extensive tidal marshes which rimmed the BayonnePeninsula, Newark Bay and the west bank of the Arthur Kill. Additionally, broad mudflatslying behind oyster reefs required extensive dredging to permit any but the smallest vesselsto approach the coast. Because of this, while Manhattan's waterfront was developing asa commercial center, the Bayonne shore awaited the construction of railroads before itsdevelopment could begin. Once started, however, the magnitude of construction wasenormous. By the mid-19th Century, several rail lines had succeeded in crossing theHackensack Marshlands and in tunneling through the Bergen Ridge. The narrow easternshore of the Peninsula was not amenable to the construction of the necessary railroadmarshalling yards, so extensive landfilling was undertaken. Between 1860 and 1920 theCommunipaw Yards were constructed in the area between Paulus Hook and Black TomRock, in large part with excavation materials from construction on Manhattan. In all, tensof thousands of acres of tidal marsh were covered, tens of thousands of mudflats dredged,and the oyster reefs destroyed.

12

I , I H HI , I Iii

1,---- ,I,

III!

1800

/861 J

Figure 2. Settled areas of New York City, 1800 - 1934After Hoyt (1939)

13

Beginning in the late 19th Century, accelerating with the 20th Century's grov.ingdependency upon petroleum, the tidal wetlands complex of southern Constable Hookdeveloped into the petroleum center of the Harbor. As the requirement for oil increased,refining and oil storage facilities developed both in the southern Hackensack Meadows(Kearny) and along the Arthur Kill, particularly on the New Jersey side. Tidal wetlandsin both areas were filled to provide space for storage facilities.

With the development of the suction dredge (Edwards, 1893) dredge spoil becamea new tool for landfill operations. Dredging made possible the extensive landfills of PortNewark and Port Elizabeth, Newark Airport and John F. Kennedy Airport -- each wellover 1000 acres in extent. Dredging also modified the bottom of the Harbor. The impactsof Harbor dredging upon nearshore habitats are discussed in Thatcher and Mendoza(1991).

In summary, port and port-related development resulted in extensive change tonearshore habitats through the steepening of the land/water interface by shoreline armoring(e.g. rip-x:ap, bulkhead) and nearby dredging. Landfi1ling to create space for facilitiesdestroyed marshlands and dredging of channels for navigation or for spoil resulted inprogressive narrowing and deepening of waterways and bays, affecting not only habitat butalso water circulation.

Modification resulting from urbanization. The demographics of the Estuary regionhave direct and profound consequences on its wildlife resources. To quote one researchteam, "Just as there is more to urbanization and metropolitanization than populationgrowth, the relationship between a growing population and environmental decline is nota simple one ... Population expansion, a concomitant factor of urbanization, reqUires highereconomic productivity, responding to greater consumption and resulting in more pressureon natural resources ... Even if the population were to stabilize in the twenty-first century,the environment [of the New York Bight] would still have to bear the burden of heavierconsumption." (Koebel and Krueckeberg, 1975, p.37)

Surrounding the Estuary are some of the most densely settled human populationsin the United States. Table 2 summarizes population and population density data for 1980and 1990. The core area of the Estuary region in general is experiencing either levelgrowth or a decrease in population, while the surrounding areas are increasing inpopulation. This is not shown as pointedly as would be the case if the suburban countieswere included in the table. The complete demographic metropolitan area extends well upinto New York State, western and central New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania and westernConnecticut for it is from those areas that the working population is drawn. In general,the population of the 12 counties of the study area is also a population of personsemployed in these same counties substantially enlarged by commuters from points outsidethe study area. Thus the Estuary region experiences sharp increases in population duringwork periods and a proportionate decrease during non-working periods -- the ebb andflow of the commuter population.

14

'1·1 n I , I II I,' I "~II"'" qll,' 1,IH' 1,1 ,,~,, I Ii

Table 2. Demography of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Region.

Compiled from V.S. Department of Census reports.County

AreaIndividualsDensityIndividualsDensity%% Density/State

(sq.mi.)19801980+1990·1990·GrowthChange

NEW YORKBronx

42116897227833120378928662+3.0+3.0Kings

70223102631872230066432404+3.1+1.7New York

22142828564922148753667615+4.1+4.1Queens

109189132517352195159818070+3.2+4.1Richmond

593520295967378977 .6649+7.7+11.4Westchester 439

86659919748748661993+1.0+1.0

. NEW JERSEYBergen

23784538535678253803542-2.4-0.7Essex

12785130467037782086080-8.6-9.3Hudson

455569721237755309912291-0.7-0.7Middlesex

31659589318866717802153+12.7+14.2Monmouth

4715031731066553124·1160+9.9+8.8Union

10350409448944938194794-2.0-2.0

REGION

2041117950575779120728405915+2.3+2.4

+ Population density is given in thousands of people per square mile.* 1990 data are from preliminary V.S. Census reports and are subject tochange.

The highest population densities are found in the center of the Estuary, ManhattanIsland, and in The Bronx and Brooklyn. New Jersey counties closest to the center of theEstuary are comparatively less dense and seem to be losing population. Dispersal ofpopulation from the core of the Estuary to its margins probably has a negative effect uponremaining habitat as the spread reduces the amount of undeveloped land and adds to thepressures on indigenous wildlife.

Of all the biological features of the Estuary region, it is the abundance of thespecies Homo sapiens which is most notable. Humans dominate the region through theirworks, through their activities, through their very presence. Possibly, among all of thefactors affecting wildlife in the region, it is the density of humans which has the greatesteffect. Only those species tolerant of human activities can persist, for there is nowilderness here.

As important as the density of human population is the rapidity of its growth. Asa consequence of climatic change resulting from glacial retreat, the Estuary region has

15

experienced a sequence of biologic changes occurring over relatively long periods of time- time measured in thousands of years. By contrast, in the last 150 years since itssettlement by European colonists, the region has undergone as dramatic an alteration ofits terrestrial habitats as that which preceeded it in the previous epoch. This alteration isdue to the rate at which human population has increased in the area (Figure 3).

Much of the recent loss of tidal marsh, mudflats and other nearshore habitats resultsfrom housing, retail and mixed-use office construction, most of which occurred since theSecond World War. In the period between 1954 and 1964, the New York shore of theEstuary lost over 5,000 acres of tidal wetlands while the New Jersey shore lost nearly12,000 acres (Table 3). Restated, over one-fifth of the Estuary's tidal marsh lossesoccurred in the period between 1953 and 1973. The magnitude of that loss in the Estuary,and elsewhere in the nation, inspired the enactment of protective legislation in the early1970's. Since then, the rate of loss has been stemmed if not stopped (Squires, 1990).

Table 3. Acreage of tidal wetlands loss, New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary.

Computed for New Jersey 1953 - 1973, and New York 1954 - 1973.*County ISta te

1953 Acres1973 AcresChangeLosslYear% Loss

/NEW JERSEYBergen

49862438254812751Hudson

41711623254812761Essex

613061331100Union

242002420121100Middlesex

5355337419819937Monmouth

3811202117909047

rrOTALS

2135694561190059556

/NEW YORK1954 ACRES1973 ACRES

The Bronx

186033115297682

Kings

240095714437260

Queens42351758247712458

Richmondunknown922

Westchesterunknown352

New Yorkunknown1

rrOTAlS

8495+43215449+272+67+

* New York data from K. Koetzner, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection, NewYQrk Department of Environmental Protection; New Jersey from Tiner, 1984.

16

II-IHI

II I I' J lilli" ,I~,I I ,j 1,1 ~ ,I II IIHl I

17

Population Growth in New York Bight Region

I 15I

13 Cl-

X11.1.- 11

Cl-'

ell iii-'

-a••

~0

c 9 C 11.1ell ~ Z a:n. l-::l IIlC

'0:i 7Z °

~:!a;11.1

It

cUffi°1-III

IIIC

~511.1

III II.IZ=ZZ

ell

ItC Q.II.I 011.1

Q. Z~~6~J:l l c(

E 3In

11.120iiill.l-,l-

It::::l UQ. l-Uc(a;~Z c(In

~II.I~~II.I- 1u.

c:;:I-

It_elll

.2It

Z

~::lZII.IZ500

11.1I-c(-'c(

iC r c~ Q.511.1lnll.lZ

11.1:; 300c(-' ~~~~~

Q.

.. ,~~ -a::lt-a;0 ]1 ::l

11.1 CCl::lC::l

n. :1100xIn !c(II.I~1I.I

51 ~Iso

L7000 _ 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

05CJQ1000

B.C.

,A.D.,

Years

Figure 3. Population growth in the New York/ New Jerseymetropolitan area. Indian artifacts date to at least 7,000B.C. Indian populations grew slowly to a maximum until justbefore European settlement. Then disease, wars and outmigration resulted in greatly diminished populations.Explosive population growth of the European settlers followed.Note changes in scale.After Squires (1983)

17

LandfiIling of the shore areas of the Estuary, briefly touched on in the precedingparagraphs, was accomplished 'initially with soil and rock resulting from excavation forbuilding construction and the levelling of the City's surfaces. Garbage (food wastes, refuseand coal ash) was always a disposal problem for the growing city. For some time, thesewastes were dumped at pierheads, or in low-lying (i.e. wetland) areas. As the volumeincreased, islands were used as dump sites, as were the waters of the Harbor. As suchdumping became a nuisance, recycling programs were established for the food wastes andrefuse (Barren Island, Jamaica Bay was the site of several"reduction" plants) -- but coalash disposal remained a problem. Riker's Island was identified as the site of the first"major" landfill for the metropolitan region in 1894. It was enlarged from an original sizeof 88 to 400 acres by disposal of ash, refuse and garbage. Much of that fill was latermoved from Riker's Island and used to create LaGuardia Airport in Flushing Bay (for a'good summary of waste disposal practices in New York City see Corey, 1991).

While "sanitary landfills" were not used in the Estuary region until the mid-1930's(Walsh, 1989), they assumed all' importance beyond the simple expedient of getting rid ofsolid wastes. As late as 1958, the New York City Department of Health was urging"...establishment of a plan and of an orderly program for filling in these offending marshareas" (City of New York, 1958). The problem was one of diseases, particularlyencephalitis, borne by biting insects. Spraying had not proven to be an effective controlmechanism. By 1954, nearly 8,000 acres of parkland had been created from marshes andanother 10,000 acreas of underwater lands made into parkland by use of sanitary landfills.Eventually, sanitary landfills ringed Jamaica Bay, filled 1300 acres of marsh in Great Kills,Staten Island and, finally, created at Fresh, Kills, Staten Island, one of the highestelevations on the eastern seaboard.

Other changes to nearshore habitats were the result of a variety of misuses. Anexample is the great Hackensack Meadowlands, at 20,000+ acres once the largest tidalwetland in the Estuary, which suffered greatly from burning, diking and damming duringthe Colonial period. While these abortive attempts to establish agriculture' in the saltmeadows were largely failures, they did result in large scale replacement of salt meadowsand in the decimation of "huge flocks" of cedar waxwings. For most of the later 1800'sand early 1900's determined planning by State officials sought to "reclaim" these marshes:

"Not withstanding the phenomenal growth of this part of the State, thesemarshes have consequently had a retarding influence upon its progress."(Vermeule, 1896, p.290)

Vermeule was, however, prescient about the future of the HackensackMeadowlands:

"Owing to its trifling value this marshy area is gradually becoming, and islikely to, in the future, become more and more a site for offensivemanufacturing industries, manure piles, and other nuisances." (Ibid, p.289)

For whatever reasons, in the early 20th Century northern New Jersey became a disposalsite for New York's unwanted: garbage, noxious and otherwise offensive industries,

18

IHnl

petrochemical plants and refmeries and petroleum storage facilities. Post-World War IIconsumerism, with its enhanced waste stream, saw the Meadowlands as convenient sites forsanitary landfills. Highway complexes built across the meadows absorbed millions of cubicyards of Newark Bay's bottom as dredging deepened that waterway. Relatively littleremains of the original marsh area of nearly 20,000 acres and of ~hose 6,000 acressurviving, almost all have been altered in some major way.

Progressive urbanization of the region has resulted in extensive modification ofhabitat through deforestation, agricultural practices, relocation of waterbodies anddrainages, and by the obliteration of habitat by paving it over. More importantly, perhaps,is the growing proximity of people to wildlife habitat and the complex of interactions in .that interface which prevent or interfere with those activities of wildlife required to sustaina functional ecosystem.

Summary. Thus by the errd of the 20th Century the New YorklNew Jersey Estuaryhas experienced major changes in its shoreline - and major losses of habitat for nearshoreaquatic and terrestrial animals and plants (Table 4). In New York Harbor waters, about47,000 acres of tidal marsh had disappeared. In New Jersey, 29,000 acres of tidelandsbetween the Raritan and the George Washington Bridge had been filled and a staggering293,000 acres of underwater lands had been filled - mostly the shallow mudflats and oyster

Table 4. New York/New Jersey Harbor· tidal marsh and underwater lands landfilled,1609 to present. +

New YorkNew JerseyTotalacreage

acreageHarbor acreage

Estimated original tidal marsh

28,00042,00070,000

Tidal marsh landfilled

18,00029,00047,000

Tidal marsh dredged

3,0001,0004,000

Tidal marsh remaining

4,00011,00015,000

Underwater lands landfilled

9,000293,000302,000

* New York/New Jersey Harbor is here defined as the area from the George WashingtonBridge south to The Narrows including Hackensack Meadowlands, Newark Bay, JamaicaBay, Kill van Kull, Arthur Kill to mouth of Raritan River, East River and the HarlemRiver. The south shore of Raritan Bay is not included.

+ Data from D.F. Squires, in preparation· and Squires, 1990. Area data are subject tolarge error and should be treated as approximations.

19

reefs of the western shore of the North River. On the New York side, a smaller 9000

acres of new land had been created. Of the once existing tidal marsh in the core of theEstuary, only about 20% remains today (Squires, in prep.).

The extent of shorezone modification within the Estuary is depicted in Figures 4 6. It is necessary to introduce cautionary guidance about the information contained inthese maps. The term "tidal marsh" has been adopted, in this report and elsewhere(Squires, in prep.) as a generic term referring to tidally flooded, vegetated, underwaterlands. Because one is hostage to long gone map makers in the compilation of this typeof data, we can only in a general way transfer information onto present day maps. \Vehave no way of knowing, except in rare instances, the biological composition of areasmapped as "marsh" or some other general term. It is, accordingly, difficult to impute"quality" of such tidal marsh in this report, except to assume that large tracts, such asthose depicted and quantified in this report, possessed a variety of habitat values similarto those which might be encountered in a similar setting today. Vegetated underwaterlands, not tidally flooded but usually underwater, are less apt to have been reported bymap makers past. Hydrographers did, in general, a better job of recognizing such areasthan geologists - perhaps a matter of perspective. Finally, unvegetated tidal flats andunvegetated underwater lands are most neglected of all. Where present as possiblenavigational hazards, their mapping is good, but their absence from maps is not to be takenas an absence in reality. "Mudflat" or "tidal flat" seems to have been the preferredterminology for unvegetated underwater lands on historic maps and we have continued thatusage here. Agencies will privately admit that from the late 1960's onwards, tidal wetlands(among other types of wetlands) have had good protection and much quantitative dataexists on areal extent, but that unvegetated underwater lands have not receivedcommensurate attention or protection. As a consequence, tidal marsh, inferred tidalwetlands, or reported tidal wetlands must serve as a proxy for all tidal hP.-hitats in ahistorical context.

Figure 4, the status of infilled wetlands and made land as of 1900 shows the patterndiscussed above with reference to port development and urbanization: i.e. most of theManhattan and Brooklyn waterfronts already altered. (As a consequence of the use of a"modern" map as a base,' marginal made lands are not always represented). By 1966(Figure 5) the margins of the New York City boroughs have been almost completelyaltered, with the exception of western Staten Island. Jamaica Bay's margin has beenlandfilled and the construction of the three major metropolitan airports completed. PortsElizabeth and Newark are being constructed on the western shore of Newark Bay andlandf1l1sproviding the space for petroleum storage on the western bank of the Arthur Killare underway. The eastern side of the lower Bayonne Peninsula has been filled, and manyof the railroad marshalling yards constructed on the landfill have already becomeredundant. Importantly, however, the dissection of the Hackensack Meadowlands byland filling has not proceeded very far. Those maps, drawn from work by the RegionalPlanning Association (Bower, et aI, 1968), have been verified and amplified by subsequent

20

IH"I , I

QUEENS

o , 2 3 ~

Scale;;;- mil;;-

Madeland vs. Marshland 1900

ESSEX

I£j Marshland

• Madeland

•

Figure 4. Status of made lands and infilled wetlandsin the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary as of1900.Modified from Bower et al (1968)

21

LG Marshland

I] Madeland

ESSEX

QUEENS

o , 2 3 ~...-:-:---=-Scale In miles


5. Status of made lands and infilled wetlands

New York/New ~ersey Harbor Estuary as ofFigurein the1966.Modified from Bower et al

22

(1968)

11·1 n I jl ~ ~ • II I IIiH 'I

t 'MII'IIHII ,~, 'I II

.........

QUEENS

o 1 2 3 4

Scale;;;' miles


ESSEX

[] MarshlandIIMadeland

Figure 6. Status of m~de lands and infilled wetalndsin the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary as of1989.

23

research (Squires, 1990). A compilation representing the status as of 1989 has beenprepared and is shown as Figure 6 (Squires, 1990; Squires, in prep.). Here is shown theessential completion of shoreline modification of the Boroughs of New York City, thedissection of the Hackensack Meadowlands by landfills, completion of landfills for PortsNewark and Elizabeth, and landfills for petroleum storage on the Arthur Kill.

Further modification of the nearshore environment, not represented in the datapresented here, has resulted from the bulkheading, riprapping or other treatment of theland/water interface. These modifications have been mapped and are reported on inSection 4 of the inventory and characterization report on habitat and fish resources of theEstuary (Keller IN Woodhead, 1991). Keller identified about 25% of the Estuary shorelinewhich has not been steepened and modified. While most of the shoreline which has been.modified has also been landfilled, some of that which has not been landfilled has beenotherwise modified. Further, in unused portions of the Estuary, prior modifications havecome to be obscured by recent sedimentation and/or growth of fringing marshes. It isprobably fair to estimate that almost 90% of the core areas of the Estuary (the port area)has been modified in one fashion or another, at one time or another. As one leaves thecore area and moves up tributary rivers, or around the western and southern shores ofRaritan Bay, the extent of modification decreases rapidly.

Urbanization has been speeded by recent redevelopment of the waterfront. Largetracts of land, the former industrial and rail facilities along the Bayonne Peninsula, havingbeen made redundant and become vacant, then became attractive to developers ofmixed-use housing, retail, and commercial space. Activityon the west side of the HudsonRiver became sufficiently intense that the Port Authority of New York and New Jerseyfound it useful to publish annual reports summarizing development plans on "the GoldCoast." Tables 5, 6 and 7 summarize those data for the numbers of dwelling units, officefloor space and commercial retail space planned or scheduled for construction. Whilesubstantial amounts of that projected development have occurred, much more is planned.Because of the long lead time involved in such large developments, reliable estimates ofwhat finally will be constructed are impossible to make.

Projected construction on the Manhattan shoreline has not been as extensive as onthe Bayonne Peninsula, largely because of the already extensive waterfront development.Some of the projects having future implications for the shoreline of Manhattan are:

The Hudson River Center - a 1500+ room hotel to be built on existing HudsonRiver piers adjacent to the Javitts Convention Center. Marina and retail facilities are tobe a part of the complex. This project has focused attention upon the building ofstructures out over the river on pilings and the environmental impact such structures mayhave.

24

I I I I'~~I ,i~' , I

Table S. Numbers of dwelling units scheduled for construction/completion on the NewJersey shore of the Hudson River.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1990.Waterfront

Scheduled Completion DateSector

1986-198919901991-19951996-2000After 2000Other.Northern3274241564308834126090

Hoboken

104--850 1600--1173

Downtown J.e.

2425112525 ---19033

Southern

363• 01348 ----1887

TOTAL

31295364287 4688341228183

Table 6. Amount* of office space scheduled for construction/completion on the NewJersey shore of the Hudson River.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1990.

Waterfront


1986-198919901991-19951996-2000After 2000Other

Northern

148533013001000451450

Hoboken

93--281287--1280

Downtown J.e.

202703964 ----16636

Southern

000 ----1100

TOTAL

3605330529222874520466

* in thousands of square feet

25

Table 7. Amount of commercial retail space scheduled Corconstruction/completion onthe New Jersey shore of the Hudson River.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1990.

Waterfront


1986-198919901991-19951996-2000After 2000

Northern

2200112 2450

Hoboken

0-0300

Downtown J .C.

000

Southern

0024

TOTAL

2200136 5450

Other

660

o

2032

173

2865

* in thousands of square feet

The Penn-Central Yards, West 59th to 72nd Streets - a large parcel ofabandoned railroad yards has attracted many proposals including DonaldTrump's ''Trump City", and its attempt to return to New York City therecord for building height.

-.

The West Side Long Island Railroad Yard - a 30 acre site being the focusof proposals for mixed use development.

Riverwalk, on the East River between 16th and 24th Streets - proposed asa mixed use development, including a marina

Battery Park City - continued development on the filled land on the HudsonRiver including a variety of office space and dwelling units.

South Ferry Plaza - a mixed use development incorporating renovation of a numberof Battery structures of historical interest. This project has been abandonedrecently because of the sluggish real estate market.

Legislation designed to slow the rate of loss of shoreline to development is notalways successful. Regulators will admit that wetlands protective regulations work againstdevelopment of large parcels, but not against small wetlands acreages being altered.Coastal zone management regulations often tied coastal development to "water dependentuses." One obvious "water dependent use" is the construction of marinas, now oftenincidental to extensive housing development.

26

I , IHHI I' ~ ~ i I·' I I III I 1'1 'I I ,', "',,~,, I "

Two studies of requirements for tecreational boafing marina slips in New YorkHarbor conducted in 1979 and 1980 concluded that 10,000 slips constituted the latentdemand by recreational boaters (Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., 1979; West andHeatwole 1981). Yet in the decade of the 1980's, over 6500 new boat slips have beenproposed for the Bayonne Peninsula, about 6000 of which were in conjunction withcondominium development. Of that number, somewhat less than 10% have been actuallycreated with the remainder tied to projects of unknown completion date. While it isundoubtedly true that upper priced housing and marina slips go hand-in-hand, it is equallypossible that marina slips and coastal zone development permit approvals are naturalassociates in establishing "water dependent" justifications.

A major issue arising from continued development pressures on the shoreline of theEstuary concerns the use of pile-built structures. Because of resistance by regulators topermit further landfilling of underwater lands, developers have come to propose buildingsconstructed on existing or new pile fields. The concept is not new, for the Watersidecomplex on the East River, built in the early 1970's, is constructed, partially, on 6.1 acresof pilings. The largest pile structure in the Estuary is the North River Sewage TreatmentFacility which extends on 30 acres of pilings over the Hudson River between 137th and145th Streets, Manhattan. The controversy about pile-built structures concerns the effectsof shadowing of the aquatic margin of the harbor, the effects of pile fields upon circulationin the nearshore region, and the general further encroachment of urban development uponthe Harbor's waters ..

Impacts of Physical Alteration on Nearshore Habitats and Wildlife

This report deals with nearshore aquatic and terrestrial habitats and wlIdlife. Wehave been challenged to deal with that terrestrial area having a direct influence upon thenearshore zone -- an area of differing dimensions in the views of others. As described inthe pages above, the focus in this discussion of habitat and habitat alteration has been onthe physical modifications -- other reports deal with the effects of toxies and other"chemical" effects. Our focus is appropriate because the effect of human activities uponnearshore habitat is often its obliteration or severe disruption as functional habitat.Further, as described above, historical information on nearshore habitat is focussed onmarshes which must, perforce, serve as proxy for the entire suite of nearshore habitats.

Earliest written records of the Estuary comment lavishly upon the abunda~ce offish and wildlife and upon extensive marshes and forests found there. While some of thoserecords were undoubtedly written for the purpose of enticing colonists to the region, theyalso represent true reactions to what the early settlers found. The lands they left had beenlargely deforested and their wildlife decimated. The land into which they moved was onewhich had been little altered by the extant Native American population. While the Estuaryis believed to have had a higher population density of Native Americans than surroundingareas--a density attributed by Salwen (1975) to the abundance of marine foods availablethrough all seasons of the year-it was not a settled population. Movement of NativeAmerican villages about the region from time to time allowed vegetation and wildlife toregenerate.

27

However, soon after colonization, naturalists were noting the changes in wildlife

resulting from human developments. Agriculture, particularly the husbandry of Europeancattle, caused the elimination of larger predators and herbivores (Cronan, 1983). Predationand habitat loss were not the only factors involved in wildlife change, for by the late 1800'sregulations on pollution of the Harbor were promulgated to protect its marine life (NewYork State, 1887). Colonists brought more than themselves and their families to the NewWorld. Agricultural plants were imported, and when introduced as living plants, alsointroduced their exotic soil microflora and fauna. Kieran (1959) estimated "...that 40percent of the plant life in New York City and vicinity is of European origin." Many of theintroduced species flourished under the new agricultural practices amnd overwhelmeddomestic types. Numbers of introduced cattle soon exceeded the numbers of humans.Their numbers and feeding requirements modified terrestrial pastures, as well as grazedand mowed salt marsh, and altered the chemistry of ponds and streams.

Excessive use of wood for construction and firewood led to rapid deforestation andsoon to importation of wood from far up the Hudson and Raritan Rivers. As much as20,000 cords of firewood were required annually by New York City (Squires, 1981) and,as noted by Kardas and Larrabee (1979, p.1) "In the New York Harbor in general, andmost specifically on the Jers~y City waterfront ...abandoned pier facilities and rotting pilingsare the vestiges of...[a] technology of massive industrial construction using the apparentlyinexhaustible lumber of North American forests."

Destruction of habitat and wildlife in the developing urban region was not a simpleprocess of elimination of all but the most tolerant species. For example, Kieran (1959)notes that "...the destruction or elimination of plant and animallife ...through the blanketingof the ground by buildings and pavements is largely a matter of quantity and not of kind.1IWhile absence of transport systems initially kept human populations closely concentratedabout the workplace, the development of rail transport, and then of the automobile, greatlyexpanded the reach of humans. This expanded reach, together with the development ofleisure time, has had a continuing impact upon wildlife measured beyond habitatdestruction. The history of the region is one of progressively more distant human"playgrounds." Initially the Elysian Fields of Hoboken were where the leisured class wentto enjoy nature and to recreate. Bayonne and Bergen Point were for almost a century afavored resort. Newark Bay was dotted with yacht clubs. Coney Island, Jamaica Bay andother spots around the Estuary were progressively favored as recreational retreats whoseprinicpal assets were often clean air, water and abundant willife.

As the metropolitan area has grown, its human population density increased and thesub:1rban fringe extended by transportation systems, strenuous efforts have been made topreserve and protect open space in recognition of the high value placed upon that attributeby our society. However, as the character of urban population has changed and as the"open perimeter" of the urban complex has disappeared, upland open space has comeunder heavy human pressures from active or passive use. More and more such openspace, whether designated as recreational space or as quasi-natural areas, will be subjectedto human disturbance. Nearshore habitats such as marshes may become the last bastionsfor species not tolerant of human presence. In particular, marsh areas in proximity to

28

I , III I ~~ 1 II' I I III i ~I , I" I, I IHI'''' ""1' IlH H II, ""1'

; 1.tI ~ 1'1¥-1II j I, ~;Il I II

activities not considered desirable by humans may prove to have the greatest potential.Examples of such relatively undisturbed areas are the marshes of Jamaica Bay in proximityto John F. Kennedy International Airport or to the landfills on the margin of the Bay; theremaining marsh areas along the Arthur Kill isolated by petroleum storage facilities or bylandfills; and marsh areas adjacent to landfills in the Hackensack Meadowlands.

A desirable objective of a study examining historical alteration of habitats andassociated wildlife would be the establishment of a body of information about pre-existinghabitats and wildlife which commented upon the quality of the habitats and thecomposition of the flora and fauna. However, serious problems exist with such a goal.One is immediately confronted with such questions as:

*What period of time should be chosen as a baseline? Pre-glacial? Post-glacial?Pre-Colonization? Post-Colonization? Post-Colonial-Impact?

*At this distance in history, can the effects of climatic change be differentiatedfrom the effects of "human occupation upon habitat and wildlife?

*How may accounts of historical habitat and wildlife be effectively verified? Havespecies reported in the vernacular been appropriately identified? How have the vernacularnames changed?

*Has the construct for non-quantitative measures of abundance altered throughtime?

Response to those questions, and others, is possible: but not within the constraintsof the present project. An illustration of the challenges of the task may be drawn fromthe comprehensive work of Kevin Wright (1988). The Wright report is unpublished andis available only through the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission.

Around 1400 AD, the Hackensack Meadowlands were invaded by southern bogspecies including the white cedar, turning "thousands of acres into a boreal swampland."Many accounts of the Meadowlands report the white cedar marsh and the "clouds" ofcedar waxwings which also occurred there (e.g. Qayton, 1881; Van Winkle, 1902). Few ofthose accounts possess much more detail. The cedar marsh persisted into the "historic"period, covering an area of about one~third of the Meadowlands. An often recountedversion of the demise of the cedar swamp tens of efforts in the late 18th Century to clearthe Meadowlands of pirates and other villains. Burning of the swamp and otherdestructive tactics were used, the implication being that all, or substantial portions of thewhite cedar swamp was destroyed. Wright cautions acceptance of these accounts allowingthat while they may contain a "core of truth," deeds of property are known which conveyrights to the harvesting of cedar and other wood from the cedar swamp area well into theearly 1800's.

29

A snapshot of nearshore habitats taken at the period of Colonial development bywhich time reasonable written records had been compiled, would reveal a biota still slowlyadjusting to post-glacial climate change, and beginning to show the effects of humandisturbance.

30

I I IIIII I I" qil 1,1; il,~'~ I 1111111 ·14.f II II a'J I

d~. I", 1,I'1.1II11'11·,Ij I 'I~; I I II

METHODS

by

J.S. Barclay

Our efforts to locate information materials were enhanced by use of computerizedreference lists and services and especially by personal contacts with individuals ingovernmental agencies and private organizations. The latter were particularly fruitful inthe development of site-specific data, much of which is unpublished. Almost as much'wildlife information exists in unpublished form as in published. Complete assembly of thiskind of literature exceeded the time framework of this project. Personal interviews, twoboat trips within the harbor, periodic group meetings and searches of institutional librarycollections were also conducted .to attain project objectives.

The existing literature, including books, journal publications, project "Completionreports, local, state and federal documents, area management plans, and special regionalassessments by private organizations or consulting firms were screened for use in thisproject. Those containing information on species, their status and trends, habitats andmanagement in particular were used to prepare the components contained in this report.

Atlas of Documented Natural Areas

Documentation on the 39 natural areas (62 sites) within the project boundaries ordetermined to be relevant to the Harbor ecosystem was obtained in the course ofpreparing this report (Figure 7). We concluded that much of that information, particularlythat contained in unpublished reports, brochures and management plans, should. beavailable to future researchers. Included are such matters as: ownership or managementauthority of the natural area; physical and biological characteristics; size and geographiclocation; nature, status and management concerns of natural, modified or created habitats;and sources of additional information. This material was compiled as fact sheets, followinga standardized format, for each of the natural areas and is included as Appendix B of thisreport (Atlas of Selected Natural Areas for the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary).This Atlas was intended to be as inclusive as we could make it in the time available butwe were unable to verify current status beyond the dates shown.

Personal contacts with local authorities, management plans, maps, special reports("Buffer the Bay", "Harbor Herons", etc), brochures, leaflets and some publishedinformation were among the many helpful sources consulted in compiling the Atlas. Theseareas were primarily ones which have received some statutory protection and, in mostcases, have been designated as' parks, preserves, or other forms of special areamanagement, e.g. Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge. In some cases, e.g. "NorthwestStaten Island", 24 additional geographic locations ("sub-sites") were identified within largerareas as ecologically significant but not always protected via statute.

31

MONMOUTH CO.

NEW YORK

NEW YORK BIGHT

Figure 7. Map of 39 major natural areas for whichhabitat and/or population data were obtained.

32

wildlife

I , I·~~.~ II '. I I " I""T

II

Table 8. Key to Figure 7 for the 39 major natural areas (numbers) and subsites (letters)with their geographic coordinates and USGS Quadrangle for which wildlifehabitat (Atlas) and/or population data (Matrix) were obtained for use in thisreport.

No. ArealSite Longitude/LatitudeUSGS Quadrangle

1. Swimming River N.A.*, NJ

40 19'18"NnS OS'4S"WLong Branch NJ

2. Sandy Hook, NJ

40 28'Nn4 OO'WSandy Hook NJ-NY

3. Cheesequake N. A., NJ

4026'OO"Nn4 16'30"WSouth Amboy NJ-NY

4. Liberty Park N.A./State Pk.

40 42'08"Nn4 03'lS"WJersey City NJ-NY

5. Hackensack Meadowlands, NJ

40 47'30"Nn4 OS'OO"Wmost Weehawkin NJ

6. Clay Pits PondState Park Preserve, NY

40 32'30"Nn4 13'4S"~Arthur Kill NY-NJ

7. Conference House Park, NY

40 29'4S"Nn 4 15'OO"WArthur Kill NY-NJ

8. Lemon Creek Park, NY

40 31'00"Nn4 12'OO"WArthur Kill NY-NJ-.

~

9. Poillon Ave. Wetlands, NY40 32'OO"Nn4 10'38"WArthur Kill NY-NJ

10. Great Kills, NY

40 33'OO"Nn4 07'45"WThe Narrows NY-NJ

11. Millers Field, NY .

40 34'08"Nn4 06'OO"WThe Narrows NY-NJ

12. Staten Island Greenbelt, NY

40 35'15"Nn4 07'45"WArthur Kill NY-NJIThe Narrows NY-NJ

13. A Shooters Island, NY

40 38'38"Nn4 09'38"WElizabeth NJ-NYB Arlington, NY

40 38'lS"Nn4 10'30"WElizabeth NJ-NYC Bridge Creek NY

40 38'15"Nn4 ll'15''WElizabeth NJ.:NYD Goethals Bridge Pond, NY

40 37'45"Nn4 lO'30"WElizabeth NJ-NYE Old Place Creek, NY

40 37'30"Nn4 lO'53"WArthur Kill NY-NJIElizabeth NJ-NYF Graniteville Swamp, NY

40 37'30"Nn4 10'15"WArthur Kill NY-NJElizabeth NJ-NYG Staten Isl. Corporate Pk, NY 40 36'30"Nn4 10'30"W

Arthur 'Kill NY-NJH Gulfport Marsh, NY

40 37'15"Nn4 ll'30"WArthur Kill NY-NJIElizabeth NJ-NY

33

Table 8, continued.

No. ArealSite

I Sawmill Creek Marsh, NYJ Prall's Island, NYK Neck Creek Marsh, NYL Fresh Kills, NYM Isle of Meadows, NY

14. Plumb Beach, NY

15. Marine Park, NY

16. Floyd Bennett Field, NY

17. Bergen Beach, NY

18. A Mill Basin Wetlands andFour Sparrow Marsh, NY

B Paerdegat Basin, NY

C Fresh Creek Basin, NY

19. Canarsie Pier Area, NY

Longitude/Latitude

40 36'30''Nn4 l1'30"W40 36'30"Nn4 12'08"W40 35'53"Nn4 ll'15"W40 35'00"Nn4 11'30"W40 34'30"Nn4 12'15"W

40 35'00"Nn3 55'30"W

40 36'00"Nn3 55'15"W

40 35'30''Nn3 53'30"W

40 36'30"Nn3 53'45''W

40 36'00"Nn3 54'30"W40 37'30"Nn3 54'00"W

40 38'30"Nn3 53'00"W

40 37'45"Nn3 53'15"W

USGS Quadrangle

Arthur Kill NY-NJArthur Kill NY -NJArthur Kill NY-NJArthur Kill NY-NJArthur Kill NY-NJ

Coney Island NY-NJ

Coney Island NY-NJ

Coney Island NY-NJ

Coney Island NY-NJ

Coney Island NY-NJBrooklyn, NY/

Coney Is1. NY-NJBrooklyn, NY

Brooklyn, NY

20. Pennsylvania Ave. Landfill,NY 40 38'30"Nn3 52'30"W Brooklyn, NYJamaica, NY

21. Fountain Ave. Landfill, NY

22. Canarsie Pol, NY

23. Ruffle Bar, NY

24. Spring Creek, NY

25. Ruler's Bar Hassock, NY

26. JoCo Marsh, NY

27. A Mott Basin, NYB Bayswater Peninsula, NYC Norton Basin, NY and

Southern Norton Basin,NY

40 38'45"Nn3 51'45"W Jamaica, NY

40 37'15"Nn3 52'15"W Far Rockaway, NY/Coney Is1. NY-NJ

40 36'00"Nn3 51'30"W Far Rockaway, NY

40 38'45"Nn3 52'15"W Jamaica, NY

40 37'00"Nn3 49'30"W Far Rockaway, NYJamaica, NY

40 37'00"Nn3 47'30"W Far Rockaway, NY·

40 36'40"Nn3 45'48"W Far Rockaway, NY40 36'47"Nn3 46'08"W Far Rockaway, NY

40 36'00"Nn3 46'08"W Far Rockaway, NY

34

I I I I-~'I I I ,~~ i·j I I 1'1I ~I i I .~. I "

Table 8, continued.

No. ArealSite Longitude/Latitude USGS Quadrangle

D Conch's Basin, NY 40 35'48"Nn3 46'50"WE Edgemere Landfill/Park, NY 40 36'15"Nn3 46'47''WF Sommerville Basin, NY 40 35'45''Nn3 47'30"WG Dubos Point, NY 40 36'15"Nn3 47'15"WH Brant Point, NY 40 35'56"Nn3 48'13''WI VemamlBarbados

Peninsula NY 40 35'45"Nn3 48'26"WJ Beach-ta-Bay Link, NY 40 35'30"Nn3 47'32"W

Far Rockaway, NYFar Rockaway, NYFar Rockaway, NYFar Rockaway, NYFar Rockaway, NY

Far Rockaway, NYFar Rockaway, NY

28. Subway Island, NY 40 36'05"Nn3 48'45"W

29. Little Egg Island, NY

40 35'37"Nn3 50'33''W

30. Fort Tilden, NY

40 33'38"Nn3 53'30"W

31. Breezy Point Tip, NY

40 32'52"Nn3 56'00''W

32. Forest Park, NY

40 42'15"Nn3 51'OO"W

33. Kissena Park, NY

40 44'45"Nn3 48'30"W

34. Cunningham Park, NY

40 44'OO"Nn3 46'15"W

35. Alley Pond Park, NY

40 45'30"Nn3 45'30"W

36. Udall's Cove and Ravine, NY ? ? ? ?

Far Rockaway, NY

Far Rockaway, NY

Coney Island, NY

Coney Island, NY

Jamaica, NY

Jamaica, NY

Jamaica, 1\ry

Flushing, NY ?

Flushing, NY ?

37. Pelham Bay Park, NY

38. Van Cortland Park, NY

39. Riverdale Park, NY

* N.A= natural area

40 52'30"Nn3 48'30"W Flushing, NYIMt. Vernon, NY

40 54'OO"Nn3 53'00"W Yonkers NY. ,

40 53'45"Nn3 55'OO"W Yonkers, NY

35

Public management authority for the sites identified included New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection (NJ/DEP) - Swimming River Natural Area,Cheesequake Natural Area, and Liberty State Park Natural Area; U.S. Department of theInterior (USDI)/Gateway National Recreation Area - 18 areas plus 12 sub-sites; and theNew York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCIDPR) - 14 areas.

Three areas (Spring Creek; 3 "basinsll west of Jamaica Bay; and 11 subsites ofeastern Jamaica Bay) were identified in the 1987 IIBuffer the Bayll report by the Trust forPublic Lands (TPL) and the NYC Audubon Society (NYCAS). "The Harbor HeronsReport" (TPL and NYCAS 1990) detailed northwest Staten Island (including Governor'sIsland and 12 other sub-sites) features. A Functional Assessment Report on theHackensack Meadowlands by the Environmental Protection Agency, Region II and species'information from the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (Kraus et aJ1987) completed the designated site inventory.

The area reports were tlsed primarily to construct a matrix of species and theiroccurrence by site and is included as Appendix C, Tables 1 - 3. Once the matrix wasassembleq we were able to develop some interpretation of status based on presence,absence, abundance, rarity and extirpation.

Mapping

An exhaustive array of materials, including maps depicting development and habitatmodification of the Harbor region since the 1600's were used to reconstruct a quantitativeand pictorial history of physical changes within the project area (Figures 3-5).

Portrayal of contemporary natural areas and open space which could serve aswildlife habitat within the Harbor region was accomplished by means of a series of 12maps contained in Appendix D. We examined most, if not all, available map sets whichmight in some way depict current wildlife habitats for the area. The resulting maps werenecessarily labor intensive but are reasonably accurate and appropriate portrayals ofwildlife habitats by major type. The maps are unique to this project and should proveuseful as a quick reference for responding to or assessing species/habitat managementneeds.

Quantification of IIhabitatsll per se has been accomplished via compilation ofacreages reported for individual sites plus detailed docllmentation of changes in lands andwaters by dredging, filling, creation of land and construction. Further quantification basedon hydrology, soils or vegetation was not carried out but can be done if needed using thehabitat maps shown in Appendix D. Sources such as those shown in the Referencessection provide many more useful local details than could be included in the body of thisreport.

Maps of potential wildlife habitats in the project area included all lands and waterswithin the specified project area boundaries. A rough approximation of the perimeterincluded the Hudson River to Tappan Zee Bridge plus the Palisades and/or slopes to the

36

I' , IHnl , I

top of the watershed paralleling the river (or to adjoining parkways) on both sides; eastalong the Westchester County boundary to Pelham Bay on Long Island Sound; across theThrogs Neck Bridge and Long Island to include Jamaica Bay and the Rockaway Peninsula;across the New York Bight to the base of Sandy Hook, New Jersey; inland west andnorthwest to include estuarine portions of theNavesink River, Cheesequake natural area,the Raritan estuary, and the Hackensack Meadows. All of the boroughs or other landareas which comprise New York City proper were contained within the mappedboundaries. However, not all natural areas within the inner "landward" city were depictedbecause of distance (>0.5 - 1.0 mile) and lack of association with the harbor environment.

A color-coded depiction of "wildlife habitats" was made on mylar copies of NationalWetlands Inventory maps, which themselves are based upon the U.s. Geological Surveytopographic map series. This analysis included any "open space"" areas which couldreasonably be expected to meet $ome or all of the needs of one or more wildlife species.Additionally, lands which appeared from the existing map sources to be capable ofsupporting or producing indigenous plant and animal communities were mapped as well.Thus extensive grassed areas or weedy vacant lots might well be mapped as (potential)wildlife habitat. We did not attempt to depict habitats frequented by ubiquitous ''wild''exotics such as pigeons, rats and mice. All natural areas for which we had obtainedinformation on wildlife populations or habitats were included in the overall mapping.

The topographic quadrangles which depict the study area are listed in Table 9.For the final presentation of data we used maps prepared by the American GeographicalSociety for the Husdson-Raritan Estuary Program of the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. Those maps, scaled at 1/40,000, do not contain the culturaldetail of the topographic sheets and so serve more clearly as base sheets. They were,however, prepared for the display of water bodies in the Estuary region and, as a result,do not fully depict the land area of the Estuary. As necessary, those missing terrestrialareas are shown on supplemental topographic sheets reproduced at a scale of 1/40,000 andare included in the Appendix.

As is evident from an examination of Table 9, the study area is represented onmaps now 10 years old or more. This decadal gap presented a dilemma for the task ofmapping habitats, which was intensified by the dates of the wetlands inventories availablefrom the States of New York and New Jersey, which were prepared in 1972 and 1970,respectively. Because the project was specifically designed to utilize existing informationand did not call for field verification of data, we. resolved the problem of a datedinformation base in the next best way. We utilized the cultural information on the.topographic maps and the biological information from the wetlands inventory sheets in thedevelopment of our habitat and potential habitat charts, recognizing that the informationpresented is, for some areas, out of date. This procedure did, however, allow us to presenta survey based on a widely available data base. Alternatives to this procedure, such as

37

Table 9.' U.S. Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute quadrangles included in the study area.

Quadrangle

Date ofDate of MostName

Base MapRecent Map

Arthur Kill

19661966 photorevised 1981Bound Brook

19671955 photorevised 1970photoinspected 1977Brooklyn

19671967 photorevised 1979Central Park

19661966 photorevised 1979Coney Island

19661966 photorevised 1979Elizabeth

19671967 photorevised 1981Far Rockaway

1969 1969Flushing

19661966 photorevised 1979Hackensack

1955rev. 1970

1955 photorevised 1981Jamaica

19661966 photorevised 1979Jersey City

19671967 photorevised 1981Keyport .

1954rev. 1970

1954 photorevised 1977Long Branch

1954rev. 1970

1954 photorevised 1981Mount Vernon

19661966 photorevised 1979The Narrows

1966 photorevised 1981New Brunswick

1954rev. 1970

1954 photorevised 1981Nyack

19671967 photorevised 1979Orange

1955~

rev. 19701955 photorevised 1981

Paterson1955


Perth Amboy1956


Plainfield1955


Sandy Hook1954


South Amboy1954


Weehawken19671967 photorevised 1981

White Plains19671967 photorevised 1979

Yonkers19661966 photorevised 1979

38

! I I I I,l ~I I I ~.' l li;j, I I IiII~I I I II

updating the topographic maps by the use of aerial photographs or other mappedinformation was far beyond the capacity of this project. To have attempted to upgrade theinformation on the topographic maps based on personal knowledge would have made thedata base uneven in its content and hence unreliable.

The landward extent of estuarine waters, whether open or vegetated marsh, wasalways mapped, but not necessarily to the head-of-tide. Estuarine water boundaries were

.normally placed at watershed boundaries unless heavily urbanized areas or highways camebetween the watershed line and the estuary ..

In nearly all cases a minimal 50 meter wide buffer zone was allowed between allopen space areas and urban development such as roads, utilities, industrial, commercialand residential structures (e.g. roads, railroads, powerlines, water towers, storage tanks,houses and other buildings). The exception to the buffer zone was made in the case ofcertain military features. While this buffer zone reduced the total areas for parks, wetlandsand other potential habitats, it is our experience that this buffer, although likely to harborsome wild animals, is the minimum practical transition between human dominated areasand natural areas and should be incorporated in preservation efforts.

Color photocopies of the 1:24,000 scale hand colored mylar maps were made at areduced scale of 1:40,000. The color copies, when plac;ed under the black and white1:40,000 scale project maps on a light table, provided a means for rendering the wildlifehabitat types by applying black/white cross hatching "zip-a-tone" to acetate overlays cut tosize. The acetates, with their black/white backgrounds, were then photocopied to reportformat.

Habitat Modification Recommendations

Recommendations for habitat modifications were developed from conclusions fromour field reconnaissance activities in the study area, insights based on data analyses, andprofessional experience.

Wildlife populations

Data. Seven wildlife data files were obtained for use in this study, an eighth wascompiled from natural area lists, and all are shown in Table 10. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) Breeding Bird Survey file and the Colonial Nesting Bird filefrom Cornell University were deferred to other investigators who were charged with theiranalysis. The annual National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data(Butcher 1989) provided most of the information on winter wildlife populations presentedin this report. Data gleaned from various specific area management plans and descriptivereports (e.g. Cook, 1989a, b) provided tabulations on species richness, relative abundanceand seasonal information for amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds (se "Matrix",Appendix C).

39

1'7

The volume of bird banding and recovery files and mid-winter waterfowl inventorydata exceeded resources available for analysis. The banding data could provide someinsight as to geographic wintering or breeding grounds and the migration routes followedby a variety of species banded or recovered in the New York metropolitan area.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Jamaica Bay shorebird migration data providedthe only systematic survey information on bird migrations that we were able to obtain otherthan spring rapt or migration data for the period 1977-1988 (Bouton 1987; Major, 1988).

Table 10. Data sets obtained for evaluation of wildlife populations, population trends andhabitats within the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary.

Name

Christmas BirdCount Database

Bird Bal1dRecoveries

MidwinterWaterfowlTrend Data

Source Years IncludedUsed in Report

Cornell UniversityLab. of Ornithology

1961 - 1988yes

Migratory Bird BandingLab, USFWS, Laurel, MD

?no

USFWSSteiner (1984)Reference

1954 - 1984yes

CooperativeBreeding BirdinsufficientSurvey Data

Migratory Bird BandingLab. USFWS, Laurel, MD 1969; 1988 no

Colonial NestingBird Registry

Natural AreaLists

ShorebirdMigratorySurvey Data

Sandy HookHawk MigrationData

Cornell UniversityLab. of Ornithology

Misc. state/private

Jamaica Bay Nat'l:Wildl. Refuge, USFWSJamaica Bay, NY

Boutin, 1987Major, 1988

40

?

various

1981 - 1988

1979 - 1988

no

yes

yes

yes

I Hili I-;j·'-#olll 111'~'lj 1

Bird Surveys. The depiction of wildlife populations in this report was based on ouranalyses of data sets, including periodic bird surveys (Christmas Bird Count [CBe]:Midwinter Waterfowl Inventory [MWI]; autumn raptor migrations; autumn shorebirdmigrations) and reports of species from natural areas throughout the region. Only thebird surveys provided data which could be used .to portray or analyze actual wildlifepopulation trends. Similar data for mammals or herps were not located and may not e).;stas such, at least on a regional scale. The bird data are presented in a series of graphs and,for the Christmas Counts, tables based on simple linear regressions to clarify trenddirections and importance.

The midwinter waterfowl inventory data were the result of nationwide systematicaerial surveys conducted by state and federal waterfowl biologists in mid-January each year.The results of these surveys over the 30 year period 1954-1984 for the Atlantic Flyway ingeneral, and individual states such as New York and New Jersey in particular, werereported by Steiner (1984). The mid-winter count trends are similar to trends exhibitedby waterfowl (ducks,geese and swans) in the CBC 1961-1988 (our analysis).

The annual CBC data were obtained from the Ornithological Laboratory at Cornell(Butcher 1989). The data are the results of efforts by knowledgeable volunteers in eachof 11 count areas (Figure 8), including one area of open ocean located approximately 10km east of Sandy Hook. The exact locations are detailed in Table 11. Each count areais within a 15 mile diameter circle and each group of participants follows specific countguidelines. The ten mainland areas comprise substantial coverage (roughly 1,700 sq.mi.)of the metropolitan region, although some overlap in count areas was apparent whenmapped by their geographic coordinates. These overlaps are considered minor and occurmostly over large expanses of open water.

The bird counts from the 11 count areas (circles) were averaged for each of the277 species reported. The 100 species found to be most frequently encountered over the27 year period were selected for graphic display and trend analysis (linear regression)(Butcher et aI, 1990). Only two species (Ruffed Grouse, Monk Parakeet) out of the 100fell below one individual per 100 party hours in more than 50 percent of the 27 CBC years.

Because of variations in bird behavior, distribution and count effort from area-to-areaand year-to-year, the data for 66 specie~ were "normalized" (i.e.transformed to a standardbasis) by dividing the total number observed by the total number of observer ("party")hours each year. This was done for species whose count is a function of hours spent incensus effort. The 34 species whose numbers were not likely to be a function of effortwere those known to be found in groups in familiar habitats (e.g. some duck & gullspecies). Since birds in the latter category were likely to be counted accurately, the resultswere used without transformation (Le. non-normalized).

"Oracle" software on a Zenith 386 PC was used to compile the CBC data averages,while "Quattro Pro" was used in the preparation of the spreadsheet and graphs of CBCresults. A "SAS" program on the UCONN mainframe computer provided the regressionanalyses of annual CBC totals.

41

Annual surveys of breedin~ bird populations have been conducted throughout theUnited States under the auspices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since the 1960's.Although FWSsurvey plans called for at least two of the 50-stop 25-mile routes to besurveyed in the area (Route 17 Passaic and Route 24 Gillette) only three runs were made,of which two (1969-Passaic, 1988-Gillette) were usable (S. Droege, pers. comm. 11-3-89).However, the limited data contained in the surveys were of little relevance to this project.

Table 11. Key to place names, coordinates and survey years for the eleven ChristmasBird Count circles depicted in Figure 8 and included in the analyses of NewYork Harbor winter bird population trends as provided by the CornellOrnithological Laboratory, Ithaca, NY.

Map

Location CoordinatesYearsSymbol

Name•Longitude LatitudeSurveyed (N)

A

Atlantic Ocean 40 14' N x 73 28' W1975-86, '88 (13)

B

Long Branch (NJ) 40 14' N x 74 04' W1961 - 1988 (28)

C

Sandy Hook (NJ) 40 28' N x 74 00' W1976 - 1988 (13).D Raritan Estry.(NY/NJ)40 31' N x 74 21' W1963 - 1988 (26)

E

Staten Island (NY/NJ)40 35' N x 74 09' W1961 - 1988 (28)

F

Brooklyn (NY) 40 36' N x 73 56' W1961-69,'71-88(27)

G

Queens (NY) 40 42' N x 73 45' W1965 - 1988 (24)

H

Lower Hudson (NY/NJ)40 47' N x 73 59' W1961 - 1988 (28)

IBronx- Westchester(NY)40 53' N x 73 45' W1961 - 1988 (28)

J

Hackensack (NJ/NY)40 56' N x 74 02' W1961 - 1988 (28)

K

Rockland Co. (NJ/NY)41 08' N x 73 58' W1961-73,'75-88(27)

42

-:;v

I i I I l'f1'11

ATLA."'T:C OCE"'."

jIIIIIII

._. __ ~ ••••••••. [tIUoIIf"W'~

..-..eM!.ara .....,..,.i

!!.

.- .•... .....----. \.'

(/

IfI'Ij

.!1I.

'\ ••.•••••• ,. Co:)

'-",....0 :•• ~-- .-

\}.~ ~ ~I . r '" I"

" :rr ~......... _-~ ,t., , •• ,- .I

Figure 8. Map of 11 Christmas Bird Count circles whosedata were included in the analyses of winter birdpopulations as described in this report

43

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

by

J. S. Barclay

Time Frame and Data

The one year total project time was sufficient to assess the kinds and availabilityof published information and data bases. However, it was insufficient for conductinganalyses of all available data. For example, an extensive file of approximately 10,000 birdband recoveries was obtained from the USFWS but has not been utilized due to time andfinancial constraints. We found that the identification and acquisition of data sets, followedby the development of appropriate software for analysis, required considerably more timethan was available.

What has not come to our attention yet are reliable estimates of biomass diversity,breeding population size and success by species, production rates and wildlife resourcevalues as' compared to pre-development levels. Since estuarine wetlands are consideredby ecologists to be especially productive, crucial to some wildlife, and essential for viableshellfish and finfish populations in coastal waters (Odum 1971), remnants of anypre-settlement wetlands which might remain should qualify for high priority preservationstatus ..

Wildlife habitats

The earliest known written accounts of European explorers from the. late 1400'sthrough more complete texts surviving from the eighteenth and nineteenth centUries depicta rich biota and highly productive estuarine complex in and around the New York/NewJersey Estuary and environs. Its location at the mouth of a major river, plus large islands,interlacing waterways, deep waters and close proximity to major ocean currents, combinedto create a remarkably productive environment.

The process of urban development which began so innocently in the early 1700'scontinues today, presumably less innocently and with greater cost. Regardless, whatremains represents a nearly complete alteration of the original habitats as organicallyproductive components of the estuarine ecosystem. Surprisingly little of the originalhabitats remain: we have not been able to identify any. Much of the acreage that providesopen space as well as habitat for wildlife today is the result of human disturbance.Therefore, any original natural areas which might remain, plus designated parks andpreserves, must be considered of high priority in future planning and preservation. Theseareas are increasingly important as habitats and as sources of native plants and animals(Swift 1987).

Natural areas. The 39 natural areas indicated in Figure 6 represent a total of 62specific sites scattered throughout the New York/New Jersey Harbor region. One sucharea designation (No. 13) on Staten Island included 13 sites (including Shooters' Island)

44

I I III j ~ Hi ~ II ,j I I IiI I ~I i i I 11.1I"p,' I II

mammaJS, repmes ana amphibians were prepared and reported by The Trust for PublicLands and the New York City Audubon Society (1990). Site number 27 includes 10 sitesWithin Jamaica Bay for which one Jamaica Bay master list was identified (TPLINYCAS,1987). However, National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service publications provideddata for a variety of National Wildlife Refuge and National Recreation Area locations inand near Jamaica Bay (Appendix B).

Excluding the unique Hackensack Meadowlands areas (about 8,000 acres) 43 ofthe 62 sites reported 17,475 acres (406 Nsite). Extrapolating to 61 sites (excluding theHackensack Meadowlands) provides an estimate of 24,790 acres of natural areas, ofwruchapproximately 95% (16,601 acres) is under municipal, state or federal authority. TheHackensack Meadowlands is under the authority of the Hackensack MeadowlandsDevelopment Commission and 60% of the original 20,000 acres reportedly have beendeveloped (Table 12).

Table 12. Summary of documented natural areas, specific sites and reported acreages bymanagement authority in the Harbor region. NJ DEP=New Jersey Dept. ofEnvironmental Protection; NYS/OPRHP = New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation; NYC/DPR = New York City Dept. ofParks and Recreation; USDI(NPS) = U.S.Dept. of Interior National ParkService.

Management

TotalSites ReportingAcresx AcresAuthority

SitesAcreage(%)Reportedper Site

NJ DEP

33(100)1,719573

NYS/OPRHP

11(100) 260260

NYC/DPR

1515(100)9,462631

NYC/Private

2113(62)71255

USDI (NPS)

158(53). 4,430554

USD I/NYC/Private

32(67)730365

Private (NJ)

11(100)20,000 (Hackensack Meadows)

Private (NY)

31(33)162162"

-----

6244(71)37,475852*

Excluding Hackensack Meadows:

4317,475406

*inc1uding Hackensack Meadows

45/~" -'

Pa;ks and open space. Federa~ state and city parks and parkways appear toconstitute the single most important protected source of "wildlife habitats" throughout themetropolitan region of New York, accounting for 26,304 acres of which 13 percent (3,337acres) is parkway or expressway (Zisser 1988) (Table 13). Not all of these lands are likelyto qualify as wildlife habitat per se but any sizable open area has some potential. Forexample, if some structural modifications (e.g. openings through barriers) andmanagement adjustments (e.g. reduced mowing) were incorporated into expressway "openspace", such corridors could become safer and more productive habitat. Suggestions formore habitat modifications are given in the next chapter.

Federal government lands, 7,043 acres within the study area, including both theJamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge and Gateway National Recreation Area, comprisea partial but strategic coastal buffer between the marine and urban environments. TheState of New York parkland, at 324 acres, includes some biotically important areas.

Five relatively large New Jersey natural areas (Swimming River, Sandy Hook,Cheesequake, Liberty, and Hackensack Meadows) are significant ecological remnants offormerly extensive ecosystems. Each area has been encroached upon by intensivedevelopment and presumably remains vulnerable to further modification. Each has somebearing upon the Estuary environment, particularly from hydrological, water quality andorganic nutrient perspectives. However, these areas also serve as important reservoirs ofnative plant and animal species.

Table 13. Distribution and size of major park areas in New York City.*

Bronx River 202

Leif Erickson 760Ocean 140

Cross Island 326Interborough 73Grand Central 180Gr. Cent. Pkwy. Extn.370Willowbrook 307Richmond 979

Borough

The Bronx

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Island

Parks

Flushing MeadowPelham BayVan CortlandtPritchard SquareGrand Army PlazaPlaza StreetProspect ParkCentralRiversideFlushing MeadowForest

Acres

7182,7641,146

211

4526840318

1,258538

Parkways Acres

TOTAL 8,125 3,337

* Derived from Zisser 1988. Board of Education open space and Housing Authority openspace are not included.

46

I I '''''11 I I. ~ ," I I II III 'I III,

Together the five New York boroughs encompass 315 square miles (201,404 acres)of land area (Zisser 1988) of which nearly 17 percent (33,671 acres) is designated city, stateor federal parks or other open space. Impressive as these numbers are, they assume addedimportance when viewed from the perspective of human population densities (Odum 1971)and, by inference, pressure upon the natural plant and animal communities which the parkssustain. For example, based on data from the 1980 census (Zisser 1988), there are onlyfive acres of open space per thousand people versus 24 acres of non-park per thousand

. people (Table 14). The open space "allocations" range from 1.8 acres per thousandpersons in Brooklyn to 16.2 acres per thousand people on Staten Island. The overall openspace plus non-park land resource allocation is calculated at 0.028 acres per person, or ahypothetical plot of land 35 feet by 35 feet square for each person. According to Odum(1971), it takes an average of five acres (somewhere) per person to provide all of thenecessities which "make man something more than an 'organic machine.'"

Except for New York City Department of Parks and Recreation sites which wererepresented by detailed management plans, few sites listed acreages for major habitattypes. Therefore, except for 9 city parks, plus Floyd Bennett Field, Liberty Natural AreaPark, and Sandy Hook National Seashore area, details on the extent of habitat types, theircharacteristics and composition were not found.

Table 14. Park land as a percentage of total land and in relation to population in NewYork City.·

Borough Total LandParkName

Area (Acres)(Acres)

The Bronx

27,9256,821

Brooklyn

47,6474,090

Manhattan

15,1852,655.6

Queens

72,2107,046.17

Staten Island

38,4325,691.273

TOTAlS

201,40426,304

* Derived from Zisser 1988. Wildlife Populations

% Total Acres per ThousandPeople

24.425 5.8

8.585 1.8

17.489 1.859

9.758 3.726

14.807 16.163

13.06

Status and trend data require long term systematic monitoring of populations andyield data sets requiring large computer capacities. The presence of wildlife species on

47

/'./ .''J '1

natural areas throughout the project area, as reported on faunal lists supplied bycooperators, in addition to repeated surveys of bird populations (e.g. Christmas Bird

Counts), provided the data for assessing the status and trends of wildlifepopulations. Wedid not locate any other data files which could help fulfill the module objectives forascertaining population status or trends, particularly for mammals, reptiles and amphibians.The coverage we did obtain was reasonably even, although some areas may have beenoverlooked.

Matrix of Wildlife Species. Not all of the 39 natural areas included in the Atlasprovided complete listings of all wildlife. Birds were reported in species lists from 21 sites,mammals from 33 sites, and amphibians and reptiles from 26 sites. The lists themselvesvaried from casual listing of species observed over some unspecified time interval to·comprehensive detailed listing as to abundance by season and, occasionally,habitat type.Because the fauna lists provided several means of comparison from one site to another,a matrix of reported vertebrate species was prepared for each site by state (Table 15).The matrix (Appendix C) en~bles comparison of faunas in the somewhat differentecosystems (Piedmont vs. glaciated, riverine vs. coastal, etc.) presented, including thoseencountered on either side of the Hudson River, itself a natural hindrance to· populationmovements.

The matrix constructed from natural area reports is a compilation by area and stateto facilitate comparisons and to construct composite lists of species. Although the degreeof completeness varied, the lists appear to provide a reasonable chronicle of species likelyto be encountered in the region in recent years. Area size, location (e.g. coastal vsinterior), habitat diversity, management effort and appeal to birders or other outdoorenthusiasts are chronicled. All are presumed to have had a strong bearing on the totalspecies reported.

Sixteen of the 39 natural areas are within or close to Jamaica Bay and twoadditional areas are located on the coastal side of the Rockaway barrier beach. Only fourareas are "inland" and apart from a major stream, estuarine or coastal environment.Central Park, Manhattan, was not included among the "inland"areas, as it is outside of thedesignated project area boundaries.

A total of 411 "terrestrial" vertebrate species were reported from the 39 naturalareas included in this study. This total includes two dozen "established" exoticintroductions, a dozen ubiquitous urban "generalists", several abundant avian andmammalian herbivores, and a substantial number (+ .135)of uncommon-to-rare specieswhose appearance at any time may be more accidental than indicative.

48

I I I 1 'HII' II II HI 'jII' 'I'

i

Table 15. Composite list or natural areas by county and number of vertebrate speciesreported by class (see Table 8).

Map Symbol

NameCountyNumber of Species ReportedNumber

Amphib.& RepBirds Mammals Total

New Jersey

1SR Swimming RiverMonmouth2211821161

2SH Sandy Hook Monmouth1224218272

3CH Cheesequake Middlesexni*19316

4LP LIberty Park NAHudson41906200

5rw Hackensack Mdwl. Bergen 2325824305

New York6

aay Pits PondRichmond7

Conf. House Park •n

8

Lemon Cr. Parkn

9Poillon Ave. Wetl.n1591ni

10Great Killsn11ni12

11Millers Fieldn7ni6

1281 Grnblt(High Rock) n(20sites)1448971

13

NorWst Staten Isl."(13sites)ni1231214

Plum BeachKings (BkJyn) nini2

15

Manne Park"1171416

FBFIoyd Bennett FId."71714

17BBBergen Beach

n3m5

18N. Jamaica Bayn (3 sites)

19

CACanarsie Pier n1ni4

20

PEPenn. Ave. Landfill"nini4

21

FAFountain Ave. n"nini 422

CRCanarsie Pol "nini2

23

Ruffle Bar"nim124

SCSpring Creek (K&Q overlap) 1ni10

25

RBRulers Bar Hass.n6ni17

26

JOJoCo Marsh Queensnini7

27

SEJamaica Bay n (10 sites)28

SUSubway IslandInini1

30

Fort Tilden 5ni12

31

BPBreezy Point Tip 3ni12

32

FPForest Park 314316152

33

KPKissena Park 4. 1366146

34

CPCunningham Park 31281114235

APAlley Pond Park 138616115

36

UCUdall's CovelRavine 556970

37

PBPelham Bay Park The Bronx 1023824272

38

VCVanCortland Park"6108- 12126

39

RPRiverdale Park n313013146

Total Areas Reporting (columns not additive)

26213339

Total Number of Species Reported

5132639416

*ni= none indicated

49

s-1

The unusual degree of intermingled terrestrial, marine and estuarine ecosystems,with their extensive transitional edge between aquatic and upland habitats, has contributedto the reported occurrence of many species. This appears to be borne out in both thewinter bird data and the natural areas matrix of species, both of which include roughlyequal portions of aquatic and terrestrial species. Many of the aquatic types reported areuncommon marine species including cetaceans, turtles, and birds not likely to beencountered inland or at more southern or northern latitudes.

Most natural area lists did not provide information on trends, current status orbreeding status of species and there is no assurance that complete species surveys havebeen conducted. However, it is likelythat some species which were reported do not occurwith regularity. Our impression is that the larger natural areas (e.g. Hackensack Meadows,Jamaica Bay) have been thoroughly and systematicallyinventoried and contribute the greatmajority of species, including the less common inland and marine types.

Amphibians and Reptiles. Forty six species of amphibians and reptiles, includingfive species of marine turtle (Table 16) were reported from one or more of 26 naturalareas. The highest number of species (31) was reported for Staten Island, followed byHackensa.ck Meadows (23 spp.) and Swimming River State Park (22 spp). The meannumber of species per site was 8, compared to the median of 4. The percent of species"possible" (based on the mean number of species per order per site divided by the totalspecies reported for that order for all sites) ranged from 11 percent for salamanders to 27percent for turtles (Table 17). We believe this "possibilityindex" may provide a usefulrating of reported species richness or, conversely,impoverishment within the overall projectarea.

Three sites in Queens and one in Brooklyn have had a number of speciesreintroduced by the National Park Service to reestablish or augment declining populations.In most cases the reintroduced populations had not definately been established at the time

II I 1;'~,IIII;,,;';I;_il';114,~I;·'I,II~'ll, 1I1I'li i,I~14 I '*Will,~',I,!j

III·H I,Jill II,

Table 16. Status summary based on reports by 16 natural areas in the New York/NewJersey Harbor study region for SO amphibian and reptile species.

(i)=introduced by National Park Service to establish/restore/augment population;(ip)=transplanted population not defmitely established; (e)=recently extirpated;(el)=unconfirmed extirpation; (cl)=locally extinct; (r)=rare; (u)=uncommon; (x)=reportedpresent; (x1)=unconfirmed; (x2)=past; (xs)=identification unconfirmed; (0)= occasionalindividuals recorded, no evidence of breeding population; (P)=viable resident population;(C)=common; (b)=pelagic, marine species, oceans and bays.

AMPHffilANS(22 areas) 1 ip e el cl r

Total Reportsu x Xl r xs 0 P C Extant Introd.

Subtotal 2-1 0030-1 15 000123

Salamanders (7 spp.)(12 areas)

MarbledSpotted 1Red"N. DuskyR. Backed 1 14-ToedN. RedN.2-Lined

11

1

11 2

6222

11

2 1

1

01

+ 14 19

+ 22 23

22

3

Toads (3 spp.)(18 areas)

E. Spdft 1AmericanFowler's 1 2

14

1 7 1 4

1 + 14

13 + 3

31 1 8 + 4

4 + 1

29

1 9 + 124(?)

1 ·3' -1 4

Subtotal 5-1 00003 36 2-1 -1 -1 -1"4 49 6TOTAL

(22 spp.) 9 4 0 /'0 3 1 5 62 2 1 1 4 7 7 89 13

51~,

Frogs (11 spp.)(16 areas) .N. Crikt

12N.Sp.Ppr

31 51Gry. Tree

1 13S. Chorus

l(past)NJ "

2Bullfrog

18Green

1 61 1N. Leoprd

2S. Leoprd (diff. areas from above)

31Pickerel

2Wood

3

;

Table 16 ~ continued

REPTILES: TURTLES Total Reports2 Terrestrial i ip e el cl r u x Xl i xs 0 PCB Extantlntrod.

(13 areas)WoodE. Box 2

7 Freshwater

(16 areas)Snapping 1MuskE. MudSpottedBogE. Paintd 1R-E. Sldr

1 Brackish(12 areas)

N. Diamond-backed terrapin4 Marine

(3 areas)Atl. GreenII LggrhdII RidleyII Lthrbk

1

17

927

·1 2

10.

1 7

13

4111

1

1112

4

1311

2

15 + 1

341

13 + 1

12•

14 Subtotal 40000-1 2 45000 10746 50 2

REPTILES: LIZARDS2 (2 areas)

E. FenceN.5-L Sk

11

11

2 Subtotal 000000020000000 2 0

REPTILES: SNAKES(22 areas)N. Water

516N. Brown

2 641 11+2N. R-bld

1E. Garter

81 61 16E. Ribbon

11E. Hognos 1

11 2 2+ 1

continued - next page

52

I i I I I,~',I , I. ,~~~jll'~,u Iti"bliiofllll'l

I

I

Ii;

Table 16 .' continued

REPTILES: SNAKES - continuedTotalReports e1 c/ r

x Xl ,(- xsip e uOPCB Extant Introd.

N. Ringnk

1E. Worm

1N. BlkRcr 2

115 6 +2E. SmthGr 2

12E. King

11E. Milk

1 13 1 5+1

12 Subtotal

80-1 30-1 332-100-1 1030478"TOTAL

(28 Sp.)1201302579 10011 1776 9910

ALL SPECIES (50)TOTALS

2141333 10 141 31115 24 146188 25

Table 17. Total species, average per site, and estimated percent of possible species ofamphibians and reptiles as reported for 26 natural areas with the New York/New JerseyEstuary project area.

Total Secies x1area % Possible

TURTLES 10 2.69 27

LIZARDS 2

SNAJCES 12

'SALAMANDERS 8

TOADS 3

FROGS 11

1.96

.85

.65

1.88

16

11

22

17

TOTAL 46 1.77

53

of reporting. HoweverJt appears that a number of sites have not conducted amphibianand reptile surveys per se and some species may be under-represented. One notableexception is the Staten Island area where 5 species were listed as locally extinct or recentlyextirpated, 3 rare, 10 uncommon, and 15 common. Possibly the most striking finding fromthese lists is the lack of common, easily detected species (e.g. frogs and toads) from manysites (Table 18).

Table 18. Frequency of area reports on the status as extinct/extirpated (X),rare (R), uncommon (U), occasional (0), present (P), common (C), introduced(1) or established (E) for 50 amphibian and reptile species for 26 naturalareas in the New York/New Jersey Harbor area.

No. of Areas and Status· ReportedGroup

Areas"SpeciesXRU0PCIE Total

Amphibians

salamand.1283012 17331 29

toads1830111 15042 22

frogs16110031 41461 55

Reptilesturtles (inland)"· 21

10012 10 52440 73

turtles (marine) 340000600- 6

lizards220000200- 2

snakes22127.3 101 43380 75-

--------- -TOTAL

2650105 17 15 176 14 254262

% of total reports (row):

4266 675 10 100

Birds. Sources for 21 natural areas (5 in New Jersey, 16 in New York) reported acombined year round total of 341 species of birds. The New York sites listed 333 speciesincluding 39 species not listed for New Jersey. New Jersey listed 300 species including 8not listed by New York. A total of 50 New York species and 33 New Jersey species werelisted as rare, while 7 NJ birds and 17 NY birds were rated as "accidental". Many otherspecies received mixed ratings of "rare", "uncommon", and/or "present" but we did notattempt to analyze them. Virtually identical proportions (42%) of the reported species foreach state were obligate aquatic types of marsh, shore and open water environs (Oegraal& Rudis 1986; Teries·1987). The median number of species per site was 218 in NJ witha range of 118 (Swimming River) to 258 (Hackensack Meadows). The New York medianof 133 species was based on a range from 48 (High Rock Park, SI) to 316 (Jamaica Bay,13 management areas inclusive )(Table 19).

54

! I I I I I,~'I , I . II II H<1 1·1,I I I III 11,1 I I I

Table 19. Bird species richness as a measure of seasonal and annual status for 21natural areas in New York and New Jersey.

Map Letter Number of Species by Season1.0.

CodeSpringSummerFallWinterAnnual

New Jersey

1

SR --------118

2SH22372----242

3CH127103156103193

4LP182107172106190

5HM222138224110258

•

Average

191105184106177

New York6,7,8

SI15115195732459

PA --------91

12HR ------48

13NS -------123

14,17

JB25915528014631615

MP1238714793171

16

FB8067736316532

FP9096421714333

KP110891149113634

CP12457992912835

AP735078638636

UC345135205637

PB541155615423838

VC5791503810839

RP1034710338130

- -High

259155280154316Low

3447352048

Average748710166145

CombinedN

1616151520

High259155280154316

Low3447352048

Average1029211774153

55

a) Sea'sonal Variations. Thirteen New York areas provided data for each season.Average species richness was greatest in spring (105.6 spp), followed by autumn (94.0 spp),summer (87.4 spp) and winter (60.9 spp). Three New Jersey areas (Cheesequake,Hackensack Meadows, Liberty State Park) with complete seasonal data averaged 177species in spring, 191 species in autumn, 116 species in summer and 106 species in winter(Appendix). Oearly, the areas represented are particularly important to migrating species,but most areas serve as breeding habitat to a diverse avifauna as well. More variation isevident between natural areas in the winter species lists, ranging from 17 (Forest Park,Queens) to 154 species (Pelham Bay Park, Brooklyn). A turnover in avifauna takes placebetween breeding and wintering populations, particularly along the coast. However,Jamaica Bay (13 areas) lists a total of 86 species that have been recorded in all fourseasons, although not necessarily as nesting in the area. Winter species may be morenumerous at coastal or estuarine sites where the salt water is less likely to freeze andmarine invertebrates are available as food in the intertidal and shallow water zones.

Information on colonial nesting birds (e. g. herons, gulls, terns) has been collectedand archived nationwide for approximately 15 years by the Colonial Bird Registry programat the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. The data sets for colonieswithin the study area have been utilized by Burger et al (1990) in evaluating contaminantsin birds.'

b) Wintering Populations. Ten mainland and one offshore Christmas Bird Countareas (177 sq.mi. circles) (Figure 6) provided a comprehensive data set for evaluating thenature of the winter avifauna and the status of various species (Robbins et al 1990). Atotal of 277 species (an estimated 2-3 million individuals) had been reported for thesecount areas for the 27 year period 1961-1988. We selected the 100 species which had beenrecorded most frequently over the 27 year interval for our trend analysis. Forty-seven ofthe top 100 winter birds were aquatic species, reflecting an influx of wintering ducks, gullsand miscellaneous other species, plus the departure of neotropical migrants. -'Most of theremaining 177 species were relatively infrequently observed and quite variable in numbereach year.

The population for each species was graphed by year (Figures 9- ) and a regressionline fitted to the data to facilitate trend evaluation. By sorting species on the basis of theP value and r2 value the species were placed in groups judged to be increasing, decreasingor showing no persistent trend over the 27 year period (Table 20) (Burdick et aI, 1989;Butcher et aI, 1990). We observed that 81% of the terrestrial species were either decliningsignificantly (41%) or showing no clear long term trend (40%). Although some aquaticspecies show significant long term declines (e.g. greater scaup), 81% were either increasingsignificantly (38%) or showing no statistically significant trend (43%). Literally twice asmany aquatic winter species were increasing (18 spp.) as were declining (9), while just theopposite (10 incr. vs 22 deer.) was occurring with the terrestrial winter species.

56

I Hili I ~,' II ,I I I I, III 11,1 I i I" ,~" I'

I

II

100

.0

10

70l'l:c 50~"E 50

~ 40••

30

20

10

o

500

450

400

350

3300c:E 250

~ 200••

150

'00

50

o

0.9

~ 0.1i~ 0.7~ 0.5~~0.5

~0.4~"$' 0.3

~_ 0.2••

0.'

o

5' 54 57 70 73 75 71 82 85 88--

61 64 5' n ~ 76 n 12 ~ "\'W!

8

_I

•• _II.1 _• 1

6' 54 57 70 73 75 7' 12 15 II--

OJ

lui·~Uc~~~Ul'l

~OA

~O~

~U••~,

o

0.'

10.1

t 0.7~U~~0.5

~0.4

. E 0.3

~ 0.2••

0.'

o

0.'

0.01

~ 0.01i~ 0.07~ 0.06~~0.05

~0.04"E 0.03i0.02••

0.0'

o

5' 54 57 70 73 76 79 82 15 81--

61 54 67 70 73 76 79 12 15 81\'W!

51 54 57 70 73 75 7' 12 15 18--

Figure 9 '. Population trends of the (a) Red-throated Loon, (b) Horned Grebe,(c) Northern Gannet, (d) Great Cormorant, (e) Double-crested Cormorant and(f) Great Blue Heron generated from National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Countdata for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicate normalizeddata; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

57

leD

0.9 890~ 10_ 0.1 ,

~ e.7

70

!; 0.6

~ 10Q,

:>c~0.5 E 50~ 0.£

~ 10:>c •••

> 0.3 30~ 20_ 0.2

••• 0.1 .1- _ I 10- 0

061

U67707376791215ae II6467707376791215IIYtAlt

YtAlt

500

A50

£00

350r;C 300:>c> 250

Loo...

150

100

50

o61 6£ 6' 70 73 7e 11 U 17

YEAR

SO DO

A50C

AOOO

3500I'l

~ 3000

E 2500

~ 2000•••

1500

1000

500

o61 •• 67 70 73 76 79 12 15 II

YEAR

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 12 15 ae1EAIl

s:oo

AOOO

3500Vl

.3000:>c> 2500

~ 2000...

1500

1000

SOD

o61 64 67 70 73 76 71 12 15 II

YEAR

0.1

0.01

~ 0.01;I

~ 0.07.• 0.06c.

~0.05I'l

~ 0.0£CE 0.03

~ 0.02•••

0.01

o

Figure 10. Population trends of the (a) Black-crov.ned Night Heron, (b) MuteSwan, (c) Snow Goose, (d) Brant, (e) Canada Goose and (f) Green-winged Tealgenerated from National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count data for theNew York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicate normalized data; openbars indicate non-normalized data.

58

I i I IHnl II ~ ~ I;.' I I Iii III I I I II " I" I I" 'I ~I"" ,I~,I 1,1,111'11 ,1111

""Tj ii' ~lliII,1 ,.

I

,1.8

~1.6;a I 4~ .~UII.

~ 1If,

~ C.8C> D.6ia D.4•••

C.2

o

C.I

~ 0.8i~ C.7c 0.6II.

~0.5l'l~C.4::>

~ D.3

~ 0.'•••

C.I

o

0.9

~ 0.8S;

~ C.7<C 0.6ll.

~0.5

~ 0.4::>'"> 0.3

~a 0.2•••

C.l

o

-

61 64 67 70 73 76 71 82 85 88~

61 64 67 70 73 76 7i 82 85 88~

61 64 67 70 73 76 71 82 85 881E.IR

2

IA

IIJ

tl~~1~II.

~ 1

~D~

~UiOA••• ~,

C

C.I

IU

tC•7~ 0.6ll.

~C.5l'l

~ 0.4

E 0.3

~ 0.2•••

0.1

o

50DO

45DD

4DDD

350D

~ 300C::>

[mOE 2DOO•••

1500

lCOO

500

o

8

-

r---

r---

r---

r---

61 U 67 70 73 76 7t 82 85 8!1tAI

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88~

61 U 67 70 73 76 7. 82 85 8!lIAR

Figure 11. Population trends of the (a) American Black Duck, (b) Mallard,(c) Northern Pintail, (d) Northern Shoveler, (e) Gadwall and (f) AmericanWigeon generated from National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count data forthe New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicate normalized data;open bars indicate non-normalized data.

59

5000

£500

£000

3500

~ 3000::>CI

> 2500

~ 2000,\500

\000

500

o

0.9

~ o.e

i! 0.7

.~c 0.6Q.

~o.s;0.£::>CI

£ 0.3

~ 0.2,0.\

o

6\ 6£ 67 70 73 76 71 82 85 88~

61 6£ 6' iC 73 76 79 e2 es eel'&lR

100

.080

70

; 60::>

~ 50

~ £0,30

20

10

o

10000

1000

8000

7000

~ 6000

E 5000

~ £000,3000

2000

\000

o

6\ 6£ 67 70 73 76 71 82 85 8a~

JdlL.J

r-

!------

---I--- I--- ~

6\ 6£ 67 70 73 76 79 e2 as ael'&lR

1000 500

900

£50

800

£00

700

350

3 600

; 300Q

::>

CI> 5CO £ 250

~ &CO~ 200, ,

300150

200

100

lCO

50

0

061

U'770737679828588 61U6770~

Figure ·1 2. Population trends of the (a) Canvasback, (b) Redhead, (c) Ringnecked Duck, (d) Greater Scaup, (e) Lesser Scaup and (f) Oldsquaw generatedfrom National Audubon Society Christm.as Bird Count data for the New YorkNew Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicate normalized data; open barsindicate non-normalized data.

60

! I I 1 I Hili l'lIo·1 jj., il ".11111,1 II I ,MlliliH,jjP . I

I

II

SOOO 100

"00.0 IIb

'800

10

3100

70~

WI

~ 3800:i 10

£ 2500 I50~ 2100

'0•••.

150030

lDOO

20

SOO

10

0

061

64677073767.82e518 61••677073767.12IS18YEAR

YLAR

500

'50

.00

350

3300C!> 250

~ 200..150

100

SO

o61 6' 67 70 73 76 79 .2 es Ie

~

500

'50

400

350

~ 300

E250

~ 200••150

100

50

o

d

61 6' 67 70 73 76 7. e2 IS Ie~

1000

900."""v

700III ~ 600"!> 500

~ '00••30e

2001000 8-

-- -n,.,n

n"--111111 Iii -

61 •• 67 70 73 76 7. !2 IS 8!YEAR

0.1

D.O'

~ 0.0'it 0.07~ 0.06..~0.05

~ 0.0':>Q

E 0.03i0.02••0.01

o61 6' 67 70 73 76 7. 12 IS II

YEAR

Figure 13' Population trends of the (a) Black Seater, (b) Surf Seater,(c) White-winged Seater, (d) Common Goldeneye, (e) Bufflehead and (f) HoodedMerganser from National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count data for the NewYark-New Jersey Harbor region, Solid bars indicate normalized data; openbars indicate non-normalized data.

61

1000

.00IlCC70CVI :! 60CCE 500~ '00'"'

300

2001000

500

'50

'00

'350VI

::;300:>cE 250

g 200'"'

150

100

50

o

0.1

0.09

~ o.oe"

~ 0.07!5 0.06Go

~0.05

~ 0.0':>Q> 0.03

~ 0.02'"'0.01

o

61 6' 67 70 73 76 7. 12 15 III~

61 6' 67 70 7~ 76 7. a2 as Ila~

61 6' 67 70 73 76 79 a2 as II~

1000

100

aDo

700

~ '00:>

~ 500

~ .00••

300

200

100

o

0.1

0.0'

~0.01lit 0.07!5 0.06..~0.05

~D.O'

Eo.03

~ 0.02••

0.01

o

~I

~~~0~1lit~!50~6..~~~O~,

~~~0~2••

O~I

o

61 ,. 67 70 73 76 7. 112 IlS Ila~

61 6' 67 70 73 76 7. 112 IlS all~

61 6' 67 70 73 76 7. 12 IS III~

Figure 14. Population trends of the (a) Common Merganser, (b) Red-brestedMerganser, (c) Ruddy Duck, (d) Northern Harrier, (e) Red-tailed Hawk and(f) American Kestrel generated from National Audubon Society Christmas BirdCount data for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicatenormalized data; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

62

",0I

I , , I II I ~'l " I""T

illl'I,I~ •1,IHlil~' iI'

I

0.1 0.1

8 0.0' i.~

0.0'

~ 0.0!

10.OS0.07

0.07..

....

..~ 0.06 -

~ 0.06...

...

~0.05 - .

1- ~0.05

.,

.~ -111;1;-

.,~ 0.04 .- •..... . ~ 0.04

~ 0.03 -

....- 10•030.02 -

0.02••

••0.01 -.

0

061

54677073767t1215II 515467707377101386l't4Il

l't4Il

2

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 !2 SS !eYEAII

500

4501'0400

350., ;c' 300

~ 250§200••150

10050061

54677073767912IS18YtAI/

EJ

..-.

.------- ..- 1Il-:-;'i ...

0.2

o

100 0.1

'0GJ

., 0.09r E]-80 -

--~ 0.0870 •

0.07..en S 0.06~ 60-.

~ 50 •

...

~0.05i 40 ••

.,;;t 0.04·'...

iktr~~nn

B3D •

> 0.03

20'---n n~ntr i 0.02.-••10

o Ir:V \ r.IU\ ~1I111. 11111 V 1111 t'V 'J 'J IIV \1111,11I0

6154677073767t12S5IS 51U'67707376"1215!!

l't4Ill't4Il

Figure 1 5 Population trends of the (a) Ring-necked Pheasant, (b) RuffedGrouse, (c) Northern Bobwhite, (d) American Coot, (e) Black-bellied Plover and(f) Killdeer generated from National Audubon Christmas Bird Count data forthe New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicate normalized data;open bars indicate non-normalized data.

63

100 500

10 B.50f ~

aD

.00

70

350III

III;;J 6C ;;J 300

~ 50~ 250i .C __200

..30 --._-_ .•150

20

-- 100

0

50

0

051

54 7376 1215II 61""70737&79112115II!TEAR

YUJl

10C

10

10

70

~ '&0

~ 50i .0..3C

20

10

C

- 8---

.--.O'- •••

. .-......O'•••• O' -

-mn

--. L-

&1 64 6' 7C 73 7& 79 112 !~ IIITEAR

SOC

.50

.00

350

150

o6\ &4 &7 70 73 7& 79 112 115 1111

TEAR

10C 100

90

- •.... 8901 -El

110

110

70

70III

III;;J 60

;;J &0

~ 50

Cl 50

£C

i .0

.•.•

3D -.30·'

20

20

10

10

0

0&1

54&770737&791215III 5154&770737&79112115IITEAR

YUJl

Figure 16. Population trends of the (a) Ruddy Turnstone, (b) Sanderling,(c) Purple Sandpiper, Cd)Dunlin, (e) Laughing Gull and (f) Common Blackheaded Gull generated from National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Countdata for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicatenormalized data; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

64

! I I I , Hili Ii ~., Ii,. I I Iii 1.1 I I , I II I,

"'ilT

5000

4500

4000

3500

~ 3000

~ 2500i2000..15eo

1000

o

3D

25

5

o

II •• 17 70 73 71 7' 82 85 IIIyrAll

'8-'"

'-' -.-.

--

-

II 14 17 70 73 76 7' 82 85 IIIyrAll

5000

4500

4000

3500III;;/ 3000i2500:r 2000..

1500

tOOO

500

o

5000

4500

4000

3500

~ 3000

e 250022000..1500

1000

o

II •• 17 70 73 76 71 82 85 88YUIl

61 •• 17 70.737671 82 85 88y£.tJl

500 3

4508

40C

III 2.5

~350,.2

III..

:i 300 -'"..

~25D

L~1.5i 200 -

",oJ.... a1150 i100•••0.550

o I.....:~I ',' ': 1111"" " •• 11\' ',_'1 I0

115417707376798285ee

y£.tJl

Fl--I I- ._-.-

t--..-L-

II U 17 19 n 75 78 81 84 87'fUR

Figure 1Z Population trends of the (a) Bonapart's Gull, (b) Ring-billed Gull,(c) Herring Gull, (d) Great Black-backed Gull, (e) Black-legged Kittiwake and(f) Rock Dove generated from National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Countdata for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicate normalizeddata; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

65

61 •• " 70 73 76 71 B2 B7YEAR

2

I.B •• ,

~ 1.6~ 1•• ••..i1.2...

~ 1OIl

~:·:E--·!:::·-Uil:r ....·o

61 U " 70 73 76 71 B2 B5 BBytAR

0.1

o

£}

--••

.1•

" 6' 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 8!ytAR

~IOIl

~UO~..5~...-u,OIl~ua

§uO~-0.'

o•

6\ 6' 67 70 73 76 71 B2 B5 BB

yrAR

0.1lI>

~ O.B0.7....~ 0.6...

~0.5lI>

I:~0.2.•.0.'·-

o

0.1 0.1

0.09GJ

OIl 0.09t E]-OIl ~ 0.08 ; 0.080.07

0.07~ ..~ 0.06 50.06...

...

~0.05 -- .•~0.05•..

OIl

~ 0.0' --~ o.o'r

~ 0.03 -

-------i0.030.C2

0.02- .•.1

0

06'

U67707376718285ee 61••"70737671B28588YtAIl

YEAR

Figure 1 Gt Population trends of the (a) Mourning Dove, (b) Monk Parakeet,(c) Short-eared Owl, (d) Downy Woodpecker, (e) Hairy Woodpecker and(f) Northern Flicker generated from National Audubon Society Christmas BirdCount data for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicatenormalized data; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

66

I ~~ ~ 1·1;1 I I IIII~'I I ,

0.' 0;::1

EJiC.8 •

0.7

0.7~~

S 0.6S 0.6

A-

L

~0.5

i~J-tlllnt-

." ;;t 0.'B> 0.3i 0.2,0.1 -

0

061

54"7073""828588 61••"7073""8285asYEAIl

YEAlt

3

~'"2.5 ----- GJ

__ I. c

-';;" ..

; 2'- .• -.-.,

:. ..--.•..'15 .

t, . --I.~11--•••0.5 .-.- •••••••----

o

0.'."

~ 0.80.7~i 0.6A-

~0.5.";;t 0.'

·1O~0.2.•.

0.1

o

. EJ...

'"

.--.•.....

'-'. ._ ...~=

61 6' 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88y,AIl

61 6' 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88YEAlt

3

D.9 El.,,2.J 0..." ~ D.8 ••• ~•. 0.;

-.~ ~2i 0.6

II:cA-L

~C.5~1.5··-

."

."~ 0.4 .--

...•c2 ...I,.-..--> D.3 .-- i C.2 ••_., ,o.5

0.1 -.D

061

••"707316"828588 61II"70731679112115!8YEAlt

YEAlt

Figure 19. Population trends of the (a) Horned Lark, (b) Blue Jay,. (c) American Crow, (d) Fish Crow, (e) Black-capped Chickadee and(f) Carolina Chicadee generated from National Audubon Society ChristmasBird Count data for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid barsindicate normalized data; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

67

0.9'"i0.10.'~iD.'~~D.5'"

!:::0.2-o

., ., ., 70 '3 ,. 79 12 15 IIv~

0.9

'"

~ 0.10.7~..~ D.'~-0.5'-'"

I:::0.2-0.1

o

EJ

u..-

.. --0 •• - ••••

., ., .7 70 73 7. 79 12 15 II~

., ., 67 70 73 7. 79 12 !5 IIVtAR

D.'

0.09

'"0.01

~ D.C'··~ .i0.06··..- 0.05'-'"" 0.0'a 0.03..i0.02 • ••.•.

o

,__8 OJ

I~D~~i~~~L5III~U~Uiu~.•.

o

-El

61 ., .7 70 73 7. 79 12 85 88nAR

D.'

o., ., '7 70 73 7. 79 12 15 II

~

100

90t

.-"El10

70'" " .0

~ 50"i 40.'- 3D20100

.,U6770737679821518V~

Figure 2 9 Population trends of the (a) Tufted Titmouse, (b) White-breastedNuthatch, (c) Golden-crowned Kinglet, (d) American Robin, (e) NorthernMockingbird and (f) Water Pipit generated from National Audubon Society ChristmasBird Count data for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicatenormalized data; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

68

I I I Hili II ~,~ ;.,.j I I III 11,1 I I

'IH'fl"~"I

tCO

'c••• IIC

; 7C~~~ '0II.

•• 50......

i::i 2C..

'I ,. '7 70 73 7' 7. 112 115 1111~

0.'

; 0.11

~ 0.'~~~ 0.'II.

~0.5III~ o.~a> C.3

Z C.2..0.1

C'I ,. " 7C 73 7' 7. 82 85 811~

IC

o

c.• Elc., i ·EJIII ~ C.II iC.II

C.7

0.7~ ~ic.,

~~ 0.'..

II.

~C.5~0.5'"III

:i 0.4 c' c.•

~ C.3 ~ C.3i C.2

C.24- •.. ..

I0.1

C

061

54677073767t112115II! "54"7073767.1121151111ytAll

~

C.I

D •• t· EH'" C.C. t 8::

~ C.CII

C.C7

~iC.06II.~0.05'"~ 0.0.6 C.C3i0.024-..

C.IO.CI

0

061

54"7'173767.1121151111 "54·"7073767.11215IIIytAll

YEAR

Figure 21. Population trends of the (a) Cedar Waxwing, (b) EuropeanStarling, (c) Yellow-rumped Warbler, (d) Northern Cardinal, (e) AmericanTree Sparrow and (f) Chipping Sparrow generated from National Audubon SocietyChristmas Bird Count data for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solidbars indicate normalized data; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

69

61 6A 67 70 73 76 79 12 15 II~

8

.

. .1•• .. ... ..

., 6A 67 70 73 76 71 12 15 IIYCAR

0.1

o

0.1

;0.10.7~i 0.6..."'0.5"-

~ O.A

i3

f·30.2.•.

8

.

t' ...••

0.1

o

0.9

~O.I0.7~i 0.6...

~0.5III~ O.A

13i0.30.2.•.

0.1

61 6A 67 7: 73 76 79 12 15 IIYCAR

0.09III

~. 0.01'0.07~i 0.06...

iflj =lrl'if~II;lIIio

0.1

o61 6A 67 70 73 76 79 12 15 Ie

YCAR

61 6A .7 70 73 76 71 12 15 II~61 6A .7 70 73 7. 71 12 15 II

~

0.1

0.09

0.01·..··•·

o

~ o.oe

~ 0.D7~i 0.06...

~ 0.05~-III':i O.O'''a

~ 0.031'--..i 0.02 ._...

Figure 2 2·. Population trends of the (a) Field Sparrow (b) Savannah Sparrow,(c) Fox Sparrow, Cd)Song Sparrow, (e) Swamp Sparrow and Cf) White~throatedSparrow generated from National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count data forthe New York-New Jer~ey Harbor region. Solid bars indicate normalized data;open bars indicate non-normalized data.

70

I I I I , Hili I I ~,' Ii,' I I 111111 'I

,~ ,i

Ii,

0.1

o ~ ~ ~ ro ~ n N ~ ~ M~

~ ~::~ 0.7!i 0.8Q.

•• 0.5

~ O.~

~ 0.3~0.2

•• 0.1

o

El

.--

.- ..-.....-- ..--

.... ....-- .-- .-- -

~ 84 ~ ro ~ n N ~ ~ MYEAR

. ~ 0.8'·

~ 08~ 0.7'·~ 0.6'·Q.

; 0.5'·

~ O.~

~ 0.3"~ 0.2'·•• 0.1'··-

o61 ~ 67 71 75 78 81 84

YEAR

d

~ :::

~ 0.7!l 0.8Q.

•• 0.5

~ O.~

~ 0.3i 0.2••

o

d

~ 84 ~ ro ~ n ~ ~ ~ MYEAR

~ 84 ~ ro ~ n ~ ~ ~ M~

o

0.1

W 0.08'·

~ O.OS,·

~ 0.07··-·-·~ 0.06"--·'·'Q.

~ 0.05···-····...J

~ O.~,·

~ 0.03·-·~ 0.02·•• 0.01·-'

El

151 ~ 67 70 73 76 78 ~ ~ MYEAR

o

,Figure ~3 Population trends of the (a) White-crowned Sparrow, (b) Dark-eyed Junco, (c) Lapland Longsupr, (d) Snow Bunting, (e) Red-winged Blackbirdand (f) Eastern :Meadowlark generated from National Audubon Society ChristmasBird Count data for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid barsindicate normalized data; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

71

i 1

~ 0.11

§ 0.8~ 0.7

!i 0.6lL

~ 0.5

~ o.~

~ 0.3~ 0.2•

0.1

o

EJ

•

.. I.- 1111.•..

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ U~

o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~~

b

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ UYEAR

0.01

o

0.1

~ 0.08

~ 0.06

~ 0.07~ 0.06-'Q;

•• 0.05

~ OW~~ 0.03-,-,~ 0.02-•

61 ~ 67 70 n 76 711 ~ ~ UYEAR

o

2

1 e··~ .

§ 1.6

~ .1.~!i 1.2.---'.'lL

•• 1J'--".'".~ o.e .-- •.•.•.is

~ 0.61..···-- .. · .; :::::~~:r~I·"·

o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ u~

2

~ 1.8

~ 1.6

~U!i 1.2lL

~ 1

a 0.8~ 0.6~ O.~•

0.2

o

{}-

---.

"-'---- .-...---.. ---..--.---.

...-..

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ u~

Figure 24. Population trends of the (a) Rusty Blackbird, (b) Common Grackle,(c) Brown-headed Cowbird, (d)-Purple Finch, (e) House Finch and (f) CommonRedpoll generated from National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count data forthe New York-New Jersey Harbor region. Solid bars indicate normalized data;open bars indicate non-normalized data.

72

iHHI I ..11 I,; ~., II" j I I' I ~I I I I III

61 64 67 70 73 76 78 82 115 68YEAA

61 64 67 70 73 76 78 82 115 68YEAR

o

I 0.8~ 0.6

~ 0.7!l 0.6A.

~ 0.5I~::~ 0.21--0.1-

o

l!? 0.8

2 0.6

~ 0.7

~ 0.6Q;

•• 0.5

~ 040•

~ 0.3J'--'.'~ 0.2 .-- ••••• -- ••• I

0.1 --- •..•• ,

•• 0.50,-

61 64 67 70 73 76 711 82 115 66YEAR

o61 64 67 70 73 76 78 82 115 68

YEAR

o

!p 0."0.

~ 0.6

~ 0.7

~ 0.6Q;

~ 0.5

~ 0.4

~ 0.3~ 0.20 •••

Figure 25. Population trends of the (a) Pine Siskin, (b) American Goldfinch,(c) Evening Grosbeak and (d) House Sparrow generated from National AudubonSociety Christmas Bird Count data for the New York-New Jersey Harbor region.Solid bars indicate normalized data; open bars indicate non-normalized data.

73

--,lUU1C ~U. unear regression probability {Pl· values and correlation coefficients (r2) fortbe 100 most common Christmas Bird Count species (names abbreviated) in the NewYork/New Jersey project area, 1961- 1988, taxonomically 1>ytrend class. See Appendix Afor scientific names.

INCREASING

VARIABLEDECREASINGSpecies

P.-2Species P.-2Species P.,

r·Nor.Gannet

.0362 .1580D.C.Cormor.4205 .0251Hrnd.Grebe .0001 .4430Mute Swan

.0111 .2231Rd.Th.Loon.3168 .0385Bk.Cr.N.Her .0157 .2046Snow Goose

.0001 .4772Grt.Cormor.1022 .0994Am.Bk.Duck .0010 .2046Can.Goose

.0001 .8322Grt.Bl.Her.8505 .0014Am.Wigeon.0003 .4076Gr.Wg.Teal

.0326 .1639Brant.1204 .0902Grtr.Scaup.0122 .2182Mallard

.0440 .1470Nor.Pntail.5016 .0176Wht.Wg.Sctr .0049 .2669Gadwall

.0301 .1684Redhead.5067 .0171Com.Gldneye .0035 .2840Canvasback

.0009 .3493Rngnk.Duck.1420 .0811Hdd.Mergnsr .0069 .2486Lssr.Scaup

.0028 .2953Oldsquaw.8603 .0012Am.Kestrel.0063 .2533Nor.Shovlr

.0289 .1707SurfScoter.. 8999 .0006Rngd.Pheasnt .0001 .3442Com.Mrgnsr

.0009 .3497Rd.Br.Mergr.6950 .0060Nor.Bobwhite .0193 .1930Bufflehead

.0001 .4995Bk.Scoter.2565 .0492Sht.Eard.OwI .0114 .2219Ruddy Duck

.0009 .3497Nor.Harrier.7290 .0047Dwny Wdpkr .0020 .3118Rd.l1d.Hawk .0001 .6670

Rufd.Grouse.6427 .0084Hairy Wdpkr .0001 .5470Sanderling

.0480 .1417Am. Coot.9029 .0006' Wht.Br.Nthch .0003 .4021Dunlin

.0010 .5006Killdeer.1394 .0821Caro.Chkdee .0159 .2037Rng.Bd.Gull

.0010 .8349Rud.Trnstn.4204 .0251Bk.Cp.Chkde .0140 .2107Grt.Bk-B.Gl

.0010 .6198Pur.Sandppr.1215 .0897Blue Jay.0047 .2690Bk.Lgd.Ktwk

.0036 .2823Laugh.Gull.4215 .0250Horned Lark .OOOJ .4021Bk.Bel.Plvr

.0022 .2823ComBkhdGull .3443 .0345Fox Sparrow .0038 .2801Nor.Mkngbrd .0001 .8392

Bnprts Gull.5536 .0151Svnah.Spar.0263 .1760Fish Crow

.0139 .2112Herrng Gull.3505 .0336Field Spar.0338 .1619Am. Crow

.0001 .6733Rock Dove.7407 .0087Dk-eydJunco .0002 .4147Nor .Flicker

.0001 .7844Water Pipit.5242 .0158Wht.Cr.Spar .0160 .2106WhtThr.Spar

.0114 .2221Mourng.Dove .5388 .0232Song Spar.0011 .3423Rd-\Vg Bkbrd .0406 .1515

Tftd.Ttms.1474 .0790Purp.Finch.0014 .3285YI-Rmp Warb .0001 .6962

Am. Robin.3719 .0308Eastn Mdwlk .0001 .4312House Finch

.0001 .7746GldCr.Knglt.6640 .0074House Spar.0001 .4788Monk Prkeet .3767 .0491

Am. Tr. Spar .0012 .3367Chpng. Spar

.9761 .0000Nor.Cardinal .0030 .2921Swamp Spar

.1417 .0790Snw Bunting

.8179 .0021Com.Grackle .4253 .0246Rusty Bkbrd

.2093 .0599Key

Bmhd Cowbd .1022 .0994r2 correlations

Am. Gldfnch.1045 .09820-.3 = weak

Evng.Grsbk.1021 .0995.3 - .7 = moderate

Pine Siskin_ .2376' .0532.7 - 1 = strong

LplndLngspr.2217 .0569Com. Rdpoll

.5138 .0166Cdr. \Vxwing

.4155 .0257Eurp.Strlng

.1255 ~0879

.p = probability that estimate of population change is not different from 0~

~;}/

Our efforts to achieve a clearer understanding of factors which might be influeIlclngthese trends by stratifying species on the basis of habitat and feeding strategies were onlypartially successful. For example, many species which winter in the area (e.g. black duck)shift from summer plant· diets to winter animal diets but the proportions and timingreported in the literature are often ambiguous. However, we did find that all fourinsectivorous and 10 of 23 granivorous (i.e. ground-feeding sparrow-types) species exhibitsignificant long-term declines. Species with other feeding strategies (DeGraf and Rudis~1986) are nearly equal in numbers of declining versus those increasing: picivores(2:2),carnivores(6:5), and omnivores(10:9); and one of two frugivore and 6 of 12 herbivores areincreasing versus only one declining (Table 21). Perhaps the one declining herbivore,American wigeon, actually feeds more heavily on invertebrates when wintering at theselatitudes than is generally recognized (Terres, 1987; Bellrose, 1976; Martin, et aI, 1951;Fassett, 1957).

These trends may portend real consequences or merely provide a glimpse of"normal" long term vertebrate population dynamics. Without data based on more completemonitoring of species, populations, habitats and influencing factors it is difficult to arriveat a clear understanding of trends. These data tell only of the status of birds which havebeen observed while wintering in the New York Harbor area. They may reveal little aboutthe status of members of the same species wintering elsewhere, effects of summer habitatconditions upon reproduction, weather encountered during migration, local movementswithin the wintering area, and adaptation to local food conditions. Backyard bird feeders(or domestic house cat populations), for

Table 21. Summary of the population trends for 100 wintering bird species inthe New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary project area by feeding strategy.*

PERCENT

STRATEGY ** SPECIES

INCREASING DECLININGVARIABLE

Insectivore

508020

Picivore

6333334

Carnivore

19322642

Omnivore

32312841

Frugivore

250050

Herbivore

1250842

Granivore

24124246

* Based on Christmas Bird Count data for 11 count sites, 1961-1988, and simple linearregression analyses. ** DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986; Terres, 1987.

75

<1'3

IHHI IJlI-,. li,j il Illll'l I II Ii

example, may play more important roles, pro or con, than is generally recognized.However, the CBC data are the only known source of comprehensive information onpopulation trends for any terrestrial vertebrate groups at any season in the New York/NewJersey Harbor region.

c) Autumn Migrations. Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge autumn shorebirdmigration data cover the period 1981 through 1988 and inc1ude11 species (Figures 26 27). The annual average number per species per site was plotted along with the annualpeak number divided by number of sites reporting the species. The results indicate relativeabundance and some apparent short term trends, i.e. all seem to exhibit seemingly rhythmichighs and lows. However, the time span and the actual number of birds are insufficientfor drawing major conclusions about the local populations. Ten of the 11 species reacheda decadal peak in either 1983 (N =5) or 1984 (N =5), immediately followed by a decadelow in 1985 (N=9), then another lesser peak in 1986 (N=4) or 1987 (N=S). The graphssuggest that the locally observed populations of three species were in gradual decline, fivewere apparently stable, and three were gradually increasing (Table 22). The three speciesaveraging most numerous during the period were semi-palmated sandpiper, short-billeddowitcher, and black-bellied plover.

A scan of the similarly rhythmic Sandy Hook hawk count data (Bouton 1987;Majors, 1988) indicates that the years of minimal shorebird numbers coincided with peakyears for raptors and vice versa (Figure 28-32).

Table 22. Summary of autumn migrating shorebird population trends plus minimal andpeak years for 11 species observed within the Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge,Brooklyn, 1981-1988*.

Population

Years, 19_Species

RankTrendMimPeakMinPeak

Semi-palmated Sandpiper

1?'81'83'86'87Short-billed Dowitcher

2?'81'83'84'85Black-bellied Plover

3+'81'83'85'87

Semi-palmated Plover

4?'82'83'85'88DU'nlin

5-'82'84'85'86Red Knot

6+'81'84'85'87Greater Yellowlegs

7-'81'83'85'86Least Sandpiper

8?'81'82'85'87Ruddy Turnstone

9+'81'84'85'86Sanderling

10-'81'83'86'87Lesser Yellowlegs

11?'81'84'85'86

• Based on data from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

:1 Ell300

I fb250

~200

~200

15 150~ 150~ zz

; 100- ; 100

50

50

0

01881 1882 1883 181141ll8S 1_ 1887 1_

1881 1882 1Q1S3181141ll8S 1_ 1887 1_YEAR

YEAR

1122} ADJUSTED AVEPAGE • ADJUSTED PEAK

II(22) ADJUSTED AVEPAGE • AOJ1JSTEDPEAl<

300 300

250c d

50

o1981 1982 1983 1984 1965 1111161987 1_

YEAR

10ADJUSTED AVEPAGE • ADJUSTED PEAK

o1~19821ll831984196511lll61~11lll6

YEAR

/0 AZlJUSTtD AVERAGE. ADJUSTED PEAK

11'223 ADJUSTED AVERAGE. ADJUSTED PEAK

300

250

o

50

~20015> 150i5~•• 100

1981 1882 1963 181141965 1. 1887 1_YEAR

I[Zl ADJUSTED AVEOWOE • ADJUSTED PEAK

o

300

I r;250

~20015~ 1500~•• 100

50

Figure .2..6. Population trends of the (a) Black·bellied Plover, (b) SemipalmatedPlover, (c) Greater Yellowlegs, (d) Lesser Yellowlegs, (e) Ruddy Turnstone and

(f) Red Knot.atJamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, NY.

77

I I II !'.H I I .II I·~~. 1 i I·'. I I ,III 1.1 ill

I 1.lijj"d:fll1 '/'

I

300 100

a soot• Ib

250

~2OO F< B lSO~Z

;; 100•• 200

so

100

0

lQ81 IIl62 1~ 1ll8ol 11l8S IIl86 11187 Illllll

01lllli 11162 1111131~ 11l8S 11186 lllll7 1llllllYEAR

YEAR

IE'Za ADJUSlED AVEAAGE • ADJUST£O PEAK

IIIZ2'1 ADJUST£O AVEAAGE • ADJUS'TE) PEAK

300 100

250

C500' ld

~2OO

~400B

~300~ 150 ~•• 100

•• 200

so

100

C

1lllli 11162 1111131~ 11l8S 1&88 111117Illllll

01lllll 111112111113lll801 IIl8S 111116lllll7 IllllllYEAR

YEAR

10ADJUSTED AVERAGE. ,t.,O.;USTEDPEAK

IIEZ3 ADJUSTED AVEIV.GE • ADJUSTED PEAK

600

soo

100

o

e

lQ81 11162 111113Ill801 lae5 1&88 Illll7 IllllllYEAR

IfZZJADJUSTEDAVERAGE. ADJUSTEOPEAK

Figure 2,,7-. Population trends of the (a) Sanderling, (b) Semipalmated Sandpiper,(c) Least Sandpiper, (d) Dunlin and (e) Short-billed Dowitcher at JarnaicaBayWildlife Refuge, NY.

78

- -0""'--.•.t' .•...•......o •.......6 •.Q.~ •. uo AA""A •••. """--- --.-- -- •.• ..-J •.•__ •.• ,

8AN3Y HOCI( HAWK COMI'8

luaunoDO

1000

40DO

a01 OT or OT OT OT o tOT SPEC ItS

117. ,••0 '111 1112 1113 ".4 ,.IS '111 ".7 YEAI

O-OSPREY. r.TC:TAl

SANlY foI:Q( HAWK COMI'8

IU18£R1200Q

1000

40DO

a .M 1 H T H T H T H T H T "T H 1 H T SPECI ts117. '.'0 ,••, "II '.13 ,••• "15 "'1 1117 YEAI

79

~7

I HIli j, ~.4 il;1 I I ,·111 I ~I I 1 I1,1 Hiol;l;fI! 1'1' 1·1,

I

Figure 29. Spring migrating hawk population trends at Sandy Hook, NJ

IUM8E112000

.000

4000

oS T S T $ T S T $ T S T $ T S 1 S T SPEC1£$S S S S I S I S S

,.7. ,••0 1••, ,••2 ,••3 ,••• ,.15 1••• 1117 YEAR

-SHARP-SHIN

IUaBER120DO

1000

fODO

G

C 1 C T - C r C T C T C T 'c r C 1 C T SPECItl

,.7. ,••0 "" ,••1 '••~ 1114 ,.15 ,••• 1117 YEAI

Figure 30. Spring migrating hawk populATION tRENDS-AT Sandy HOOK, ~~

IU •• EI12000

1000

400D

oIt 1 R T R T R TIT R TIT It 1 R T SPECI [sS S S S S S S S S

,.7. 1tl0 ,••, 1112 '.13 "" 1115 ,••• "'7 YEAI

IU •• ER12000

1000

40DG

oI 1 • T • _r 8 T • T 8 T • r I 1 8 T SPEC:I ES•••••••••,.7. 'tiO ,••, 111t "13 ,.1. 111& "1' "'7 YEAI

81

! I I I 11><'11 ld ~'. I'l; I III III I I I II,

1"'~il",,;I·~;I, 1,4·1"" ,I,I,~II; IIq"f 1,,1,'11~ltIi!,"" 'i" '1'

II

Figure 31~ Spring migrating hawk population trends at Sand Hook, NJ

1000

·

~

·:::

" ~"

~

, ~~ ~~~ "· ~

~

~~~ ~~

~~

oR 1 R T • T R TIT R TIT R 1 R T SPECltST T T T T T T T T

,.7. "'0 ,••, ,.12 ,.13 ,••4 ,••• 1'" , •• 7 YEAR

'J.

lUMBER1Z0DG

1000

40DO

aK 1 I TIT K TIT K TIT K 1 K T SPECIES

117' ,••0 ,••, 1tlt ,••3 11.4 ,.Ia "'1 ,••, YEA'

82

10

Figure 32. Spring migrating hawk population trends at Sandy Hook, NJ

IUIBERnODO

.000

40DO

G

111 liT liT liT liT MT IIf 111 liT SPECIES

"71 ,••0 '1" "12 ,••3 ,••• "'5 ,••• ".7 YEAI

83

! I I I 11"1' I II j I ~., 1.1'I I I ,III i.1 i I I ,II, ,"1~4 I,; ,#>lIIlli'iI>H1 II

Mammals. A total of 39 mammal species, including 4 marine species, were reportedfrom 31 natural areas. The maximum number of species reported (24) occurred both onHackensack Meadows and Pelham Bay Park, New York (Appendix B, Table 2). The mostubiquitous species was the meadow vole, found on 26 sites and may help explain theincreasing trend in wintering redtail hawks (see Bart 1977). Two sites reported only onespecies, the muskrat, which also occurred on 16 other sites as well. The average numberfor all sites was 10.3 with the median standing at 9 species. An estimated 11 non-marinespecies shown in field guides (Burt and Grossenheider 1976, DeGraf and Rudis 1986),occurring in historic times and still occurring elsewhere in the region, failed to materializeon the list. If the 11 were added to the 35 non-marine species reported, 24% of the 46'probable have not yet been accounted for. Only 5 native species (16%) were listed bymore than half (15) of the 31 reporting sites.

Included in the overall list of mammals (Table 23) were 6 (15%) exotic species(house cat, domestic dog, house mouse, Norway rat, black rat and black-tailed jackrabbit);4 marine species (harbor seal, Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphin, sperm whale, and hoodedseal); and 3 freshwater species (muskrat, beaver and mink). The total list included 10herbivores, 9 omnivores, 10 insectivores and 10 carnivores. Generally, the more secretive(e.g. shrews, bats, weasels, foxes) were not widely reported compared to the more familiarurban "generalists"( e.g. cottontail, raccoon, gray squirrel). Some surprises in terms ofrelatively minimal distribution included eastern mole (10 sites), striped skunk(6), southernflying squirrel (6), woodchuck (3), white-tailed.deer(2) and beaver (1 site). Undoubtedlysome species occur which are not being observed or reported, but overall the omnipresentinfluence of human populations would appear to suppress the distribution, variety andabundance of mammals in the Harbor region.

No data file was obtained which could be used to develop insight as to trends inmammalian populations. Some area lists indicated some species as unconfirmed, occasionalbut non-breeding, extirpated or introduced but these ratings were not used consistently.Systematic inventories to monitor the status and trends of mammal populations apparentlydo not exist in the region.

84

Table 23. List or mammal species reported rrom 31 natural areas in the New York/NewJersey Harbor region, in order or frequency reported (Appendix C, Table 2).

Trophic

HabitatSitesRank

Common Name Type *Type"Reporting

1

Meadow vole HG 262

Eastern cottontail HS ,253

Norway rat 0U 244

Raccoon 0R(U)19II Eastern gray squirrel H(G,O)F(U)195

Muskrat HW 186

House cat CV(V)177

House mouse 0V 168

Opossum 0R(V)14IIWhite-footed mouse O(G)S(F)14II Domestic dog C(O)V(V)14

9Eastern chipmunk O(G)F 12

10Eastern mole IG 10

11Shorttail shrew I(C)G 8

IILittle brown myotis IR(V)8

12Red bat IF 6

IISouthern flying squirrel 'O(G)F 6

IIStriped skunk O(C)V(V)6

13Mink CW 5

IIRed fox C(O)G(V)5

14Grey fox CF 4

IIHarbor seal C(P)M-...;

4II

Masked shrew ICC)W(F)415

Black rat 0U 3II

Woodchuck HG 3II

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin PM 3II

Longtail weasel CV 316

White-tailed deer HF(Y)2II

Sperm whale C(?)M 2II

Silver-haired bat IF 2II

Big brown bat IV(U)2II

Star-nosed mole IR 2

17Keen's myotis IV 'I

IISmall-footed myotis IV(?) 1

IIHooded seal PC?)M 1

IIRed squirrel H(O)F 1

IIBeaver HW(S)1

IIMeadow jumping mouse H(?)G 1

IIBlack-tailed jackrabbit -HG 1

*Trophic Type: H=herbivore, O=omnivore, C=carnivore, P=piscivore, I=insectivore,

G = granivore, ? = questionable**Habitat Type: F=forest, G=open forb or grass, S= shrub, ,M=marine, W=water orwetland, R= riparian, V= urban, V= variable, ?= uncertain

f~

q~

I I I I H~HI I ,I jI>,' li.j I I IIII ~I I I I

Wildlife Values

The inclusion of the status and trends of wildlife populations and their habitats inthe New York/New Jersey Estuary as a component of this project implies some perceivedvalues for the resources. However tangible the wildlife resource itself may be, many of theassociated values are often seen as intangible and lacking in definition. Ascertainingspecific wildlife values was not within the scope of this project, yet it seems inappropriate

.to ignore some elements of these aspects given our association and experience to this point.

Unlike wildlife populations in rural areas, their urban counterparts have little tooffer within commercial or utilitarian contexts (furs, meat, etc.) or even in respect to thefunds expended for recreational use of the resource (licenses, permits, fees, meals, lodging,transportation by hunters & trappers, etc.). We recognize that some urban wildlifepopulations, such as flocks of birds in coastal habitats, provide significant recreationalenjoyment. However, it would appear at lhis point that the outstanding value of thisresource is the extent to which the presence, abundance, location and health of birds,mammals, amphibians and reptiles convey some realistic sense, understanding of, andcommittment to the wellbeing of the urban environment which they share with humans .

. 86

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

by

D. Squires and J. Barclay

Consideration of wildlife and habitats within this particular urban context istempered by the realization that the former ecosystems have been, for the most pan,irretrievably committed to other functions and human use. The fragments should respondwell to thoughtful management. The cadre of professionals and public supporters whohave managed to underwrite the preservation of natural ecosystems (Robinson and Bolen,1989:360) within the harbor environment have laid the groundwork for a comprehensiveand farsighted approach which will be necessary to address wildlife conservation needswithin the Estuary well into the next century. The remnants of natural landscapes whichfunction as wildlife habitat in and around this metropolitan complex could become a webof natural environments, corridors, greenbelts, buffer zones and creative managementactivities interlacing the urban with the natural worlds to the betterment of both (RegionalPlan Association 1990a,b; New York City Dept. of Planning 1983).

The information reviewed in this study documents the loss of near shore habitat.The remaining habitats have been altered, stressed by impacts of human activity such asnoise, chronic and acute episodes of chemical pollution (Olsen 1984, Farrow 1986), andintroduction of exotic species. Most wildlife populations which remain are likely to bestressed, existing in simplified ecosystems, . and vulnerable. The presence of largepopulations of "adaptable generalists" such as gulls, crows and pigeons, are among theindicators of habitat simplification. Further, there is evidence (Table 20) of an increaseof those species which to some extent are actively managed by humans (e.g. Canadageese, mallards, raccoons) or which are normally commensal with humans (e.g. pigeons,rats). Through habitat protection, enhancement or creation, increasing numbers of similarspecies are present, possibly competing with the species which are less likely to coexistwith humanity.

Additionally, some species of wildlife are exhibiting behavioral changes whichindicate increasing tolerance of or even. dependence on human activity for sustenance oftheir large populations (Conover and Chasko, 1985). Thus the large, ubiquitouspopulation of the herring gull found in the Estuary may in some measure now bedependent upon landfills or other sources of human wastes for survival in presentnumbers. These behaviors, when taken in concert with changes in the diversity of"natural" wildlife populations in the Esturary, suggest that some resident species are notonly surviving in the urban enviromnent, bU,tare adapting to it. These residents may bethe pioneers of emerging urban wildlife populations differing from their "wild" ormigrating counterparts in their use of food and cover and their resistance to stressespeculiar to the urban setting, including interspecific interaction with humans, noise, trafficand disease.

Human development has had the effect of progressively deleting large tracts ofhabitat from the core of the Estuary progressively outward to the margins of the study

87

~~

area. Deletion of habitat may be catastrophic - that is, by obliteration -- or may beprogressive. Progressive deletion occurs byintemal divisionof the habitat area into smallerand smaller pieces, ever reducing the core habitat and increasing the edge habitat (alsosee Van Druff, 1979). Such a progression of habitat degradation or destruction should,in our view, have the effect of increasing the proportion of edge habitats to core habitat,thus increasing the populations of edge species at the expense of the core species.However, increases in edge may reach some threshold level at which the interactionbetween wildlife and humans, with their dependent dogs and cats and rats, begins to beof greater importance than the amount of edge per se. If this is occurring, and some ofour data suggest that it is, then a new urban wildlife system could be emerging -- oneindependent of traditionally understood relationships and uniquely adapted to the urbanhabitat.

The followingconclusions and recommendations, in keeping with the project goals,are categorized as recommendations dealing with "habitat", "habitat modification", and'Wildlife."To these we have added the category "people," since the effectiveness of naturalresource management depends chieflyupon effective communication with the owners.

Habitat

While existing habitat in the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary supports asurprisingly diverse fauna and flora, the available remaining upland habitat is beingincreasinglyfragmented or threatened by development. As fragmentation of habitat occurs,the proportion of edge zone habitat relative to core increases with an adverse effect uponthe diversity and abundance of core wildlife the habitat will support. A 50 meter bufferzone in which no further development is permitted should be maintained around naturalareas and any other potential habitat to prevent further erosion of core habitat areas.Although not as valuable as the habitat areas themselves, buffer zones are vital for theirprotection and usefulness to wildlife.

This study identified 39 natural areas for preservation. The additional 14 rookerysites for gulls and herons, terns and skimmers, are also worthy of preservation. Undersome definitions, no original habitat remains in the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary.Those areas not physically modified in the past have been, to some degree, otherwiseaffected by the presence of humans. Such impacts include: chemical pollution of water,soil or atmosphere; introduction of exotic predators or pathogens; introduction ofmechanical noise and hazards; introduction of structure; or by intrusion of humans uponthe environment.

Recommendation 1. A priority effort should be made to identify, document and preservethose sites which most closely approximate a natural state. While it is unreasonable toexpect that a pre-Colonial habitat can be maintained in a 21st Century setting, suchquasi-natural sites may serve as loci for benchmark assemblages of plants and animals.

The following examples of wildlife habitat categories (Recommendation 2) in theLower Hudson Estuary include those which we determined were particularly importantto wildlife. It is intended to serve as a catalyst for identifying other possibilities, as astimulus to enhancing or implementing management plans, and as a guide for establishing

88

jb

I I I I I "H I IH" 4 II J II II I" Ii;

priorities. Most of these categories will most often apply to small localized coastal areaswhose existence is known by local residents and some area specialists. Others may applyto upland buffer zones within the harbor influence.

Recommendation 2. Natural resource management agencies and support groups shouldinventory and characterize specific habitats on each designated natural area. Theinventory efforts should consider:

a. Any remnant area of essentially original landscape which is dominated bynatural vegetation, e.g. marsh, swamp, beach, riparian zone, in the coastalbuffer zone;

b. Any natural stand of mature(75+ years) or old growth(150+ years) trees;landscape plantings of similar vintage are indeed significant, i.e. historicallyor botanically, but may lock indigenous biotic relevance;

c. All natural wetlands (swamps, marshes, bogs, vernal pools), fresh waterponds and lakes, perennial streams and springs. Some artificial or manmadewetlands may be important as well, particularly from an historic/culturalperspective (e.g. canals, ice ponds, quarries, borrow pits, mill ponds etc.) andfor maintaining current populations of species;

d. Buffer zones, particularly between nat:ural areas and developed properties.A minimum of 50 meters is recommended whenever feasible in which noincompatible development would be permitted and which should be includedin the total area to be protected. An additional 100 m (or more) regulatedzone in which some low impact activities and development might beaccomodated is also recommended for riparian situations (i.e. along streams,wetlands, ponds, vernal pools); .

e. Contiguous coastal/riparian corridors of open space vegetation, natural orplanted and preferably including native woody species, which serve to connectlarger open space tracts such as existing waterfront parks and preserves.Optimal suggested corridor width is 300 m (100 m minimal) per kilometer(1000 m) of length, but each circumstance (topography, existing developmentor buffers, cost, objectives, etc.) will dictate actual dimensions. Corridorsfunction as buffer strips and permit movement of.plant materials (e.g. seeds)as well as animals, but may be even more important in preventing isolationof remnant populations. Corridors will be especially functional as habitatduring seasonal migrations;

f. All areas containing populations of officially listed threatened orendangered species of plants or animals as designated by state and/or federalauthorities. Areas containing species of special concern t~ local,. st~te, orfederal authorities, as well as to' conservation organizations, should besurveyed and/or have their management status reviewed, to ascertainbiological significance and status of the site;

g.Coastal areas of unusual, unique, prehistoric (i.e. relict) indigenous

89

vegetation, or that which is of some historical significance (e.g. tidal grist millsites). Consideration should also be given to identifying or retaining tractsof representative plant communities within the region for use as referencesites (e.g. long term ecological monitoring of salt marsh vegetatic:m);

h. Strategic scenic vistas such as coastal overlooks and/or public access pointsmay, in themselves, have little to offer as wildlife habitat, but afford specialrecreational and educational opportunities for observing wildlife in naturalsurroundings which might not be available otherwise;

i. Nesting habitats for communal nesting species such as herons, gulls andterns, and swallows (especially bank and cliff swallows). Communal nestingareas are as diverse as islands, stands of trees, gravel banks, bridges andcliffs. Protection should include adequate buffer zones whenever possibleand/or restrictions on human access;

j. Brackish wetlands and other significant (numbers or species) amphibianbreeding habitats, particularly where upland brooks enter estuarine habitats.Deeper, longer lasting pools in otherwise intermittent or ephemeral streamscan also be important wildlife habitat during dry periods;

k. Principal feeding and resting areas for wintering ducks (greater and lesserscaup, goldeneye, bufflehead, black duck, scoters, mergansers, old squaw etc.),geese (Canada, snow, brant etc) and other water birds (purple sandpiper,grebes, loons) to the extent that such areas are identified with certainty bylocal authorities;

1. Nocturnal roosts or other key concentration sites for migrating, winteringor feeding populations of such diverse groups as marine mammals (e.g.harbor seals), eagles, vultures, shorebirds, neotropical migrants, butterflies,bats, etc. (Blackbird, crow and starling roosts present special managementproblems and are not included in this designation);

m. Coastal or estuarine spawning, breeding or nesting habitats such as thoseused by horseshoe crabs, marine turtles (including diamondback terrapin),fish etc.;

n. Areas of special environmental significance or concern, particularly thos~identified by state natural history survey programs, should be respected andnot compromised without careful scrutiny, inter-agency communication andinformed decision-making;

o. Isolated nest sites, roosts, and principal feeding areas of large or unusual birdssuch as hawks (including peregrine falcon, red-shoulder, etc) owls, ospreys, heronsetc.;

p. Beaver dams and lodges, although not permanent and apparently uncommon inthe New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary region. Where these animals are found(in fresh water primarily), they will often provide a variety of benefits for many

! I I"""1 I

II~ I" 1"JI~III",·,I<I,;II·I,j;jil: ·I·II~HI 'il~'li

other species of wildlife and their habitats. Beaver impoundments also help to storeflood waters, slow and filter runoff, and create new habitats. Such benefits may bereduced where the beaver pose a real threat to roadways, adjoining properties, orhabitats/vegetationlareas of special concern or significance;

q. Mature mast-producing trees and shrubs, hollow den trees, so-called "wolf' trees,bee trees, large snags and limbs with cavities take years to develop and usuallyprovide habitat values far in excess of often misconceived fears of risks to people.They should be protected and maintained whenever feasible. if not already part ofbroader riparian management programs or objectives.

r. Undeveloped spits, promontories and headlands afford favorable feeding andresting areas for waterfowl and other aquatic birds which are less inclined tofrequent such habitats where they are built up or people are present in largenumbers. These sites afford excellent opportunities for viewing wildlife as well. asfor enjoying the vistas provided.

s. Uninhabited marsh islands (e.g.' within Jamaica Bay), natural as well asmanmade, or other structures surrounded by water (e.g. tank farms ),are particularlyattractive to wildlife by virtue of their isolation. H sufficient area projects abovehigh water, islands are likely to be important sit~ for communal nesting birds.They are also frequented by birds during migration or during inclement weather.Exotic introductions of such species as cottontail rabbits, meadow mice, domesticrabbits, foxes, house cats, and other species can have disasterous consequences forindigenous resident species as well as, eventually, for the introduced species as well.

While there has been success in the conservation of existing tidal wetlands ortidelands through legislation at federal and state levels, such success has often been gainedat cost to other important nearshore habitats. For example, efforts to compile data on theloss of mudflat habitats in the Estuary failed because of the absence of documentation oftheir destruction. Similarly, almost every category of shorezone habitat is not beingaggressively protected from alteration except through acquisition of title by a public agencyor private organization. In the final analysis, while this kind of protection may be the best,it is impractical for the conservation of extensive habitats in an urbanized situation. Theregulatory effort devoted to those other types should be commensurate with that dedicatedto the tidal wetlands.

Recommendation 3. "Government agencies and private support groups should broadentheir efforts to document size, location and wildlife use of shorezone habitats. other thantidal wetlands, and either enact where missing or stringently enforce protective legislationfor these habitats.

Habitat modification

One of the objectives of this study was to present recommendations for enhancingthe aesthetic aspects of the estuarine environment through modifications, i.e.

91

"improvements", to the many marginal wildlife habitat features which exist. By marginalhabitats we are referring in part to such elements as abandoned piers, wharves,transportation and industrial facilities; relatively unused filled land created from dredgespoils or other fills; and unmanaged riparian zones adjacent to urban wetlands, streams orother water resources.

Our collective experience and familiarity with New York City, New Jersey, and theassociated environs there, as well as in other coastal and urban situations, leads us to becautiously optimistic as to the habitat improvement opportunities. Cautious because of theneed for municipal support financially and administratively, coupled to public support andvolunteerism. Optimistic because many strategies and techniques can be undertaken whichin themselves are relatively simple and inexpensive, but have far reaching benefits forsociety, wildlife and the environment.

The suggestions which we offer below. are a sampling of the possibilities, intendedto be expanded upon or to stimulate additional ideas rather than be an end in themselves.Where assistance in implementation may be needed, knowledgeable individuals will befound in private conservation organizations, area colleges and universities, state or localenvironmental, recreation or planning agencies, or in a number of private environmentalconsulting firms. Many sources of information on urban wildlife, wildlife management andconservation, and wildlife habitat improvement in urban or rural settings can be found atlocal libraries. The backyard wildlife habitat program sponsored by the National WildlifeFederation in Washington,D.C. can provide information upon request. The New Jersey orNew York Departments of Environmental Conservation, New York Parks Department andother agencies have non-game wildlife programs and specialists able to provide guidance.Cooperative Extension Programs at Rutgers, Cornell and other institutions can assist inlocating specialists. All of the above should be able to assist in local wildlife habitatimprovements which will yield aesthetic and other benefits.

These habitat modification recommendations are grouped as to their emphasis on(A) wild animal populations, (B) the habitats in which the animals live, or (C) the peoplewho desire the improvements, will benefit from them, and will be involved in bringingthem about.

Wzldlife populations.

Recommendation 4. Improve wildlife access, where appropriate, to natural areasisolated(cut 00) by highways, waUs,je·tties or other forms of shoreline development topermit passage and achieve more natural, complete assemblages of plants and animals.Vegetated corridors, openings in fences, culverts, timbers, overpasses, and ramps may havepossibilities for given coastal situations;

Recommendation s. Modify "Jersey barriers" and other obstructions to wildlife,particularly on divided roadways, to permit passage and protection at regular intervalsrather than entrapment;

Recommendation 6. Block, where necessary, wildlife passage through fences, under orinto buildings, onto power lines, roadways or otber bazardous situations as appropriate.Storm drains may permit safe passage, or lead to problems. Creative use or prevention

92

I I I I I I·~"I I I ··11 I I ~;, II. I I IIIIII "I I"{ IlfWII;,Hll 1.1 j'fII'

depends on the situation;

Recommendation 7. Provide wildlife escape routes, dense cover, or even small, oneway(outward) swinging gates through fences and other barriers on rights-of-way;

Recommendation 8. Sanitary landfills, given the large size, number and proximity tocoastal wetlands wildlife habitat, can be an excellent opportunity for developingaesthetically pleasing wildlife habitats via planting and contouring into desiredconfigurations such as swales and shallow perched ponds;

Wzldlife habitats.

Recommendation 9. To rejuvenate barren filled land sites, halt erosion, filter and slowrunoff, apply compost, mulch, wood chips or similar materials and plant lowmanagement/stress tolerant species such as black locust, vetch, clover, broom sedge etc.Employ experienced habitat restoration specialists as consultants;

Recommendation 10. Defer (until mid-June or later) or eliminate grassland mowing(parking, medians, roadsides, etc.) where there are butTering shore zones and mowing notessential for human health, safety. Maintaining the grass community itself (mowlburnevery other year, etc.) is important for open land wildlife species, especially where maturetree cover otherwise dominates large areas. Meadow voles use unmowed grasslands andprovide food to wintering raptors;

Recommendation 11. Remove malfunctioning, dilapidated, or unessential flow controlstructures/barriers/tidal gates in tidal creeks and ditches to restore normal salinity levelsto wetland areas, reduce phragmites intrusion, and encourage indigenous fish, wildlife andplant populations;

Recommendation 12. Remove obstructions and blockages from streams entering estuarineareas. Use suitable materials such as rocks, grabions, and anchored logs to modify currentsand enhance fish and wildlife habitats;

Recommendation 13. Maintain open grasslands, meadows, marshes and large mowedareas (especially adjacent to water) for their significance to open land species as well astheir panoramic virtues, biotic productivity and other functional attributes;

Recommendation 14. Utilize natural vegetation in manmade swales, sediment basins,energy dissipators and other surface runoff facilities to enhance wildlife populations,aesthetic values and water quality.

Recommendation 15. Reduce or eliminate use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers inroutine area management- reserve for special situations.

Recommendation 16. Implement open marsh management strategies where not alreadyunderway (as is well demonstrated elsewhere in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut).Restored salt water access to low and high salt marsh sites can reduce mosquito problellls,create improved feeding for birds, and result in more attractive marshes. This is

93

jO\

particularly true where ditching and ponding seek to recreate original drainage channelnetworks and avoids rigid, linear excavation techniques which are less attractive and haveless photosynthetically productive aquatic habitat.

People.

Recommendation 17. Develop and maintain strategic scenic vistas which maintain orenhance opportunities for viewingwildlife in natural habitats;

Recommendation 18. Encourage formation of neighborhood wildlife habitat supportgroups to monitor, enhance, restore and assume some responsibilityfor local habitats and·populations;

Recommendation 19. Promote wildlifeenhancement programs which draw birds and otherwildlife closer to where elderly-citizens, school children, hospital patients or others withlimited mobility/opportunity may learn, enjoy, and be entertained. Feeders, nest boxes,waterers, and plantings are among the techniques which can be used to aesthetic (andemotionally beneficial) advantage, even in marginal habitats. Local clubs, scouts, and othervolunteer groups may become involved to construct, install and maintain these resourcesat minimal cost and maximum personal pleasure and satisfaction;

Recommendation 20. Document what is being done in local areas, and determine whatthe needs may be. Implement educational .programs on the virtues, techniques, andnecessary precautions for "coastal wildlife"enhancement programs as appropriate.

Wildlife

Lists of fauna obtained for this study suggest that the populations of amphibians andreptiles are slight and diminished in variety. If this indication is accurate, a seriousweakening of the food chain within the Estuary's environment is indicated. However, notall respondents for this study included data on these groups.

Recommendation 21. A coordinated attempt should be mounted to compile species listsfor all natural areas and parks. These should document presence and relative abundanceseasonally and by habitat type, and highlight conservation needs and success.

Among the many effects of urbanization on wiidlife are those resulting from theintroduction of vigorous populations of exotic and commensal species. Among these urbankeystone species are the house cat, rat, pigeon and starling. Some gulls, geese and crowsare not exotic, but are becoming commensal. Not evaluated in this study, but suspectedto be a major factor in the dimunition of many species and the absence of others, is thelarge population of exotic predators. For example, certain areas of likely habitat such asoffshore islands and abandoned land along the Harlem River might well support a diversefauna. Casual observation, however, did not indicate that such a fauna is present,suggesting that an aggressive predator population (e.g. house cat, rat) might be at work.

There are wildlife species increasing in the Estuary without clear evidence of why

94

! I. I 1 H'I' Iii

they are being successful. Some of these may be called "resident species." Examplesinclude the American crow and again the Canada goose. It is possible that these speciesare exhibiting an adaptability to human contact not previously detected in their usual,'Wild" behaviors. Studies of these species could focus on the niches of these animals inthis environment.

Recommendation 22. Studies of the role of managed, exotic and commensal species whosepopulations have been vastly increased by the urbanized environment should be initiated.These should include the role of newly emerging, dominant species, whose success is afunction of human intervention, and their long-term effect on the diversity of wildlife in theEstuary. Many species now becoming abundant in the Estuary appear to owe their·reproductive success to the consequences of human management and developmentpractices. Among those species are the Canada goose, red-tailed hawk, mute swan andmeadow vole. The success of these species may be at cost to others and have adverseconsequences to the diversity of·wildlife in the Estuary.

People

Recommendation 23. A higher priority should be given to the creation, where necessary,and maintenance oCteams (units) of wildlife!habitat specialists at all levels oCgovemment.Experience has shown that wildlife/habitat specialists are often lithe first to go" in times offinancial exigency. However, without a more secure and continuing effort to develop amore complete information base by both the public and private sectors, conservation,preservation and restoration efforts will be fragmented and less productive.

Efforts to develp more sophisticated levels of information about wildlife and habitatby private organizations, as well as governmental agencies, are to be applauded. In theEstuary area, these are often marked by high levels of professionalism and serve as uniqueand valued resources. The National Audubon Christmas Bird Count data set is anexcellent example, but there are many other examples of dedicated effort by groups ofindividuals to characterize, count and otherwise document resources. All effort should bemade to encourage, stimulate and expand these activities, for, until public funding permitsdevelopment of an information base, these private activities are the best source ofknowledge about wildlife in the urban area. Further, it is doubtful that public funding willever be adequate, or could replace, the dedication of wildlife enthusiasts.

Recommendation 24. Development of a "professional association" oC wildlife and habitatprofessionals and non-professional groups should be stimulated. Such an organization .would serve as a means of enhancing information flow among such workers, now too oftensomewhat isolated. By such information exchange, common, standardized methods of datacollection and preservation would be developed, rather than imposed.

Scientifically based information about the flora and fauna of the urban area as awhole is not well developed, nor is the "documentation of such knowledge adequate.Without a more complete inventory of wildlife and habitats, efforts towards conservation,preservation and restoration will be incomplete.

Recommendation 25. A formal information network should be established among wildlife

95

and habitat specialists. Such a network should increase awareness of similar activitiesthroughout the Estuary region, would encourage data exchange and development ofstandardized data sets, and would serve to encourage use of the established informationcenters as common data repositories. A case in point is the Natural ~eritage database,about which we were unaware until after the study was completed.

Urban youngsters often lack structured opportunites to become aware of andknowlegable about communities of plants, animals and processes. However, many peoplerespond positively to such opportunities and often become willing participants ininformation gathering and monitoring, and management activities.

Recommendation 26. Awareness of the personal satisfaction of participation in wildlifeor habitat study/conservation/restoration activities should be stimulated through existingyouth education programs. Through linkages with existingorganizations, a greater futurepublic participation in wildlife/habitat awareness would be achieved.

Because of constraints of time and funding, it was not possible in the context of thisstudy to completely analyze all existingdata sets, particularly those of birds. That analysisshould proceed expeditiously to more fully document the present status and the trends ofpopulations.

Recommendation 27. Funding for the analysis and/or development of other data setsshould be sought. Priority should be given to a) analysis'of the U. S. Fish and WildlifeService banding data and to b) activation of the FWS Breeding Bird Survey, especially inurban areas.

Finally, while the goal and objectives set for the wildlifeand habitat CO}:1)ponentsofthe New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Study are praiseworthy, they are couched inbroad terms lacking definition. Without precision in the statement of those objectives,progress towards achievement of the goal will be difficult to measure. Further, attainmentof the goal might be impossible if it is accepted in the broadest interpretation. Such aninterpretation would reduce the value of the goal statement and call into question thevalidity of the objectives. Therefore:

Recommendation 28. Both the goal statement and its component objectives should becarefully reviewed by the WildlifelHabitat Working Group, the ScientificrrechnicalCommittee and the Management Committee. Effort should be made to qu~ntify theobjectives and to state both goal and objectives in more definitive terms.

96

I , I .11 I 1 ~'. i I 'i I I ,III 1.1 'I II

"'f

II

LITERATURE CITED

Albion, R. 1970. The Rise of New York Port [1815-1860]. David & Charles. NewtonAbbot, England. 481 pp.

Bart, J. 1977. Winter distribution of redtail hawks in central New York State. Wil. Bull.89:623-625.

Bellrose, F. 1976. Ducks, geese and swansof North America. 2nd Ed. Stockpole Booles,Harrisburg, PA

Bouton, J. 1987. Sandy Hook hawk watch - Spring 1987. Peregr. Obser. 10 (2):3-5.

Bower, B., G. Larson, A Michaels and W.Phillips. 1968. Generation and Disposal ofSolid, Liquid and Gaseous Wastes in the New York Region. A Report of the SecondRegional Plan. Bull. 107. The Regional Plan Assoc., New York, NY. 107 pp.

Burdick, D., D. Cushman, R. Hamilton and J. Gosselink. 1989. Faunal changes andbottomland hardwood forest loss in the tensas Watershed, Louisiana. ConserveBioI. 3(3):282-292.

Burger, J., M. Gochfeld and K. Parsons. 1990. Toxicant accumulation and effects onbirds: the reproductive biology and effects of pollutants on estuarine and marine birdsof the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary. DRAFT EPA Rep. CE002~:01-0. 245pp.

Burt, W. and R. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals. 3rd. ed. HoughtonMifflin Co., Boston. 289 pp.

Butcher, G. S. 1989. Using data from the Christmas Bird Count database at the CornellLaboratory of Ornithology. Unpubl. photocopy 7pp.

Butcher, G., M. Fuller, L. McAllister and P. Geissler. 1990. An evaluation of theChristmas Bird Count for monitoring population trends of selected species. WildI. Soc.Bull. 18: 129-134.

Buttenwieser, A 1987. Manhattan water-bound: planning and developing Manhattan'swaterfront from the seventeenth century to the present. NY Univ. Pr., New York, NY243 pp.

City of New York. 1958. Marshes and lands under water. Preliminary inventory. Dept.Planning, City of New York. 8 pp. Mimeo.

Clayton, W. 1882. History of Bergen and Passaic Counties, New Jersey. Everts & Peck,Philadelphia, PA 301 pp.

Coch, N. and H. Bokuniewicz. 1986. Oceanographic and geologic framework of the·

Hudson system. Northeast. Geo!. 8(3):96-108.

Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central NorthAmerica. 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.

Conover, M. R. and G. G. Chasko. 1985. Nuisance Canada goose problems in the easternUnited States. WildI. Soc. Bull. 13:228-233.

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. USDI Natl. Park Serv., Gateway Natl. Recr. Area, :r-,.TY.

Pamph.

1989b. Reptiles and amphibians, USDI Natl. Park Serv., Gateway Natl. Recr.Area, NY. Pamph.

Corey, S. 1991. Garbage in the sea. Seaport. WinterlSpring:18-23.

Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of NewEngland. Hill and Wang. New York, NY 241 pp.

DeGraaf, R. and D. Rudis. 1986. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, anddistribution. USDA For. Servo NEFES Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-108. 491 pp.

__________ 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of New England - habitats andnatural history. The Univ. of Mass. Pr., Amherst, MA 85 pp.

Edwards, J. 1893. Improvement of New York Harbor: 1885 to 1891. Compliments ofJoseph Edwards, New York, NY. 83 pp.

Farrow, D., F. Arnold, M. Lombardi, M. Main and P. Eichelburger. 1986. The nationalcoastal pollutant discharge inventory estimates for Long Island Sound. NOAA, U.S. Dept.Commerce. 40 pp.

Fassett, N. 1957. A manual of aquatic plants. The Univ. of Wise. Pr., Madison, WI. 405pp.

Hoyt, H. 1939. The structure and groWth of residential neighborhoods in American cities.U.S. Feder. Hous. Admin. Washington, D. C.

Kardas, S. and E. Larrabee. 1979. Cultural resource survey. Exchange Place and PavoniaFerries, Jersey City, N.J. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Dept. ofArmy by Historic Sites Research. April, 1979. 73 pp.

Kieran, J. 1959. A natural history of New York City. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.428 pp.

Keller, J. 1991. Characterization and mapping of the nearshore core areas of the NY-NJHarbor Estuary. In Woodhead, P. 1991. Inventory and Assessment of Habitat and FishResources and Assessment of Information on Toxic Effects in the New York/New JerseyHarbor Estuary. Rept. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, Tasks 3.2, 5.1 and

I I I 1 I ··11 I~·,. I II I I ,III 1.1 I II

" 'P' I'

II,

5.3. Unpublished. 21 pp.

Klawoon, M. 1977. The cradle of the corps: A history of the New York District, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. New York District, US Army Corps of Engineers, New York,NY. 310 pp.

Koebel, C. and D. Kruekeberg. 1975. Demographic patterns. MESA N.Y. Bight Atl.Monogr. 23. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY. 43 pp.

Kraus, M., A Benda, P. Lupini and A. Smith. 1987. Species l.ist of organisms found inthe Hackensack Meadowlands: vascular plants - mammals. Hackensack Meadowl. Corom.,Lyndhurst, NJ. 39 pp.

Maguire Group, Inc. 1989. Functional assessment of wetlands in New Jersey's HackensackMeadowlands. Final Rept., prep. Envir. Protection Agency, Region II. 70 pp +app.

Martin, A., H. Zinn and A Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and plants. McGraw-HillBook Co., NY, NY. 500 pp.

Lunny, R. 1959. Juet's journal: the voyage of the Half-Moon from 4 April to 7November 1609.. NJ Histor. Soc. Newark, NJ. 38 pp.

Major, S. 1988. Sandy Hook hawk watch - Spring 1988. Peregr. Obse.r. 11 (2):9.

New York City Department of City Planning. 1983. ·The Staten Island greenbelt study,final report phase 1: data analysis and recommendations. NYCDEP 83-03. City of NY,NYC Plan. Comm. 87 pp.

New York State Commissioners of Fisheries. 1887. Second repor.t of the oysterinvestigation and of the survey of oyster territory for the years 1885 and 1886 by EugeneG. Blackford. NY State Legisl. Assem. Doc. 1887(28):1-78.

Odurn, E. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA 574pp.

Olsen, L 1984. Effects of contaminated sediments on fish and wildlife: review andannoted bibliography. FWS/OBS - 82/66. USDI Fish and Wildt. Serv., Wash. D.C. 103pp.

Raber, M., T. Flagg, C. Parrott, R. Henn, J. Levin and E. Wiegand. 1984. Culturalresources investigations in Brooklyn. Reach 1. New York Harbor collection and removalof drift project. Final report. New York District, US Army Corps of Engineers. 145 pp.

Regional Plan Association. 1990a. The greening of the apple: greenway opportunitiesin New York City. The Region's Agenda 19(9):1-8.

Regional Plan Association. 1990b. Tools and strategies protecting the landscape andshaping growth. The Open Space Imperative No.3. ISBN No. 0-938085-06-9.

Robbins, C., D. Bystrak and P. Geissler. 1990. An evaluation of the Christmas Bird Count

for monitoring population trends of selected species. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:129-134.

Robinson, W. and E. Bolen. 1989. Wildlife ecology and management. 2nd ed. MacMillanPubl. Co., NY. 574 pp.

Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds. The Univ. Chicago Pr., Chicago,IL 312 pp.

Salwen, B. 1975. Post-glacial environments and cultural change in the Hudson RiverBasin. Man in the Northeast 10:43-70.

Sanders, J. 1974. Geomorphology of the Hudson estuary. Annals, NY Acad. Sci.,250:5-38.

•

Schuberth, C. 1968. The Geology of New York City and environs. The Natural HistoryPress, Garden City, NY. 304 pp.

Squires, D. 1981. The Bight of the Big Apple. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany,NY. 84 pp.

____ 1983. The ocean dumping quandary: Waste disposal in the New York Bight.State Univ. NY Press, Albany, NY. 226 pp ..

1990. Determining the area of man-made land, New Jersey shore, LowerHudson Region. Fin. Rept., Hudson River Fdn. 6 pp.

1991. A historical review of changes in near shore habitats in theSound-Harbor-Bight system. IN Southerland, M. and K. Swetlow. 1990. Oeariing up ourcoastal waters: an unfinished agenda. Proc. region. confer. March 12-14, 1990, Riverdale,NY. pp. 403-428..

In Prep. Shoreline modification of the Hudson River and Estuary fromEuropean contact to modem time. Mss. 29 pp.

Steiner, A. 1984. Mid-winter waterfowl inventory: Atlantic flyway, 1954-1984 trendanalysis. USDI Fish and Wildl. Servo 59 pp.

Stiles, H. 1870. A history of the City of Brooklyn. Including the old town and Village andCity of Williamsburgh. J. Munsell, Albany, NY. Vol. 3, pp. 501-982.

Swift, B. 1987. An analysis of avian breeding habitats in Hudson River tidal marshes.Final Report to the Hudson River Foundation, HRF Grant No. 024/85B/031. NY Dept.Envir. Cons., Delmar, NY 12054. 62 pp., Append.

Terres, J. 1987. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A.Knopf Co., NY. 1109 pp.

Thatcher, Land C. Mendoza 1991. Hydrologic modifications to the New York/New

I I i I I I I I-~',I I II;

Jersey Harbor Estuary. Final report to the New York/New Jersey Harbor EstuaryProgramm, Module 6. Unpublished. 98 pp.

Tiner, R. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. USDIFish and Wildl. Servo 59 pp.

Trust for Public Lands and New York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the Bay: asurvey of Jamaica Bayts unprotected open shoreline and uplands. NY. 34 pp.

1990. The harbor herons-----------------------report: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. NY. 56 pp ..

VanDruff, L W. 1979. Urban wildlife - neglected resource. pp. 184-190 IN Wildlifeconservation: principles and pr~ctices (R. Teague and E. Deckert Eds.) The Wildl. Soc.,Washington, D.C.

Van Winklet D. 1902. Old Bergen: History and reminiscences. John W. Harrison, JerseyCoity, NJ. 319 pp.

Vermeule, C. 1896. Drainage of the Hackensack amnd Newark tide-marshes. Ann. Rept.State GeoJ. 1896, New Jersey Geol. Surv. 1863-1915. MacCrellish and Ouiqley, Trenton,NJ. Pagination various ..

Walsh, D. 1989. Solid waste in New York City: a history. Waste Aget April:114-124.

Westt N. and C. Heatwole. 1981. Perspectives on marina development in New Yor.kCity. New York Sea Grant Inst., First Impress. Ser. NYSGI-T-01-012. NY Sea Grant Inst.tAlbanYt NY. 137 pp.

Woodhead, P. 1991. Inventory and Assessment of Habitat and Fish Resources andAssessment of Information on Toxic Effects in the New YorklNew Jersey Harbor Estuary.A Report to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program concerning work in Tasks3.2, 5.1 and 5.3. Unpublished. Sections separately paginated.

Wright, K. 1988. The Hackensack Meadowlands: Prehistory and history. Prepared forHackensack Meadowlands Development Commissiont Lyndhurst, NJ. 112 pp.

Yankelovich, Skelly and Whitet Inc. 1979. Latent boating demand in New York Harbor.·Rept. Port Authority of NY/NJ. 58 pp.

Zisser, M. 1988. Open space and the future of New York. Prep. for NYC Open SpaceTask Force/NYC Dept. of City Planningt by Abelas Schwartz Assoc., Inc. and TheNeighborhood Open Space Coalition/O. ~othschild Assoc. 88 pp.

APPENDIX A

List of Common and Scientific Namesof

Bird, Amphibians, Reptiles and MammalsReported from the Study Area

Compiled by

J.S. BarclayDepartment of Natural Resource Managament and Engineering

The University of Connecticut

APPENDIX ALIST OF REPORTED SPECIES:

AMPHIBIANSMarbled salamander

Spotted salamanderRed-spotted newt (salamander)Northern dusky salamanderRedback salamanderFour-toed salamander(Northern) Red salamanderNorthern two-lined salamanderEastern spadefoot toadEastern American toadFowler's toad(Northern) Cricket frogNorthern spring peeperGray treefrogSouthern chorus frogNew Jersey chorus frogBullfrogGreen frogNorthern leopard frogSouthern leopard frogPickerel frogWood frog

REPTILESCommon snapping turtleMusk turtle (Stinkpot)Spotted turtleBog turtleWood turtleEastern box turtle(Eastern) Mud turtleRed-eared sliderEastern painted turtleNorthern diamond-backed terrapin(Atlantic) Green turtleAtlantic Loggerhead turtle(Atlantic)Kemp's Ridley turtleAtlantic leatherback turtleEastern fence lizard(Northern) Five-lined skinkNorthern water snakeNorthern brown snakeNorthern red-bellied snakeEastern garter snakeEastern nbbon snake

Ambysloma opacumAmbystoma maculatunzNotophtJzalmus v. viridescelZSDesmognathus f. JuscusPlethodon cinereus

Hemidactylum scutatum. Pseudotriton ruber

Eurycea b. bislineataScaphiopus h. holbrookiiBufo a. americanusBufo woodhousii fowleriAcris gryllusHyla c. cruciferHyla versicolorPseudacrls nigritaPseudacrls spp.Rana catesbeianaRana clamitans melanota

Rana pipiensRana spp.Rana palustrisRana sylvatica

Chelydra s. serpentinaStemotherus odoratus

Clemmys guttataClemmys muhlenbergiiClemmys insculptaTerrapene c. carolinaKinostemon subrubrum

Pseudemys scripta elegansClzrysemys pictaMalaclemys t. terrapinChelonia mydasCaretta caretta

Lepidochelys kempiDermochelys coriaceaSceloporus undulatusEumeces fasciatusNerodia s. sipedonStoreria d. dekayiStoreria o. occipitomaculataThamnophis s. sirtalisThamnophis s. sauritus

REPTILES • cont'd

Eastern hognose snakeNorthern ringneck snakeEastern worm snakeNorthern black racerEastern smooth green snakeEastern king snakeEastern milk snake

BIRDSCommon loonRed-throated loonHorned grebeEared grebePied-billed grebeRed-necked grebeNorthern gannetDouble-crested cormorantGreat cormorantAmerican bitternLeast bitternGreat blue heronGreat egretSnowy egretLittle blue heronTricolored heronCattle egretGreen-backed heronBlack-crowned night heronYellow-crowned night heronWhite ibisGlossy ibisTundra swanMute swanSnow gooseBrantCanada gooseFulvous whistling duckWood duckGreen-winged tealAmerican black duckMallardNorthern. pintailBlue-winged tealNorthern shovelerGadwallEurasian wigeon

Heterodon platyrhblOsDiadophis punctatus edwardsiiCarphophis a. amoenusColuber c. constrictor

Opheodrys v. vernalisLampropeltis g. getulusLampropeltis t. triangulum

Gavia immerGavia stellata

Podiceps auritusPodiceps nigricollisPodylimbus podicepsPodiceps grisegenaMOTUS bassallusPhalacrocorax auritusPhalacrocorax carbo

Botaurus lentiginosusIxobrychus exilisArdea herodiasCasmerodius albus

Egretta thulaFlorida caerulea

Hydranassa tricolorBubulcus ibisButorides striatus

Nycticorax nycticoraxNycticorax violaceusEudocimus albus

Plegadis falcinellusCyg11UScolumbialZusCyg11USolorChen caerulescensBranta bemiclaBranta canadensis

Dendrocygna bicolorAix sponsaAnas crecca

Anas rubripesAnas platyrhynchosAnas acutaAnas discors

Anas clypeataAnas streperaAnas penelope

f r I t I, ~., 'I I I ·11 II It.,. II ,j j I III I 'I I II

BIRDS . cont'd

American wigeonCanvasbackRedheadRing-necked duckGreater scaupLesser scaupKing eiderHarlequin duckOldsquawBlack seaterSurf seaterWhite-winged seaterCommon goldeneyeBuffleheadHooded merganserCommon merganserRed-breasted merganserRuddy duckNorthern harrierRed-tailed hawkAmerican kestrelRuffed grouseNorthern bobwhiteRing-necked pheasantAmerican cootKilldeerRuddy turnstoneBlack-bellied ploverSanderlingDunlinPurple sandpiperRing-billed gullHerring gullGreater black-backed gullBlack-legged kittiwakeLaughing gullCommon blackheaded gullBonaparte's gullRock doveMourning doveMonk parakeetShort-eared owlDowny woodpeckerHairy woodpeckerNorthern flickerHomed larkBlue jay

Anas americalla

Aythya valisineriaAythya americanilAythya collarisAythya marilaAythya affinisSomateria spectabilisHistrionicus histrionicus

Clangula hyemalisMelal%itta nigraMelanitta perspicillataM elanitta deglandiBucephala clangulaBucephala albeolaLophodytes cucullatusMergus merganserMergus seITatorOxyura jamaicensisCircus cyaneusButeo jamaicensisFalco sparveriusBonasa umbel/us

Colmus virginianusPhasianus colchicusFulica americana

Charadrius vociferusArenaria mterpresPluvialus squatarolaCalidris alba

Calidris alpinaCalidris maritimaLarus delawarensis

Larus argentatusLarus marinus

Rissa tridactylaL(lrus atricillaLarus ridibundus

LaTUSphiladelphiaColumba liviaZenaida macroura

Myiopsitta monachusAsio flammeusPicoides pubescensPicoides villosus

Colaptes auralUSEremophila alpestrisCyanocitta cnstata

MAMMALS· c:ont'd

Meadow voleHouse mouseBlack ratNorway ratRed squirrelEastern chipmunkEastern gray squirrelSouthern flying squirrelWoodchuckBeaverMuskratBlack-tailed Jackrabbit..Eastern cottontailLittle brown myotisKeen's myotisSmall-footed myotisSilver-haired batBig brown batRed batWhite-tailed deerStriped skunkLongtail weaselMinkHouse catRaccoonDomestic dogRed foxGrey foxHooded sealHarbor sealAtlantic Bottlenose DolphinSperm whale

Microtus pennsylvanicusMus musculusRattus rattusRattus norvegicusTamiasciurus hudsonicusTamias striatusSciurus carolinensisGlaucomys volansMarmota monaxCastor canadensisOndatra zibethicusLepus califomicusSylvilagus floridanusMyotis lucifigusMyotis keeniiMyotis subulatusLasionycteris noctivagansEptesicus JuscusLasiurus borealisOdocoileus virginianusMephitis mephitisMustela frenataMustela visonFelis domesticusProcyon lotorCanis familiarisVulpes vulpesUrocyon cinereoargenteusCystophora cnstaraPhoca vitulinaTursiops truncatusPhyseter catodon

!', I I I III I' lI'o,. 1,1,I 1 I ,Iii I ~I; I I ·1 'lI' 'I'" III

APPENDIX B

Atlas of Parks and Natural Areas within the

Vicinity of theNew York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary

Compiled by

Christina Kalafus-Kaucinger and J. S. Barclay

Department of Natural Resources Management and EngineeringThe University of Connecticut

SWIi\IMING RIVER l'\ATURAL AREA. £\.1FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 19' 18* N 75° 5' 45* W ID#:

COUNTY: Monmouth

HABITAT FEATURES: (O!'\LM 1984)

Old FieldMature mixed hardwood forestPalustrine wetland forestFreshwater marshesBrackish marshesPond

TOTAL ACREAGE: 109 acres(ONLM 1989)

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (ONLM 1984)

{x} Plants { } Assorted insects

{ } Fishes {x} Amphibians

{x} Birds {x} Mammals

MA~AGEMENT AUTHORITY:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Physical management:Allaire State ParkP.O. Box 220Farmington, NJ 07727

REFERENCES:

Overall administration:New Jersey DEPDivision of Parks and ForestryOffice of Natural Lands Mana!2cmentCN 404 ~ -.~Trenton, NJ 08625

Office of ~atural Lands Management. 1989. Natural Areas System directory of NaturalAreas. 1'ew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Di\'ision of Parks andForestry. Trenton, NJ. 12pp..

Office of Natural Lands Management. 1984. Swimming River Natural Area managementplan. draft. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks andForestry. Trenton, NJ. 36pp.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (ONLM 1984)

{x} Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation {x} Land use

{ } Water resources { } Soil conditions { } Ownership

{ } Active management { } Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesLong Branch, NJ' Long Branch, NJ

Compiled 1990

SANDY HOOK, NJ FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 28' N 74° 00' W ID#: 2

COUNTY: Monmouth

HABITAT FEATURES: (Wander 1977)

Backdune (includcs Fort Hancock)Oceanside HollyBayside HollyForeduneOcean beachFreshwater marshSalt marshBrackish ponds

TOTAL ACREAGE: 1674 acres(NPS 1988)

600 acres250 acres100 acres150 acres130 acres80 acres80 acres20 acres

FLORA A!\D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b, Salter 1979, Wander 1977)

{x} Plants { } Assorted insects { } Invertebratcs

{ } Fishes {x} Amphibians {x} Reptiles


MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY:

U.S. Department of the InteriorNational Parks ServiceGateway National Recrcation AreaFloyd Bennctt FieldBrooklyn, ~y 11234

REFERE~CES:

Bouton, J. J. Sandy Hook Hawk Watch-Spring 1987. 1987. Peregrine Observer 10(2):4.

Cook, R. 1989a. l\lammals. U.S. Departmcnt of the Interior, i'\ational Park Service,Gateway Aational Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Please see following page for additional referenccs

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (NPS 1988, Wander 1977)

{x} Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation { } Land use


{ } Active managcment { } Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wctlands Inventory quadranglesSandy Hook, NJ-NY Sandy Hook, l"\J-NY

Compiled 1990

I" I I I, I ,II I ~~I 4 II 'I 1 I Iii I ~I i I'

SANDY HOOK, N.l FACT SHEET (continued)

ID#: 2

REFEREI"CES (continued):

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the 'Interior, NationalPark Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

O'Connell, 1. 1980. The relationship of mammals to the major vegetation communitiesin Gateway National Recreation Area (Jamaica Bay Wildlife Rcfuge, Breezy Point andSandy Hook) including a soil analysis of selectcd areas. N-OI2-11. Gateway Institute forNatural Resources Science. Brooklyn, NY. 81pp.

National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. 1988. General managementplan amendment, development concept plan and interpretive prospectus: Sandy HookUnit Gate\vay National Recreation Area, New YorkiNew Jersey - draft. U.S. Departmentof the Interior. 40pp.

Stalter, R. 19i9. The plant communities of Sandy Hook, New Jersey with cmphasis onHex opaca. N-008-1. Gateway Institute for Natural Resources Science. Brooklyn, KY.22pp.

Wander, W. 1977. Breeding birds of Sandy Hook 1976. New Jersey Audubon Society3(5,6):84-90.

Sandy Hook Bird Club. 1974-1989. Sandy Hook March 26 bird count records, unpublished. (Contact: 1\-1ikeFallay, Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory, Highlands, NJ 07732).

Sandy Hook Bird Club. 1984-1989. Sandy Hook onties - world series of birding days,unpublished. (Contact: Mike Fahay, Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory, Highlands, NJ07iJ2).

There are numerous other references cited in these documents.

CIJEESEQUAKE NATURAL AREA FACT SHEET

LATITl'DE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 26' 00" N 74° 16' 30" W JD#: 3

COUNTY: Middlcsex

HABITAT FEATURES: (O~LM 1985)

Salt marshFreshwater marshFreshwater swampBogVarious forest communities

TOTAL ACREAGE: 450 acres(O!\LM 1989)

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (ONLM 1985)

{x} Plants { } Assorted insects { } Invertebrates

{ } Fishes { } Amphibians { } Reptiles


tvlANAGEMENT AUTHORITY:

Physical Management:Cbeesequake State ParkMatawan, 1\'J 07747

REFERENCES:

Overall administration:New Jersey DEPDivision of Parks and ForestryOffice of Natural Lands Mana!!emcntCN 404 ~Trcnton, NJ 08625

Office of l\atural Lands )vlanagement. 1989. Natural Areas System directory of Naturu.lAreas. 1\ew .Jcrsey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks andForcSlI'Y. Trenton, NJ. 12pp.

Office of Natural Lands Management. 1984. Cheesequake Natural Area managementplan. l"ew Jersey Department of EnvirolID1ental Protection, Division of Parks andForestry. Trenton, NJ. 53pp.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (ONLM 1985)

{x} Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation { } Land use .


{ } Active management {x} Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesSouth Amboy, NJ-NY . South Amboy, NJ-NY

Compiled 1990

I ,II IJ ~'. II ,I I I 1111.1 I i II

UBERTY PARK NATCRAL AREA/LIBERTY STATE PARK FACT SlIEET

LATITUDE AND LO~GITUDE: 4()o 42' OS" N 74° 03' 15" W ID#: 4

COUNTY: Hudson

HABITAT FEATURES: (Cartica 1988)

Remnant tidal salt marshUpland

TOTAL ACREAGE: 36 acres-NaturalArea·, 1,100 acres-Park··

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cartica 1988, NJDEP ca. 1986)

{x} Plants { } Assorted insects {x} Invertebrates"·

{x} Fishes·" {x} Amphibians {x} Reptiles


J\1A~AGEMENT AUTHORITY:

Physical management:Liberty State ParkJVlorrisPesin DriveJersey City, NJ 07304

REFERENCES:

Overall administration:New Jersey DEPDivision of Parks and ForestryOffice of Natural Lands J\1anagcmcntCN 404Trenton, NJ 08625

Office of Natural Lands ]'vlanagement. 1989. Natural Areas System directory of NaturalAreas. New Jerse-y Department of Envirorunental Protection, Division of Parks andForestry. Trenton, NJ. 12pp.·

Cartica, R. J., Office of Natural Lands Management. 1988. Liberty Park Natural Areamanagement plan. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division ofParks and Forestry. 27pp."

Please see following page for additional references.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (Cartica 1988)



{x} Active management { } Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesJersey City, NJ-NY _Jersey City, NJ-NY

Compiled 1990

LInER TY PARK NA rURAL AREA/LIBER TY STATE PAR K (continued)

ID.;J, -+rr·

REFERENCES (continued):

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry.ca. 1986. The birds of Liberty State Park. Pamphlet.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry.ca. 1988. Liberty State Park. Pamphlet.

Cartica (1988) does not include full lists of invertebrate or fish species in the managementplan but cites Texas Instruments, Inc. (1976) as a source of an inverteorate list and Boyko(1980) and Dresdner Associates, Inc. (1984) as sources of fish species lists. The citationsare as follows: H.

Boyko, O. 1980. Liberty Park Natural Area Management Plan. Draft plan prepared forthe Division of Parks and Forestry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Dresdner, Associates, Inc. 1984. Environmental Assessement for the Port Liberte Project,Jersey City, New Jersey. Consultant's report prepared for The Spoerry Group, Developers, and The Ehrcnkrantz Groups, Architects.

I , I I ' ~ ,I I 1Io;' I "I , I

HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS. NJ FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o47' 30" N 74° 05' 00" W ID#: 5

COUNTY: Bergen and Hudson TOTAL ACREAGE: over 8,000 acres wetland, 12,000 acres non-wetland (developed) +

HABITAT FEATURES: (Maguire Group, Inc. 1989)

Fresh water marshSalt water marshWet meadowForested WetlandsRock outcroppingsHardwood forest

FLORA A~D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (HMEC 1983, HMDC 1987)


{x} Fishes {x} Amphibians



The Hackensack Meadowlands Development CommissionOne De Korte Park PlazaLyndhurst, NJ 07071

REFERENCES:

{x} Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Hackensack J\-feadowlands Development Commission. 1987. Species lists of organismsfound in the llackensack ~leadowlands: vascular plants - mammals.

Maguire Group, Inc. 1989. Final report functional assessment of wetlands in NewJersey's Hackensack !\'Ieadowlands. Consultant's report prepared for tbe u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II.· (also contains HMDC 1987)

Hackensack Meadowlands Environmental Center. 1983. Birds of the HackensackMeadowlands, New Jersey. Pamphlet.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (Maguire Group, Inc. 1989)

{x} Location/boundaries { ) Vegetation { } Land use


{ } Active management { } Proposed management {x) Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesElizabeth, ~J Elizabetb, NJJersey City, NJ Jersey City NJOrange, ]\;J Orange, 1"JWeehawkin, NJ \Veehawkin, NJ

Compiled 1990

CLAY PITS POND STATE PARK PRESERVE. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 32' 30' N 74° 13' 45" W ID#: 6

COUNTY: Richmond TOTAL ACREAGE: 260 acres(P. Gentile, pers. comm.)

HABITAT FEATURES: (TPL and Jackson and Kihn 1986)

Small pondsWet meadowBooMe~dowUpland woodsPine-oak scrubWet woods,swamp

FLORA AND FAUNA ~PECIES LISTS: (Clay Pits Pond State Park Preserve 1985-1989)





Clay Pits Pond State Park Preserve83 Nielsen AvenueStaten Island, NY 10309

New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic PreservationNew York City Region1700 BroadwayNew York, l'\ew York 10019

REFERENCES:

Clay Pits Pond State Park Preserve. 1985-1988. Species lists, unpublished.

Gentile, P. 1990. Personal communication. (P. Gentile is a Park Recreation ActivitiesSpecialist for Clay Pits Pond State Park Preserve)

Trust for Public Land and Jackson and Kihn. 1986. Clay Pits Pond State Park Preserve.management plan, Staten Island, NY.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (TPL and Jackson and Kihn 1986)

{ } Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation { } Land use

{x} Water resources { } Soil conditions { } Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-l'\J Arthur Kill, NY-1',;]

Compiled 1990

.-1#"' l:r 2>

i II l~. 1 ".' I Iii ql I I I

"lI HI!",~;,I II

CONFERENCE HOlJSE PARK. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 29' 45' N 74° 15' 00' \V ID#: 7

COUNTY: Richmond TOTAL ACREAGE: 5 acres(Conf. Hse. Assc., pers. carom.)

HABITAT FEATliRES: (Jackson and Kihn 1988)

WoodlandSwampSmall open meadowsDune/beach

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Jackson and Kihn 1988)


{ } Fishes { } Amphibians

{ } Birds { } Mammals


{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

Conference House Association7455 Hylan BlvdStaten Island, NY 10307

REFERENCES:

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation1351h Avenue

New York, New York 10011

Jackson and Kihn. 1988. Analysis of existing conditions, Conference House Park, StatenIsland, draft report. Consultant's report prepared for the New York City Department ofParks and Recreation.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (Jackson and Kihn 1988)

{ } Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation { } Land use

{ } \Vater resources { } Soil conditions { } Ownership


{x} USGS Topogrdphic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-NJ Arthur Kill, NY-NJKeyport, NJ-NY Keyport, NJ-NY

Compiled 1990

LEMON CREEK PARK. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE Ar\D LONGITUDE: 40° 31' 00" N 74° 12' 00' W ID#: 8

COUNTY: Richmond TOTAL ACREAGE: 75.70 acres

HABITAT FEATURES: (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. 1989)

High marshIntertidal zoneBeach frontWoodlandVacant uplandSpoil berms

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS:

{ } Plants { } Assorted insects



!v1ANAGEMENT AUTHORITY:

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation1351h Avenue .l\ew York, New York 10021

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. 1989. Lemon Creek Park: preliminary design investigation, final report. Consultant's report prepared for the New York City Department ofParks and Recreation.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. 1989)

{x} Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation { } Land use .



{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-NJ Arthur Kill, NY-NJ .

Compiled 1990

,I iii 'I .;~,.

II

BLUE HERON PO~D. SPRING POND. AND'THE POlLLO~ AVE~t1E-- WETLAl'\DS. NY FACT sH"EFr

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o 32' 00" N 74° 10' 38" W ID#: 9

COUi'TY: Richmond TOTAL ACREAGE: 70 acres(60% city ownership) (PPOW 1979)

HADITAT FEATURES: (PPOW 1979)

SwampPondsGrasslandWoodland

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (PPOW 1979, McHarg and Thome 1988)



{x} Birds { ) Mammals


NYC Department of Parks and Recreation135lh Avenue~ew York, New York 10011

Also private ownership

REFERENCES:

McHarg, 1. and J. Thorne. 1988. Schematic design for Blue Heron Park, Staten Island:natural resources inventory.

Protectors of Pine Oak Woods, Inc. 1979. A report on Blue Heron Pond, Spring Pond,and the Poillon Avenue Wetlands, •.tumadale, Staten Island, New York City. J\.1imeo.27pp.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (McHarg arid Thome 1988)

{ } Location/boundaries { } Vegetation { } Land use


{ } Active management {x} Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY -NJ Arthur Kill, NY -NJ

Compiled 1990

GREAT KILLS, NY FACT SHEET

LA TlTVDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 33' 00" N 74° 07' 45" \V 10#: 10

COUNTY: Richmond TOTAL ACREAGE:

HABITAT FEATURES: (1\\\'1, USGS topo!"rraphic maps)

Palustrine emergent marshBeachTidal flatUpland

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b)

{ } Plants { } Assorted insects { } Invertebrates


{ } Birds {x} Manunals

MA~AGE1\1ENT AUTHORITY:

U.S. Department of the Interiorl'ational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park SeT'.'icc,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

AVAIlABLE MAP INFORMA nON:

{ } Location/boundaries { } Vegctation { } Land use

{ } Watcr resources { } Soil conditions { } Ownership

{ } Activc management { } Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadranglcs {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY -NJ Arthur Kill, NY -NJThe Narrow, NY-NJ The Narrows, NY-NJ

Compiled 1990

i !,I'""'II

, I "I I . I II j " " 'Iilll +~ I I .,j +, ·1 ;~ I,

"1111' ;il ~"

MILLER'S FIELD l NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o 34' OS" N 74" 06' 00" W 10#: 11


{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

HABITAT FEATURES: (NWI, USGS topographic maps)

Upland - open and wooded




{ } Birds {x} Mammals

J\fANAGEMEKT AUTHORITY:

U.S. Department of the Interiori\ational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. ]989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION:




{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesThe Narrows, NY-NJ The Narrows, NY-NJ

Compiled 1990

STATEN ISLAND GREENBELT, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 35' IS' N 74° 07' 45" W 10#: 12

COUNTI': Richmond TOTAL ACREAGE: appx 2500 acres(S. Bonagura, pers. comm.)

HABITAT FEATURES: (NYC Department of City Planning 1983)

Upland forestMarshSwampOpen waterMaintained field, old field, young forest

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: List for High Rock Park·


{ } Fishes {x} Amphibians {x} Reptiles"

{x} Birds·· {x} Mammals"


NYC Parks and Recreation Greenbelt200 Nevada AvenueStaten Island, NY 10306

REFERENCES:

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation1351h Avenue

New York, New York 10021

Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. 1989. High Rock Park schematic design, Staten Island,NY. Consultant's report for the City of New York, Parks and Recreation.·

NYC Department of City Planning. Feb. 1983. The Staten Island Greenbelt Study, FinalReport Phase I: data anaylsis and recommendations. NYCDEP 83-03. City of NewYork, NYC Planning Commission. 87pp.


AVAILABLE i\.1AP INFORMATION: (NYC Department of City Planning 1983)




{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY -NJ Arthur Kill, NY -NJThe Narrows, NY-NJ The Narrows, NY-~J

Compiled 1990

III ,~, ~,~ ij'l ,,'

Ii III It ';,1 ~

I ' ~,1I1 II

STATEN ISLAND GREENBELT, NY FACT SHEET (continued)

10#: 12


Staten Island Greenbelt lists are reported to be in progress for these org:misms (Bonag:ura,S. 1990. Personal communication. (S. Bonagurd is a wildlife biologist for tbe Staten Island Greenbelt)) ••

The Staten Island Greenbelt encompasses the following sites:

William T. Davis Wildlife RefugeWillowbrook ParkCarson's Brook WoodsGreat SwampBlood Root ValleyHigh Rock ParkBuck's HollowLaTourette ParkDeere ParkReeds Basket Willow Swamp

SHOOTERS ISLAND, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE A~D LONGITUDE: 400 38' 38" N 74009' 38" \V ID#: 13A

COUNTY: Ridunond

HABITAT FEATURES:

Upland - with mature treesRotting wooden drydocks and barges

TOTAL ACREAGE: 51 A (appx. 40 A flll)

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: Lists for northwest Staten Island




MANAGE:\tENT AUTHORITY:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

The land is currently owned by the NYC Department of Ports and Trad~. It is beingtransferrcd to the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation and will be managed by theN'YC Audubon Society ..

REFEREI'CES:

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preserving a uniquc' urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: •

{x} Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation {x} Land use .



{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesElizabeth, NJ-l"Y Elizabeth, NJ-NY

• Vegetation and land use maps are for the overall study area, not individual sites.Compiled 1990

I , I II; ~,~, ~ I I I 1,1 Ilj

" 11111 ' ,,~,..

ARLI~GTON. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE A~D LONGITUDE: 40° 38' IS'" N 74° 10' 30" W ID#: 13 B

COU~TY: Riclunond

HABITAT FEATURES:

Coastal shoals,sandbars, mudflatsIntertidal marshHigh marshMan-made beachFresh water marshPonds

TOTAL ACREAGE:

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: List for northwestern Staten Island





{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

KYC Department of Ports and Trade and private ownership

REFERENCES:

Trust for Public Land and r\ew York Cit\' Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for pn.:sen'ing a unique"urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.



{ } Water resources { } Soil conditions {x} Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesElizabeth, NJ Elizabeth, NJ

• Vegetation and land use maps are for the overall study are, not individual sites.Compiled 1990

BRIDGE CREEK, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 38' 15" N 400 11' 15" W ID#: 13 C

COUNTY: Richmond

HABITAT FEATuRES:

Intertidal marshCoastal shoals, bars, mudflatsGrassland

TOTAL ACREAGE:

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: Lists for northwest Staten Island




MANAGEMEl'\T AuTHORITY:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

The land is owned by the NYC Department of Ports and Trade. It is leased to the PortAuthority of New York and New Jersey.

REFEREl'\CES:

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource- innorth\'/cstcrn Staten Island. New York. 56pp.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: +




{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesElizabeth, KI-NY Elizabeth, NJ-~Y

+ Vegetation and land use maps are for the overall study area, Dot individual sites.Compiled 1990

" ,I I I III II lii,-,.JJiiMll

GOETHALS BRIDGE POXD, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LO~GITUDE: 4()O 37' 45" N 74° 10' 30" W


HABITAT FEATURES:

ID#: 13 D

PondTidal wetlandsFreshwater wetlands

33 acres

FLORA AXD FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: Lists for northwestern Staten Island

{x} Plants

{ } Fishes

{x} Birds

{ } Assorted insects

{x} Amphibians

{x} Mammals

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles


NYC and private ownership

REFERENCES:

Trust for Public Land and New York Citv Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique'urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.


{x} Locationfboundaries {x} Vegetation . {x} Land use



{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesElizabeth, NJ-NY Elizabeth, NJ-NY

+ Vegetation and land use maps are for the overall study area, not individual sites.Compiled 1990

OLD PLACE CREEK NY. FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 37' 30N N 74° 10' 53N \V ID#: 13 E

COUNTY: Richmond

IlAI3ITAT FEATURES:

Coastal shoals, bars, mudl1atsTidal wetlandsIntertidal marshHigh marshFreshwater wetlands

TOTAL ACREAGE:

FLORA AND FAUNA t;PECIES LISTS: Lists for northwestern Staten Island


{ } Fisbes {x} Amphibians


i\1A~AGEMENT AUTHORITY:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

NYC Department of Ports and Trade and private ownership.

REFERENCES:

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.

AVAILABLE l\lAP INFORMATION: •




{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY -NJ Arthur Kill, NY -NJElizabeth, NJ-NY Elizabeth, NJ-NY


, I I ill ~;.. ~, ~ i I III i ,II" 11111' ,,·1. '"1'

II

GRANITEVILLE SWA\1P. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o 37' 30" N 74° 10' IS" W ID#: 13 F

COUNTI': Richmond TOTAL ACREAGE: 30 acres

HABITAT FEATURES:

Small pondsSalt marshSwamp forestUpland forestCattail marsh

FLORA AND FAU~A SPECIES LISTS: Lists for northwestern Staten Island




i'.1ANAGEME:-\T AUTHORITY:

Predominantly private ownership

REFERE~CES:

{ } Invcrtebratcs

{x} Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and Ncw York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor hcronsreport: a stratcgy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwcstern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.



{ } Water resources { } Soil conditions {x} Owncrship

{ } Activc management { } Proposed managcmcnt { } Wildlifc habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadranglcs {x} National Wetlands Invcntory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-NJ Arthur Kill, NY-NJElizabeth, NJ·NY Elizabeth, NJ·NY

• Vegetation and land usc maps are for the overall study area, not individual sites.Compiled 1990

STATEN ISLAr\D CORPORATE PARK, NY FACT SlIFET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 36' 30" N 74° 10' 30"


HABITAT FEATURES:

Cattail bogSwamp woodlandShrub swampAcidic marshFreshwater marsh

ID#: 13 G

FLORA A~D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: Lists for northwestern Staten Island




T\tA~AGEi\1ENT AUTHORITY:

NYC Public Development Authority

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique urban v,"ildlifehabitat and wetland resource innonhwestem Staten Island. New York. 56pp.





{x) USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY -NJ Arthur Kill, NY -~J


, I, ~. I I IIII ,II I . I II ~ " " lIilll· _I,~,I I "I + i I < I," 111'1 I.j ,;,1 I

II

GULFPORT MARSH, NY FACf SHEET

LATITUDE AXD LONGITUDE: 400 37' IS' N 74° 11' 30' W


HABITAT FEATURES:

ID#: 13 H

Fresh water wetland complexSmaIl tidal wetlandsOpen water

162 acres

FLORA AND FAUNA S·PECIES LISTS: Lists for northwestern Staten Island





Private ownership

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harborheronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.


{x} Locationjboundarie·s {x} Vegetation {x} Land use



{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-NJ Arthur Kill, NY-NJElizabeth, NJ-NY Elizabeth, NJ-NY


SAW\tILL CREEK MARSH. ~y FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 36' 30" N 74° 11' 30" \V ID#: 13 1

COUi'\TY: Richmond

HABITAT FEATURES:

Intertidal marshHigh marshFreshwater wetlandsSmall pondsFreshwater-brackish marsh 25 acresTidal flat

TOTAL ACREAGE:

FLORA Ai'\D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: Lists for northwestern Staten Island




MANAGEMEl'\T AUTHORITY:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

NYC Public Development Authority and private ownership.

REFERENCES:

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: .•

{x} Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation

{ } Water resources { } Soil conditions

{x} Land use

{x} Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-NJ Arthur Kill, 1\'Y-NJ

.• Vegetation and land use maps are for the overall study area, not individual sites.Compiled 1990

i! I I , ,I lililli ,'I I ' I II ~

Ii 11111; I,,' ",j,l, ~

II

PRALL'S ISLAND. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o 36' 30" N 74° 12' 08" W ID#: 13 J

COUNTY: Richmond TOTAL ACREAGE: 88 acres

HABITAT FEATURES: (TPL and NYCAS 1990, NWI map)

Estuarine emergent marshTidal flat .Upland

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: Lists for northwestern Staten Island



{x} Dirds {x} Mammals

l\1Ai':AGEl\1ENT AUTHORITY:

Owned by the 1\YC Department of Parks and RecreationManaged by the NYC Audubon Society

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preservin~ a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.

AVAILADLE MAP INFORMATION: •

{x) Location/boundaries {x) Vegetation . {x} Land use

{ } Water resources { ) Soil conditions { } Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x) National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-NJ Arthur Kill, NY-NJ


NECK CREEK MARSH. ID: FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 35' 53- N i4° 11' 15-W ID#: 13 K

COUNTY: Richmond

HABITAT FEATURES:

Intertidal marshHigh marshFresh water wetlandsUpland

TOTAL ACREAGE: 60 acres of wetlands

FLORA AND FA UNA 'SPECIES LISTS: lists for northwestern Staten Island





Public and private ownership

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and ~ew York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp ..





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-NJ Arthur Kill, NY-}.;]


, IIi 1111' "ll '"I'

"

·FRESH KILLS, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 35' 00· N 74° 11' 30· \V


HABITAT FEATURES:

Intertidal marshHicl1 marshM~di1ats

10#: 13L



{ ) Fishes {x} Amphibians


j\:IANAGEMENT AUTHORITY:

NYC Department of Sanitation and private ownership

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Trust for Public umd and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harbor heronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorth, •...estern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.

AVAILABLE t\lAP INFORMATION: •

{x} Location/boundaries {x) Vegetation {x} Land use



{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-r\J Arthur Kill, NY-NJ


ISLE OF MEADO\\TS. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 34' 30" N 74° 12' IS' W ID#: 13 ]\vl

COUNTY: Richmond

HABITAT FEATURES:

Intertidal marshHigh marsh

TOTAL ACREAGE: 101 acres






NYC Department of Sanitation

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The barbor beronsreport: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. New York. 56pp.





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesArthur Kill, NY-NJ Arthur Kill, t\Y-NJ


'"11111; ",I j

PLUMB BEACH. NY FACT"SI-IEET

LATITUDE A;\D LONGITUDE: 400 35' 00" N 73° 55' 30" W ID#: 14

COll~TY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

HABITAT FE1\.TURES: (NWI, USGS topographic maps)

UplandBeachTidal flat

FLORA Ai'\D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b)




J\1ANAGEMENT AUTHORITY:

U.S. Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFlovd Bennett fieldBro'oklyn, NY ) 1234

REFEREKCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway ~ational Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of tbe Interior, NationalPark Service; Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesConey Island, NY-NJ Coney Island, NY-NJ

Compiled 1990

~ MARINE PARK. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 36' 00" N 73° 55' 15"W ID#: 15

COU?-\TY: Kings

HABITAT FEATURES:

Closed forestDesertHerbaceousScrubVinelandWoodlandIntertidal


TOTAL ACREAGE: 798 acres (130 underwater)

10.40 acres30.23 acres


4.01 acres39.41 acres33.70 acres

{x} Plants

{x} Fishes


{x} Amphibians

{x} Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles


1\lANAGE1\1ENT AUTHORITY:

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation1351h AvenueNew York, N~w York 10021

REFERENCES:

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1988.Natural areas management plan: Marine Park, Brooklyn.

AVAILABLE 1'vtAPINFORMATION:

{x} Locationfboundaries {x} Vegetation {x} Land use

{ } Water resources {x} Soil conditions { } Ownership

{x} Active management {x} Proposed management {x} Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles (x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesConey Island, NY-NJ Coney Island, NY-NJ

Compiled 1990

I I""1' ~; ~ I ;~ u; . I ,I'I I 'I' ,,' 1·1 Ilj

ill~ l' ...1.•

II

FLOYD BENNEn FIELD, NY FACT SIIEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 35' 30" N 73° 53' 30" \V ID#: 16

COU!\TY: Kings

lL<\BITAT FEATURES: (NPS 1979)

Clam bedSand flatSand (bare sand, beach)GrasslandShrublandWoodlandMarshManrnade or altered land

TOTAL ACREAGE: I.4RS.40 acres(NPS 1979)





FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Borque and Borque ca. 1978, Cook1989a&b, Greller 1984, Rogers 1982)





U.S. Department of the Intcrior!\ational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFEREKCES:

Borque, R. and J. Borque. ca. 1987. Birds of Floyd Bennett Field, unpublished.

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway ~ational Rccreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptilcs and amphibians. U.S. Department oftbe Intcrior, NationalPark Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Please see tbe following page for additional references.






Compiled 1990

FLOYD BENt\ETf FIELD. NY FACT SHEET (continued)

ID#: 16


Greller, A. J\t 1984. Additions to the flora of Gateway 1\ational Recreation Area, FloydBennett FicId Division and recommendations for floral mana!!cment. l"-OOI-i. GatewayInstitute for Natural Resource Sciences. Brooklyn, NY. - .

Hartig, E. K. and G. F. Rogers. 1984. Phragmites fire ecology. N-OI4-ll. Gateway Institute for Natural Resource Sciences. Brooklyn, NY. 3pp.

National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. 1979. The final environmental statement general management plan. U.S. Department of the Interior. 256pp.

Rogers, G. F. 1982. Vegetation survey of Floyd Bennett Field in Gateway NationalRecreation Area, Brooklyn, NY. N-OOl-i. Gateway Institute for l'atural Resource Science. Brooklyn, NY.

I, IP'I'" 11111 ••j I

II

BERGEN BEACH. NY FACT SHEET

LATITlJDE AND LONGITCDE: 40° 36' 30" N 73° 53' 45' W

COUNTY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE:

HABITAT FEATURES: (7\"\VI,USGS topographic maps)

Estuarine emer!!ent marshTidal flat -Upland

ID#: 17

}:LORA AI'\D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b)





U.S: Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFERENCES:

Cook. R. 19~9a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, :\ational Park Ser\'ice.Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service. Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.




{ } Active management { ) Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat evaluation


Compiled 1990

,

;\·tILL BASIN WFTLAND~ (FOUR SPARROW MARSH). KY FACT SHEET

LA TlTUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 36' 00' N 73° 54' 30' \V ID#: IS A

COUNTY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE: appx 75 acres wetlmd,14 acres flU·

HABITAT FEATURES: (TPL and NYCAS 1987, NWI and USGS topographic maps)

Marsh (estuarine emergent)Intertidal zoneUpland






Land owned by NYC, leased to a private individual

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the bay: asurvey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.·

AVAILABLE ~lAP INFORMATION: (TPLand NYCAS 1987)

{x} Location/boundaries { } Vegetation {x} Land use




Compiled 1990

, I,H"I' "I I ' I r 11 ~ I," ~t11••,~,i, j II

PAERDEGAT BASIN, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE A;\D LO~GITUDE: 40· 37' 30" N 73· 54' 00" \V ID#: IS B

COUr\'TY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE: 80 + acres upland(TPL and NYCAS 1987)


Intertidal wetlandSalt marshTidal flatUpland (disturbed, early stage ofrevegetation)





MANAGEME~T AUTHORITY:


REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the bay: asurvey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.

AVAILABLE MAP 'INFORMATION: (TPL and NYCAS 1987)

{x} Locationjboundaries { } Vegetation {x} Land use


{ } Active management { } Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat evaluation.

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesBrooklyn, NY Brooklyn, NYConey Island, NY-NJ Coney Island, NY-NJ

Compiled 1990

FRESH CREEK BASIN, NY FACT SHEET

LATITliDE AI"D LOt\GITUDE: 40° 38' 30" N 73° 53' 00" W ID#: IS C

COUNTY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE: 50 acres(TPL and NYCAS 1987)


Riparian zoneSalt marshTidal flatUpland







{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

REFERENCES:


AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (TPL and NYCAS 1987)




{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesBrooklyn, J\'Y Brooklyn, NY

Compiled 1990

, """I'

1111' li;I"

"

CANARSIE PIER AREA. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 37' 45" N 73° 53' IS"' W ID#: 19

COUNTY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE:


Tidal flatEstuarine emergent marshUpland






U.S. Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1'\ational Park Ser"ice,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.






{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesBrooklyn, NY Brooklyn, NY

Compiled 1990

{ } Invertebrates

{x) Reptiles

PENNSYLVA~IA AVENUE LANDFILL, NY FACT SHEET

LATITtJDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 38' 30" N 73° 52' 30" W ID#: 20

COliNTY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE: 110 acres(R. Cook, pcrs. corrun.)


UplandEstuarine emergent marshTidal flat

FLORA AND FAUNA "SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b)


{ } Fishes {x) Amphibians

{ } Birds {x) Mammals

]\'lA~AGEMENT AliTHORITY:

u.s. Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway ~ational Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, j\ationalPark Service, Gateway ~ational Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORf\.1A TION:

{ } Location/boundaries { } Vegetation { ) Land use

{ } Water resources { ) Soil conditions { } Ownership

{ } Active management { } Proposed management { ) Wildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesBrooklyn, NY Brooklyn, NYJamaica, NY Jamaica, NY

Compiled 1990

I ~ "I I11111 .;1 i

II

FOUNTAIN AVENuE LANDFILL, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 38' 45" N 73° 51' 45" W ID#: 21

COUNTY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE: 250 acres(R. Cook, pers. comm.)

HABITAT FEATURES: (1\I\VI, USGS topographic maps)

UplandTidal flatEstuarine marsh

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&.b)




MA!\AGEMENT AUTHORITY:

U.S. D~partment of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGatewav National Recreation AreaHoyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamph.lct.






{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesJ.amaica, NY Jamaica, NY

Compiled 1990

CANARSIE POL, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 37' IS· N 73° 52' IS· \V ID#: 22

COUNTY: Kings TOTAL ACREAGE: 250 acres(R. Cook, pers. comm.)

HABITAT FEATURES: (O'Connell 1980, l\TWI, USGS topographic maps)

Estuarine emergent marshUpland-mixed grasslandBeachgrass duneWoodland

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b, O'Connell 1980)






REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park S:=rvice,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.







{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesConey -Island, NY -NJ Coney Island, NY -NJFar Rockaway, NY Far Rockaway, NYJamaica, NY Jamaica, NY

Compiled 1990

I Ii I,j Ilj

,,," "-~r

CANARSIE POL, NY FACT SHEET (continued)

ID#: 22


O'Connell, A. 1980. The relationship of mammals to the major vegetation communitiesin Gateway National Recreation AIca (Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Breezy Point, SandyHook) including a soil analysis of selected areas. N-012-ll. Gateway Institute for NaturalResource Sciences. Brooklyn, NY. 8lpp.

RUFFLE BAR. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 36' 00" N i3° 51' 30" \V ID#: 23

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

COUNTY: Kim~s TOTAL ACREAGE: 15::Jacres- (R. Cook, pers. comm.)

HABITAT FEATURES: (NWI. USGS topographic maps)

Emergent estuarine marshMudflatUpland





MANAGEME!'\T AUTHORITY:

U.s. Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFEREN'CES:

Cook. R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook. R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, GatewayNational Recreation Area. Pamphlet.





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFar Rockaway, NY Far Rockaway, 1'\Y

Compiled 1990

, I I· II, , I '"

II III il' i,~, i

SPRING CREEK, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 38' 45' N 73° 52' 15" W ID#: 24

COUNTY: Kings, Queens TOTAL ACREAGE: appx 130 acre~ ofunprotected land· (TPL&.~YCAS 1987)

HABITAT FEA TVRES: (TPL ~d NYCAS 1987)

Intertidal salt marshFresh water marsh

FLORA A~D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 19S9a&b)



MA1'\AGE~IENT AUTHo.RITY:


{x} Reptiles


REFERENCES:

Also NYC and private ownership

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Sen.·ice,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark SCl"\.'ice,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the bay: asun.'ey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesJamaica, NY Jamaica, NY

• Area south of the beltway is a protected part of Gateway National Recreation Area.Compiled 1990

RULER'S BAR HASSOCK, NY FACT SlIFET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o37' 30" N 73049' 30" W 10#: 25

COUNTY: Kings, Queens TOTAL ACREAGE: 600 acres(R. Cook, pers. corom.)

HABITAT FE/\. TURES: (:\WI, USGS topographic maps)

Estuarine emergent marshPalustrine emergent marshTidal flatsUpland, both open and woodedPonds

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook, 1989a&b, O'Connell 1980)•{ } Plants { } Assorted insects { } Invertebrates




U.S. Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFlovd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFERE1'\CES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.






{ } Active management { } Proposed management { } \Vildlife habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFar Rockaway, NY Far Rockaway, NYJamaica, NY Jamaica, NY

Compiled 1990

~ I III i ~I< '" II

RULERS'S BAR HASSOCK. NY FACT SHEET (continued)

ID#: 25


O'Connell, A. 1980. The relationship of mammals to the major vegetation communitiesin Gateway National Recreation Area (Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Breezy Point, SandyHook) including a soil analysis of selected areas. N-012-ll. Gateway Institute for NaturalResource Sciences. Brooklyn, NY. 81pp.

lOCO MARSH, NY FACT SHEET

LATITGDE A!'\D LONGITUDE: 40° 37' 00" N 73° 46' 30" W

COVNTY: Queens TOTAL ACREAGE:

HABITAT FEATURES: (NWI topographic map)

Estuarine emerl!ent marshTidal flat -

ID#: 26

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b, O'Connell 1980)

{ } Plams { } Assorted insects



MA~AGE:'vIENT AUTHORITY:

U.S. Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, ~y 11234

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway l\ational Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Gateway ]'.;ational Recreation Area.


AVAILABLE 1'vLA.PINFORMATION:

{ } Locationiboundaries { } Vegetation { } Land use

{ } Water resources { } Soil concitions { } Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFar Rockaway, NY Far Rqckaway, NY

Compiled 1990

~ I C-I

I, I ;1, ~ I I'I I~II I I jlj II

lOCO MARSH, NY FACT SHEET (continued)

JD#: 26


O'Connell, A. 1980. The relationship of mammals to the major vegetation communitiesin Gateway National Recreation Area (Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Breezy Point, SandyHook) including a soil analysis of selected areas. N-OI2-11. Gateway Institute for NaturalResource Sciences. Brooklyn, NY. 8lpp.

MOTT BASIN, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 36' 40" N 73° 45' 48" W ID#: 27 A

COUi'\TY: Queens TOTAL ACREAGE: 15 acres(TPL and ?-\YCAS 1987)

HABITAT FEATURES: (N\VI map, TPL and NYCAS 1987)

BeachTidal flatEstuarine emergent marsh




{ } Birds { } l\lammals



REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the hay: asurvey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (TPLand NYCAS 1987)




{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFar Rockaway, NY Far Rockaway; NY .

Compiled 1990

"I II "i"I' I . ili ~i

'Illil' .,,1·" ,iiII

BAYSWATER PENINSULA, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o 36' 47" N 73° 46' OS" W 10#: 27 B

COUNTY: Queens TOTAL ACREAGE: 25 acres(TPL and NYCAS 1987)

I-L\BITAT FEATURES: (NWI maps, TPL and NYCAS 1987)

Upland, open and woodedTidal flat



{ } Fishes { ) Amphibians


MANAGEvfENT AUTHORITY:


REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles





{ } Active management { } Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat· evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFar Rockaway, NY Far Rockaway. NY

Compiled 1990

NORTON BASIN, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 36' 00" N "73046' 08" W ID#: 27 C

COUl'\TY: Queens TOTAL ACREAGE: 25 acres when addedto the southern basin (next page)·

HABITAT FEATURES: (NWI map, TPL and NYCAS 1987)

BeachTidal flatEstuarine emergent marsh





MA~AGEME~T AUTHORITY:


{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

REFERENCES:

Trust for Public Land and ~ew York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the bay: asurvey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.·



{ } Water resources { } Soil conditions {x} O\\'nership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFar Rockaway, NY Far Rockaway, !\'Y

Compiled 1990

- I

I i ~

"1111l "i.I ' ~11iI i' 'ii',; , I II

SOUTHERN NORTON BASIN-CONCH'S BASIN. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 36' 48'" N 73° 46' 50'" W 10#: 270

COUNTY: Queens TOTAL ACREAGE: 25 acres when addedto the northern basin (pre:;ceding page)·

HABITAT FEATURES: (NWI map, TPLand NYCAS 1987)

Estuarine emergent marsh







REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the bay: asurvey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.·


{x} Location/boundaries {} Vegetation {x} Land use



{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFar Rockaway, NY Far Rockaway, NY

Compiled 1990

EDGEMERE LI\NDFILLIPARK. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 36' 15H N 73° 46' 47H W ID#: 27 E


I-Li\BlTAT FEATURES: (NWI maps)

UplandEstuarine emergent marshTidal flat





i\.t'\NAGEMENT AUTHORITY:


REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles







Compiled 1990

I 11" IIII ~;~" ~ W I I H I ~II jil'111111' •• I j

I',

SOMMERVILLE BASIN. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40035' 45'" N 73° 47' 30'"W ID#: 27 F



UplandEmergent estuarine marshEstuarine scrub/shrub


{ } Plants

{ } Fishes

{ } Birds


{ } Amphibians

{} Mammals

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles



REFERENCES:

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the bay: 3survey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.


{x) Location/boundaries { ) Vegetation {x} Land use

{ } Water resources { ) Soil conditions {x) Ownership



CcmpiJed 1990

DUBOS POINT, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 36' IS" N 73° 47' IS" W ID#: 27 G


HABITAT FEATURES: (j\"VI map, USGS topographic maps)

Tidal fiatEmergent estuarine marshUpland, open and wooded







REFERE~CES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

Trust for Public land and New York City Audubon Socicty. 1987. Buffer the bay: asurvey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.






Compiled 1990

, "

, ~ • 'I I II jlj

1'['

I',

BRANT POINT, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 35' 56' N 73D48' 13' W ID#: 27 H



Tidal flatEmergent estuarine marsh





Mr\T'\AGEMENT AUTHORITY:


REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York Citv Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer the ba\': asurvey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected ope~ shoreline and upiands .•






Compiled 1990

VERNAM!BARBADOES PENINSULA. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o 35' 45··N 73° 48' 26· W 10#: 27 1


HABITAT FEATURES: (NWI maps, TPL and NYCAS 1987)

Beach duneUpland

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS:•






{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

REFERENCES:


AVAILABLE MA.P INFORJ\tlATION: (TPL and NYCAS 1987)





Compiled 1990

I ~"'I I I d jl j

11111 "l.II

BEACH TO BAY LINK (SO;\IMERVILLE BASIN TO ATLANTIC OCEA?-:) KY--- FACT SHEET - --

LATITOOE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 35' 30" N 73° 47' 32" W 10#: 27J

COUNTY: Queens

HABITAT FEATURES:

TOTAL ACREAGE: 250 ft wide(TPL and NYCAS 1987).



{ } Fishes . { } Amphibians

{ } Birds ( ) Mamnials

rvlA~AGEI\1E~T AUTHORITY:


REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ ) Reptiles

Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon Society. 1937. Duffer the bay: asurvey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shoreline and uplands.

AVAILABLE MAP INFORMATION: (TPLand NYCAS 1987)

{x} Location/boundaries {} Vegetation {x} Land use




Compiled 1990

SUBWAY ISLAND. NY FACT SHEET

LATITVDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 36' OS" N 73° 48' 45" \V ID#: 28

COUNTY: Queens

HABITAT FEATURES: (~\VI map)

Palustrine emergent m:?TshEstuarine emergent marshTidal flat

TOTAL ACREAGE:





MANAGEi\IENT AUTHORITY:

U.S. Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd Bennett FieldBrooklyn, KY 11234

REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet

Cook. R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, l"ationalPark Service, Gateway 1'ational Recreation Area. Pamphlet.






Compiled 1990

II'In"I' " "I 1'1 I ~I' 1,1 ,jij I· I ~;IIII'I ~'i ' j

"r

LITTLE EGG ISLAND, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 4()o 35' 37M N 73° 50' 33M W ID#: 29

COU NTY: Queens

HABITAT FEATURES: (1\"\VImap)

Estuarine emergent marshUplandTidal flat

TOTAL ACREAGE:






{x} Reptiles


REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, ~ational Park Sen"iee,Gateway ~ational Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. I989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.s. Department of the Interior, ;'\ationaJPark Service, Gateway National Recreation fuea. Pamphlet.


{ } Locationfboundaries { } Vegetation {} Land use




Compiled ]990

FORT TILDEN, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40" 33' 38" N 73° 53' 30" W 10#: 30

COU~TY: Queens

HABITAT FEATURES: (NPS 1988)

DunesGrasslandScrub/shrubWoodlandWetland - Phragmites and scrub/shrub

TOTAL ACREAGE: 31~' acres(R. Cook, pers. corom.)

FLORA AJ-.;D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b, O'Conne1l19S0)





U.S. Department of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGateway National Recreation AreaFloyd BeMctt FieldBrooklyn, NY 11234

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

Cook, R. 1989a. Mammals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway Kational Re::crcation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook. R. 1989. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Please se::efollowing page for additional references.

AVAILABLE 1'vlAPINFOR:\.1ATION:




{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesConey Island, NY Coney Island, NYFar Rockaway, NY Far Rockaway, NY

Compiled 1990

I I I 'I' iii I ~II , "'II! '1' f· I I",. ~,i,·1 • I"

lil1 I " II~ III

FORT TILDEN, NY FACT SHEET (continued)

ID#: 30


National Park Service. 1988. Development concept plan;environmental assessment:Jacob Riis Park/Fort Tilden Breezy Point District, Gateway National Recreation Area,r\Y - draft. U.S. Department of the Interior. 167pp.

O'Connell, A. 1980. The relationship of mammals to the major vegetation communitiesin Gateway National Recreation Area (Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Breezy Point, SandyHook) including a soil analysis of selected areas. N-012-ll. Gateway Institute for NaturalResource Sciences. Brooklyn, NY. 8lpp.

BREEZY POINT TIP. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 32' 52* N 73° 56' 00" W ID#: 31

COUNTY: Queens

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

TOTAL ACREAGE: 200 acres(R. Cook, pers. corom.)

HABITAT FEATURES: (~\VI map, O'Connell 1980)

BcachBeachgrass dunePalustrine emergent marshPalustrine scrub/shrubMixed grassland

FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LISTS: (Cook 1989a&b, O'Connell 19&0)•{ } Plants { } Assorted insects





REFERENCES:

Cook, R. 1989a. Manunals. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway National Rccreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. 1989b. Reptiles and amphibians. U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Gateway Nation:l.l Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Please see the following page for additional references.




{ } Active management { } Proposed management { } Wildlifc habitat evaluation

{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesConey Island, NY Coney Island, ~Y

Compiled 1990

, I HI'I' '"

"lil1 I··, ••.1·.II I ~11iI jll'~'''' I

" ·rII

BREEZY POINT TIP, NY FACT SHEET (continued)

ID#: 22


O'Connell, A. 1980. The relationship of mammals to tbe major vegetation communitiesin Gateway National Recreation Area (Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Breezy Point. SandyHook) including a soil analysis of selected areas. N-012-11. Gateway Institute for NaturalResource Sciences. Brooklyn, NY. 81pp.

M+/71

FOREST PARK. NY FACT SHEET


CO UNTY: Queens

HABITAT FEATURES:

Closed forestDesertHerbaceousScrubVinelandWoodlandAquatic plant



3.81 acres.7.61 acres



{x} Plants {x} Assorted insects




NYC Department of Parks and Recreation1351h AvenueNew York, New York 10021

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1990.l'atural areas management plan: Forest Park, Queens.





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesJamaica, NY Jamaica, NY

Compiled 1990

"11"1' I IIII ' i ~i ~

1111; ;.,1.

II

KISSENA PARK, NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 44' 45"' N 73° 48' 30"'W ID#: 33

COUNTY: Queens

HABITAT FEATURES:




I82.49 acres1.53 acres0.62 acres







NYC Department of Parks and Recreation1351h Avenue~ew York, New York 10021

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1988.:t\atural areas management plan: Kisscna Park, Queens.





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory qU:ldranglesJamaica, NY Jamaica, NY

Compiled 1990

CUNNINGHAM PARK, NY FACT SHEET


COUNTY: Queens

HABITAT FEATURES:

Closed forestDesertHerbaceousScrubVinelandWoodland



158.78 acres19.71 acres73.95 acres11.66 acres8.84 acres

129.04 acres

{x} Plants

{ } Fishes

{ ) Assorted insects

{x} Amphibians

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

{x} Birds {x} Manunals

MANAGEl\IENT AUTHORITY:


REFERENCES:

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1990.Natural areas management plan: Cunningham Park, Queens.


{x} Location/boundaries {x) Vegetation {x} Land use

{ ) Water resources {x) Soil conditions { ) Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadrangles_ Jamaica, NY Jamaica, NY

Compiled 1990

I I,~ I, I I 1,1 I ~II jij

11111 i'~ ~

II

ALLEY POND PARK, NY FACT SHEET


COUNTY: Queens TOTAL ACREAGE: 635 acres

HABITAT FEATURES:

Closed forestDesertHerbaceousScrubVmelandWoodlandIntertidalAquatic plant





J\1ANAGEMENT AUTHORITY:


REFERENCES:



38.45 acres61.12 acres38,44 acres

3.12 acres

{x} Im'ertebrates

{x} Reptiles

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1988.Natural areas management plan: Alley Pond Park, Queens.


{x} Location/boundaries {x} Vegetation " {x} Land use

{ } Water resources {x} Soil conditions "{} Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFlushing, NYSea Cliff. NY Sea Cliff. NY

Compiled 1990

UDALL'S COVE AND RAVINE. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 40° 46' 45'" N 4()0 44' 45'" W 10#: 36

COUNTY: Queens and Nassau TOTAL ACREAGE: 50 acres

HABITAT FEATURES:

Closed. forestDesertHerbaceousScrubVinelandWoodlandAquatic plant





MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY: .

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation13Slh AvenueNew York, New York 10021

REFEREACES:


16.01 acres0.54 acres8.08 acres2.46 acres0.47 acres

{x} Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

~ew York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1990.1'\atural areas management plan: Udall's Cove and Ravine, Queens.


{x} Locationfboundaries {x} Vegetation {x} Land use

{ } Watencsources {x} Soil conditions { } Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesSea Cliff, NY. Sea Cliff, l"Y

Compiled 1990

I ,I, I ~I 1'1

1111 H~ I

II

PELHAM BAY PARK. NY FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: 400 52' 30" N 73° 48' 30" W ID#: 37

COUNTY: Queens TOTAL ACREAGE: 2,764 acres(660 acres underwater)

HABITAT FEATURES:

Salt marshFresh water marshSalt flatsForestMeadow



{ ) Fishes {x} Amphibians

{x) Birds {x} Mammals

1'vlANAGEMENT AUTHORITY:

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation135th AvenueNew York, New York 10021

REFERENCES:

195 acres3 acres

161 acres782 acres

83 acres

{x) Invertebrates

{x) Reptiles

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1988.Natural areas management plan: Pelham Bay Park, Queens.





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x) National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesFlushing, NYMt. Vernon, NY Mt. Vernon, NY

Compiled 1990

VAN CORTLANDT PARK. NY FACT SHEET


COUNTY: Bronx

HABITAT FEATURES:


TOTAL ACREAGE: 1,146 acres




FLORA AND FAUNAoSPECIES LISTS:




MANAGEME?'T AUTHORITY:


REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1990.Natural areas management plan: .Van Cortlandt Park, The Bronx.

AVAILABLE MAP INFOR;\:IA TION:




{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesMt. Vernon, l'\Y Mt. Vernon, NYYonkers, NY -NJ Yonkers, NY -NJ

Compiled 1990

I ~ '''I I ii, I 1,1 I ~II II I I ; i ~I j

" I~If 10,1 iI ~;III"',••., ' I ",

RIVERDALE PARK. NY FACr SHEET


COUNTY: Bronx

HABITAT FEATURES:

Closed forestDesertHcrbaceousScrubVinelandWoodland

TOTAL ACREAGE: 97.acres (66 acresmapped, 40 acrcs under water)









NYC Department of Parks and Recreation1351h AvenueNew York. New York 10021

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{x} Reptiles

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group. 1990.Natural areas management plan: Riverdale Park. The Bronx.



{ } Waterresources {x} Soil conditions { } Ownership


{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands InvcDtory quadranglesYonkers. NY-NJ Yonkers, NY-NJ

Compilcd 1990

~/<67

HASTINGS-aN-HUDSON, NY FACT SHEET

LATITlJDE AND LONGITUDE: 39<'59' 45" N 73° 52' 00" W ID#: 40

COUNTY: Westchester

HABITAT FEATURES:

WoodlandThicketOld FieldSwampPonds

TOTAL ACREAGE: 45 acre study site

FLORA A?"D FAUNA SPECIES LISTS:


{ } Fisbes { } Amphibians

{x} Birds { } Mammals

MAl':AGEMENT AUTHORITY:

PrivateTown

REFERENCES:

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles

l\1cIntyre, D. 1983. A year-round census. The Kingbird 33(4):232- 243.





{x} USGS Topographic quadrangles {x} National Wetlands Inventory quadranglesMount Vernon, NY Mount Vernon, NY

Compiled 1990

i I il I I ' I ~ I ~ II

SITE NAME FACT SHEET

LATITUDE AND LO~GITUDE:BER:

COUNTY:

HABITAT FEATURES:


IDENTIFICA 1'101': NUM-

TOTAL ACREAGE:

{ } Plants

{ } Fishes

{ } Birds


{ } Amphibians

{} Mammals

{ } Invertebrates

{ } Reptiles


REFERENCES:


{ } Location;boundaries

{ } Water resources

{ } Active managementevaluation

{ } USGS Topographic quadrangles

{ } Vegetation { } Land use

{ } Soil conditions { } Ownership

{ } Proposed management { } Wildlife habitat

{ } National Wetlands Inventory quadrangles

-I-e1- /81

APPENDIX C

Species Matrix forBirds, Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles

for Natural Areas within the Vicinity of.the New York/ New Jersey Harbor Estuary

Compiled by

Christina Kalafus-Kaucinger and Robert Craig


' ...

Table 1. Seasonal occurrence of birds at natural areas in the New York-New Jersey Harbor region.

New Jersey Sites

Species: Season: SR SII

S S F \V

ell

S S F \V

1-1\1·

S S f \V

LP

S S f W

Red-throated Loon uruu xxx

Common Loon

cuuuu xxx

Pied-billed Grebe

uuuuu cc· cuxxx

Homed Grebe

cuuuu xxx

Red-necked Grebe

ur?xxx

Eared Grebe

aaa

Northern Gannet

c

Great Cormorant

c xxx

Double-crested Cormorant

cuuuu xxxx

American Bittern

ruuuu cu· cuxxx

Least Bittern

rr .1 rcc· ur xxx

Great Blue Her\m

xcu· uuuu cucu xxxx

Great Egret

xcx uuuu ccc xxx

Snowy Egret

xcx uccc xxx

Little Dlue Heron

xu rcuc xxx

Tricolorcd Heron

crr uuu xxx

Cattle Egret

rrr ccc xx. x

Green-backed I Ieron

xcu· ucu cc· c xxx

Black-crowned Night Heron

xcu .1 UUUU Cc· cuxxxx

Yellow-crowned Night Heron

urr· r

Fulvous Whistling-Duck

aaaa

White Ibis·

a?

Glossy Ibis

rr rr ccc xxx

Tundra Swan

uu

Mute Swan

rcc· cuxxx

Snow Goose

ruu xxxx

+s:J-/q/


S S F \V

New Jersey Sites

ell

S S F W

11M

S S F W

LP

SSfW

Brant cr uu xx-x

Canada Goose

xc uuuu cc· cc xxxx

Wood Duck

xu uuu cc· u xx

Green-winged Teal

xrcu· cuxxxx

American Black Duck

xri:u· UUUU Cc· cc xxxx

Mallard

xcu· uuuu cc· cc.xxxx

Northern Pintail

ruccc xxx

Blue-winged Teal

xu rcu· cr xxxx

Northern Shoveler

crccc xxxx

Gadwall

ucc· cu xxxx

Eurasian Wigeon

a?

American Wigeon

crccu xxx-

-.

~

Canvasbackuuuu cuc xxx

Redhead

ruuu xxx

Ring-necked Duck

rcu xxx

Greater Scaup

cuu uuu xxx

Lesser Scaup

ucuc xxx

King Eider

r xxx

Harlequin Duck

r

Oldsquaw

crrr xxx

Black Scoter

c xxx

Surf Scoter

urrr xxx

White-winged Seater

urrr xxx

Common Goldeneye

cruuu xxx

Bufflehead

cuuuu xxx

Hooded Merganser

uucuu xxx

Common Merganser

urr xxx

#Jf-Jq~

II' 'I ' I ' I ~ I I I,~ j II

Species: Season: SR SJI

S S F \V

Ne\\' Jersey Sites

ell

S S F W

II\tS S F'W

LP

S S F W

Spl.:cics: Season: SR SH

S S F W

Ncw Jerscy Sites

CH

S S F W

H\1

S S'F W

LP

S S F \V

American Coot ucc· cc x-xx

Black-bellied Plover

ccc xx

Lesser Golden- Plover

ru

Semipalmatcd Plover

xc uurr ucc xx

Piping Plover

cr+ xxx

Killdeer

xcu· uuuu cc· cu xxxx

American Oystercatchcr

c

Black-necked Stilt

rr

American Avocet

rr

Greater Yellowlcgs

xc uuu cccu xxx

Lesser Yellow legs

ccccu xxxx

Solitary Sandpiper

cccc xx-

Willet

crr xxx

Spotted Sandpiper

xcx uu cc· c xxx

Upland Sandpiper

u

Whimbrel

rrr

Hudsonian Godwit

r

Marbled Godwit

r

Ruddy Turnstone

cru xx

Red Knot

urr xxxx

Sanderling

crr xxx

Semipalmatcd Sandpiper

crr ucc

Western Sandpiper

uu

Least Sandpiper

cuu ccc xxx

White-rumped Sandpiper

uuu xx

Baird's Sandpiper

r

Pectoral Sandpiper

ruuu xx

~/q'f

II'w,. I iii I ~I' " , Id jlj

lil11

, ,;1 ~

I" 'r

II


S S F W·

New .TerseySites

ellS S F \V

1I~1

S S F \V

1.,1'

S S F W

Purple Sandpiper xxx

Dunlin

cccu xxx

Curlew Sandpiper

r

Stilt Sandpiper

ec

Buff-breasted Sandpiper

uuu

Ruff

rr r?

Short-billed Dowitcher

cucu xx

Long-billed Dowitcher

uuu xx

Common Snipe

ur cc xxx

American Woodcock

ec· uur cu· c xxx

Wilson's Phalarope

uuu

Red-necked Phalarope

uu

Red Phalarope

rr

Laughing Gull

xcc cccr ucc xxx

Franklin's Gull

a?

Little Gull

r xxx

Common Black-headed Gull

rrrr xxx

Bonaparte's Gull

crrr uuu xxx

Ring-billed Gull

xc cccc cccc xxxx

Herring Gull

xcu· cccc cccc xxxx

Thayer's Gull

a?

Iceland Gull

urr

Lesser Black-backed Gull

rrrr r?

Glaucous Gull

crrxxxYo

Great Black-backed Gull

xcc uuuu cccc

Ivory Gull

a?

Gull-billed Tern

rrrr

-W;-/15'"

Species: Season: SR

~C\V Jersey Sites

SII ell

SSFW SSFW

Hi\!

S S F W

LP

S S F W

Caspian Tern rrr xxx

Royal Tern

rrr

Roseate Tern

rr

Common Tern

xcc· uuu cuu xxx

Forster's Tern

uuuu xxx• Least Tern

cc· x?ccc xxx

Black Tern

uuuu

Black Skimmer

cu· ruuu xxx

Rock Dove

cx· uuuu cc* cc xxxx

Mourning Dove

xcu· cccc cc· ccxxxx

Black-billed Cuckoo

xr uuu uu

YcHow-billed Cuckoo

xcu* uuu ur* u xx

Common Barn-Owl

r *.x?uu* uuxxxx

Eastern Screech-Owl

rrrr rr* uu

Great Ilomed Owl

cr* uuuu r

Snowy Owl

rr?

Long-eared Owl

uu xxxx

Short-cared Ovd

ruuu xxxx

Northern Saw-whet Owl

u

Common Nighthawk

cr .1 uuU uu* u xxx

Chuck -will' s-widow

rr?

Whip-poor-will

cu* uuu

Chimney Swift

xcu* u uu xxx

Ruby-throated Hummingbird

cuuu uxxx

Belted Kingfisher

xc uuuu uu· ur xxxx

Red-headed Woodpecker

ruuu

Red-bellied Woodpecker

ux?

WI Itf~

, I, I I' H ; ~II ,I I 1.11 j'1 II

Species: Season: SR SI1

S S F W

!'\cw Jersey Sites

CH

S S F W

11M

S S F W

LP

S S F W

'Yellow-bellied Sapsucker uu uu

Downy Woodpecker

x·c cccc cc· cc xxxx

Hairy Woodpecker

xu uuuu uu· uu

Northern Flicker

xcr· cccu cu· cuxx

Eastern -Wood Pcwee

cuuU ru

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher

rr

Acadian Flycatcher

r xx

Alder Flycatcher

u

Willow Flycatcher

rurr uu· u xxx

Least Flycatcher

xc uuu

..Eastern Phoebe u· ux c uu u xxxx

Great Crested flyc:ncher

cuuu uu

Western Kingbird

r

Eastern Kingbird

xcu· uuu cuc xxx· x

Homed Lark

ucu· uuxxxX

Purple l\Iartin

cr uU rr

Tree Swallow

xc cccu ccc xxxx

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

cuu· u xx

Bank Swallow

xc uuu uu xx

Cliff Swallow

crr

Barn Swallow

xcu· ccc cc· c xxxX

Blue Jay

xcu· cccc cccu xxxX

American Crow

xcu~ cccc cc· ccxxxx

Fish Crow

xcu· U11UU Cc· cuxxxx

Black-capped Chickadee

cu· uuuc ccu xxxx

Carolina Chickadee

xrr uuuu

Boreal Chicakadee

xxxx

-I6t117

Species: Season: SR SH

S S F W

;\cw .Jersey Sites

CH

S S F W

HM

S S F W

LP

S s r \\'

r

u u u c

u u u u

r r

c c c

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

u

u

r

c

u

u

u

u

u

u u

u u

·u u

c u

r

c c· c c

u u

u

c

u

u

u

u

u

c

r

u c

c c· c

u r· u r

c c· c u

c c· c

u u· u

u u u

r

c c· c u

u

u

u r· u u

u

u

r

r r

u

u u

u u

r

u

r r r

u u

x?

u u

u u u

c c c u

c c c c

c c c c

c c c u

u

c c c c

u u u

c c c u

u r

u

u u r

u u u u

c

c

c

r

c u·

c

c u·

c c·

c u·

c c·

c x·

c c·

u

c

c

c

c

u

c

r

r

u

~ X·1

C c·

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Tufted Titmouse

Red-breasted Nuthatch

White-breasted Nuthatch

Brown Creepcr

Carolina Wren

House Wren

Winter Wren

Sedge Wren

Marsh Wren

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Eastern Bluebird

Veery

Gray-checked Thrush

Swainson's Thrush

Hermit Thrush

Wood Thrush

American Robin

Gray Catbird

Northern Mockingbird

Brown Thrasher

Water Pipit

Cedar Waxwing

Loggerhead Shrike

European Starling

White-eyed Vireo

I ; I, I 111 ~,

I ~ '1

1,1 ~ .',; ~III;jli,~:I-1


S S F W

Ncw Jersey Sites

CII

S S F W

HM

S S F W

LP

S SF'"

Solitary Vireo cur· u

Yellow-throated Vireo

xu r

Warbling Vireo

uuu

Philadelphia Vireo

r

Red-eyed Vireo

xcc· ucc· c xx

Blue-winged Warbkr

xc uu uu

qolden-winged Warbler

r

Tennessee Warbler

uuuu xx·

Orange-crowned Warbler

cru, -Nashville Warbler

euuu

~orthcm Parula

xe uu uu xx

Yellow Warbler

xe uuuu uu· u xx

Chestnut-:;iJed Warbler

xe uu uu

Magnolia Warbler

xc uuu uu

Cape :\'lay Warbler

xe uuu xx

Black-throated Blue Warbler

xe uuu uu

Ydlow-rumped Warbler

xe ueu eeu xx

Black-throated Green Warbler

xc uu uu

B1aekbumian Warbler

xe uu uu

Yellow-throated Warbler Pine Warbler

xr u xx

Prairie Warbler

xe uuru xx

Palm Warbler

xu uu uu xx

llay-bn-.a.<;tedWarbler

xe uu uu

Blackpoll Warbler,

xc uu ce

Cerulean Warbler

e

Black-and-white Warbler

xc uu cu xx

J-U/11

Spccjc~: Season: SR SII

S S F W

Ncw .Jersey Sitcs

CII

S S F \V

n;V1

S S F W

lP

S S F W

American Redst.art xcc* uuu cuc xx

Worm-eating Warbler

xr

Ovenbird

xc uuu cc

Northern Waterthrush

xc uu uu

Louisiana Waterthrush

uu

Connecticut Warbler

rrr

Mourning Warbler

rr

Common Yello\\'throat

xcc* uu cc* c xxx

Hooded \Varbler

u

Wilson's Warbler

cuu uu xx

Canada Warbler

xc uu uu xx

Yellow-breasted Chat

xur* uuu -.~r:

Summer Tanager

rr

ScarJ::t Tanager

xc uuu uu

1'orthern Cardinal

xcc· cccc cc* cc xxxx

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

xc uu uu xxx

Blue Grosbeak

ru* u

Indigo Bunting

cr *1 uu Uu· u xxx

Dickcissel

rr r

Rufous-sided Towhee

xcc· cccu uu xxx

American Tree Sparrow

xc uuu uuu xxx

Chipping Sparrow

xc uuuu uuu xx

Clay-colored Sparrow

cr

Field Sparrow

xcu· uuu uuu xxx

Vesper Sparrow

ruu

Lark Sparrow

r?

SavanJ}~ Sparrow

xc uuu cr* ccxxxx

~

")-(>D

II'u I I 1,1 I~' I 'I ,

"'1I.i' " , •• ~ ., I~,;" ~ "


S S r \V

~ew Jersey Sites

CH

S S F W

H\f

S S F W

LP

S S F W

Grasshopper Sparrow r

Le Conte's Sparrow

a

Sharp-tailed Sparrow

uruu· u xxx

Seaside Sparrow

cr .1 uu· U xxxx

Fox Sparrow

xc uuu uuu xx

Song Sparrow

xcc· cccc cc· cuxxxx

Lincoln's Sparrow

cruxx

Swamp Sparrow

xcr .1 uuUu cc· cuxx

White-throated Sparrow

xc ccc ccu xxx

,White-crowncd Sparrow cruu xx

Dark-eyed Junco

xc uuc ccu xxx

Lapland Longspur

rr xxx

Snow Bunting

ruu x-xx

Bobolink

cruuc

Red-winged Blackbird

xcc· cccc cc· cuxxxx

Eastern Meadowlark

xc uuuu uu xxx

Yellow-headed Blackbird

rr

Rusty Blackbird

xu ruu xx

Boat-tailed Grackle

c xx

Common Grackle

xcc· cccc cc· cc

Brown-headed Cowbird

xcu· cccc ccc xxxx

Orchard Oriole

cuu

Northern Oriole

xc uu· u uu· u xxx

Purple Finch

xu uuu uuu xxxX

House Fineh

xcc· uuuu uu· uuxxxx

Red Crossbill

rxxx

Common Redpoll

rr

~ d-ci>·l


S S r W

New Jersey Sites

CH

S S F W

11;\1

S S F \V

LP

S SF\\'

Pine Siskin xr uuuu xx

American Goldfinch

xcu'" uuuu cccc xxxx

Evcning Grosbeak

rr

I louse Sparrow

xcx'" cccc cc'" cc xx

Sum: SpringiFall

Sum: Summer/Winter

NjA 223 0

72 0

127 156

103 103

222 244

138 110

IS2 172

107 106

Grand sum: 118 242 193 258 190

II'III t j,~ 1

II

Sp.:cics: Season: IIR PA

New York Sites

SI

S S F \V

JB

S S F \V

Red-throated Loon xrrr

Conunon Loon

xuur

Pied-billed Grebe

xx·x uu·uu x

I larned Grebe

xrxx ccc

Reo-necked Grebe

r

Eared Grebe

aaa

Sooty Shearwater

r?

American White Pelican

a?

Great Cormorant

rr


xxcrc x

American Bittern

xxx .2 ur·2uu x

Least Bittern

xx .2 rr·r x

Great Blue Ileron

xxx xx urcu x

Great E~'Tet

xxx· cc·cr x

Snowy Egret

xx· cc·cr x

Little Blue Heron

xxx .1 Uu·1 U x

Tricolored Heron

uu .1 U x

Cattle Egret

xx· uu·u x

Grecn-backed Heron

xx ••xx· cc·cr x

Black-crowned Night Heron

x .1xx·X cc·cc x

Yellow-crowned Night Heron

uu .1 U x

Fulvous Whistling- Duck

a?

White Ibis

a?

Glossy Ibis

xxx· cc·cr x

White-faced Ibis

a?a

Wood Stork

a?

Tundra Swan

rr x

~.:bo3

Species: Season: HR PA

i'\cw York Sites

SI

S S F \V

JB

S S F \V

J\S

l\lute Swan rr

Greater Wlute-fronted Goose

a?

Snow Goose

xcrcu

Brant

xcrcc x

Canada Goose

•x·x cc·cu x

Wood Duck

xx ••xx· xuru x

Grecn-winged Teal

xx·x cU .2 CUx

American Black Duck

x·xx·x cc·cc x

Mallard

xx·xx·xx cc·cc x

Northern Pintail

xx ur .2 cCx

Blue-winged Tcal

xxx·x cU .2 Crx

Cinnamon T cal

a?..;

-.l'\orthern Shovelcr

xx cr+cu x

Gadwall

xx .J X Cc·cu x

Eurasian Wigeon

rrr

American Wigeon

xxx cr +2 ccx

Canvasback

xx crcc x

Redhead

xx uu·ur

Ring-necked Duek

xuru

Greater Scaup

xxcucc x

Lesser Scaup

xxuuu x

Common Eider

rrrr

King Eider

rr r

Harlequin Duck

r?

Old squaw

xuu

Black Seater

xrr

Surf Seater

xrr

.,..,.- ~" if

, I"i"I' I I, I U I~I' 'I ' I ~I 1

1111'

II

Species: Season: IIR PA

New York Sites

SI

S S F \V

JB

S S F W

!\S

White-winged Seater xrr

Common Goldencye

xruc

Bufflehead

xrxx crcc x

Hooded ;vJcrgamer

xx urur x

Common ;\Jerganser

xuu

Red-breasted J"Jcrganser

xcucc x

Ruddy Duck

xcc·cc x

Turkey Vulture

rr

Osprey

xx .J.2xuru x

American S\\'allO\·\"-tailcdKite

a?

Bald Eagle

rrr

Northern Harrier

xX *2 XXUu·uu x

Sharp-shinned Hawk

xx .1.2Xrur x

Cooper's Hawk

x .2rr

J'\orthern Goshawk

rr

Red-shouldered Hawk

xx *2 xrr

Broad-winged llawk

x .1 xrr

Red-tailed Hawk

xx x •• xrrr x

Rough-legged Hawk

xx ru x

Golden Eagle

a?

American Kestrel

xxxx·xx ur .2 ucx

Merlin

xrur

Peregrine Falcon

rrrr X

GyIfalcon

r

Ring-necked Pheasant

xx .1 x· Uu·uu x

Bobwhite

x .2cc·cc

Yellow Rail

rr-ff4f "(rO~")


New York Sites

SI

S S F W

JO

S S F W

;\S

Black Rail rrr

Clapper Rail

xx .2 Cc·cr x

King Rail

x .1,2rrr x

Virginia Rail

x·urur x

Sora

x .2 xuru x

Purple Gallinule

a?

Common l\toorhen

xx· uu·ur x

American Coot

xx· uu·cc x


xxxx cucc x

Lcsst:r Golden- Plo\'er

rru

Wilson's Plover

a?.'

Scmipalmated Ploverxcrcr

Fiping Plover

xx .•2 x rr*r

Ki~deer

xx·xx cc·cu x


uu·u

Black-necked Stilt

rr

American Avocet

rr

Greater Yellow1cgs

xx cccu x

Lesser Yellowlegs

xx crc x

Solitary Sandpiper

xuu x

Willet

xur·1 u

Spotted Sandpiper

xx· cu·c x

Upland Sandpiper

rr

Whimbrel

xrrur

Iludsonian Godwit

u

Marbled Godwit

rrrrr

Ruddy Turnstone

xxx ·crcr

~OO~

," H"I'lill 1>·1. '"r

II

Species: Season: I1R 1>1\

New York Sites

SI

S S F W

JB

S S F W

Red Knot xx crcr x

Sanderling

xxx cucu x

Semipalmated Sandpiper

xcuc x

Western Sandpiper

rcr

Least Sandpiper

x.cuc

White-romped Sandpiper

uc

Baird's Sandpip::r

r

Pectoral Sandpiper

uc x

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

a?

Purple Sandpiper

xxr?

Dunlin

xxccc

Curlew Sandpiper

rr

Stilt Sandpiper

rc

Buff-breasted Sandpiper

r

Ruff

rrr


xx· cuc x

Long-billed Dowitcher

rcr

Common Snipe

xuur x

Aunerican \Voodcock

xx .1Xx· Uu·ur x

Wilson's Phalarope

xrru x

Red-necked Phalarope

rr

Red Phalarope

rr

Pomarine Jaeger

r?

Parasitic Jaeger

r?

Laughing Gull

xcu·c x

Little Gull

rrrrr

Common Black-headed Gull

rrrrr

tff" d-~.7

Species: Sea~on: IIR PA

New York Sites

SI

S S f W

.IB

S S F \V

NS

Bonaparte's Gull xxuruu x

Ring-billed Gull

xcucc x

IIerring Gull

xx·xx cc·cc x

Iceland Gull

xrrr


•xrrr

Glaucous Gull

xrrrr

Orcat Black-backed Gull

xx· cc·cc x

Black-legged Kittiwake

r?

Gull-billed Tern

rr·r

Caspian Tern

rrr

Royal Tern

xrr

Roseate Tern

rr x

Common Tern

xx cc·c x

Arctic Tern

r?

forster's Tern

rru

Least Tern

xx *2 CC*2 e x

Sooty Tern

a?

Black Tern

xru

Black Skimmer

xcc·c x

Rock Dove

cc·cc x

Mourning Dove

xx* x· cc·cc x

Monk Parakeet

x .2

Black-billed Cuckoo

xx·rr ., r

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

xx .1 x· rr·1r

Common Barn-Owl

x .2xrr·rr x

Eastern Screech-Owl

xx·,xx·xx x

Great Horned Owl

Xxx· x r? x

~

}-O~

, " I''" it

II


New York Sites

SI

S S F \V

JB

S S F \V

Snowy Owl xrr x

Barred Owl

X .2

Long-eared Owl

xx .2 rrr

Shon-earcd Owl

x .1,2xrr*'uu x

Nonhem Saw-whet Owl

rr

Common Nighthawk

x·,ru

Chuck-will's-widow

rx·,

Whip-poor-will

xx· rr

Chimney Swift

xxx· uru


xx .2 xrr x

Belted Kingfisher

xxx·xx rur X

Red-headed Woodpccker

rx *2 rrr


x·rr

YcHow-bellied Sapsucker

xuu

Downy Woodpecker

xx *.xx·xx uruu

Hairy Woodpecker

xx ., x*xrrr x

Nonhern Flicker

xx *'xx·xx crcu x

Olive-sided rIycatcher

rr

Eastern- \Vood Pcwee

xx ••xx· uu x


rr

Acadian Flycatchcr

x .2r

Alder Flycatcher

ru

Willow flycatcher

x·ru ••

Least Flycatcher

xx .2 Uu

Eastern Phoebe

xx .2 Uc

Great Crested Flycatcher

xx .1Xx· rrr x

Western Kingbird

r

';0' - J-01

Species: Season: IlR PA

New 'York Sites

SI

S S F W

JB

S S F W

1'5

Eastern Kingbird xx *1 x* uru x

Homed Lark

xx*xx ur *2 cc

Purple \lartin

xxx* rr

Trec Swallow

x*xx*x ec*cr x

Northcrn Rough-winged Swallow

•x Xx* rr

Bank Swallow

xuuu x

Cliff Swallow

x *2rr

Barn Swallow

xx* cc*c x

Blue Jay

xx* x·Xuu x

Amcrican Crow

xx .1 'x*XUu*uu x

Fish Crow

x *1x* Uu*uu x


xx *1Xx*Xx rur x

~Boreal Chickadee r?

Tufted Titmouse

xx*xx* x r?


xxx uuu

\Vhite-breasted :'\uthatch

xx x·xx rr

Brown Creeper

xxuc

Carolina Wren

xx *1 x*xrr

Housc Wren

xx*xx· ur*u x

Winter Wren

xxru

Sedge Wren

x *2rr

Marsh \Vren

xx· cc*cr x

Goldcn-crowned Kinglet

.xx cc x


xx cc


xx ur

Eastern Bluebird

xx *2 x rr

Veery

xx .2 X UU x

~~rD

I Ii II I 'II j,I'

1IIIf

II


l'\ew York Sites

SI

S S F W

JB

S S F \V

~S

Gray~cheeked Thru~h xuu

Swainson's Thrush

xx uur

Bennit Thrush

xucr

Wood Thrush

xx .1Xx·X uu

Redwing

a?

American Robin

xx· x· cu·cu x

Vaned Thrush

a?

Gray Catbird

xx·xx· cc·cr x

Northern \Iockingbird

x ••xx· xuu·uu x

Sage Thrasher

a?

Brown Thrasher

x·x·x cu·cr x

Water Pipit

xx rur

Cedar Waxwing

xxxX .2 Ur·cr

I'\orthcm Shrike

rr

Loggerhead Shrike

rrrr

European Starling

xx·xx·xx cc·cc x

White-eyed Vireo

xx· rr

Solitary Vireo

xuu

Yellow-throated Vireo

xx .2 rr

Warbling Vireo

x .2rr

Philadelphia Vireo

rx rr

Red-eyed Vireo

xx ••xx· uc x

BIue-winged Warbler

x .1xX·2 ur ·X

Golden-winged Warbler

r

Tennessee Warbler

xuu

Orange-crowned WarbIcr

r

Nashville Warbler

xuu

~ d-- tJ

Species: S-.:ason: HR PA

New York Sites

SI

S S F \V

1£3

S S F \V

~s

~orthcrn Parula xx cu

Ycllow Warbler

xxxx'" cc'"c

Chestnut-sided Warbler

xx uu

l\bgnolia Warbler

xuu x

Cape May Warbler

xue


xxxx uu

Yellow-rump cd Warbler

xxxx cee x

Townsend's WarbIer

a?


xx uu

Blackbumian Warbler

xx uu

Yellow-throated Warblcr

r

Pine Warbler

xxx rr

Prairie \Varblcr

xx "'2 Uu

Palm Warbler

xruc

Bay-breasted Warbler

xxx uu

Blackpoll Warbler

xxx cu

Cerulean Warbler

xr


x "'JxX"'2 UU x

American Redstart

x ~IxX"'2 X UC x·

Prothonotary Warbler

xx r

Worm-eating Warbler

xrr

Ovenbird

xxx'" uu

Northern Watcrthrush

xxx uu

Louisiana Watcrthrush

xr

Kentucky Warbler

xr

Connecticut Warbler

rx

Mourning Warbler

xx rr

~~{~

I,lIlT I" j.,I_l

II


7'\cw Yark Sites

SI

S S F W

JB

S S F \V

NS

Common YcllO\\1hroat xx .1Xx· rcc·cr x

Hooded Warbler

xrr

Wilson's Warblcr

xx uu

Canada Warbler

xx .1,2X Uu


xxx· rrr

Summer Tanager

r

Scarlet Tanager

xx .1 UU

Western Tanager

aa

l'orthern Cardinal

xx .1Xx·Xx uu·uu x


xx .1 X Uu

Blue Grosbeak

rr

Indigo Bunting

x .1xx· Uu

Dickcissel

rr

Rufous-sided Towhee

xx .1Xx·X cc·cu x


xxx ruc x

Chipping Sparrow

Xxx .2 UCr


r

Field Sparrow

Xx· uuu

Vesper Sparrow

x .2rr

Lark Sparrow

r

Lark Bunting

a?

Savannah Sparrow

xx· cr .2 cc

Grasshopper Sparrow

xx· rr

HensJow's Sparrow

rr


xx .2 Uu·Cu x

Seaside Sparrow

X .2Cc·Cu

Fox Sparrow

xx ruu

~~I~

Species: Season: IlR PA

;\CW York Sites

SI

S S F W

JB

S S F W

?\S

Song Sparrow xx .1Xx·Xx cc·cc x

Lincoln's Sparrow

uur

Swamp Sparrow

xxx· uu ., cux


xxxx crcc x

White-crowned Sparrow

xuur

Dark-eyed Junco

xx xx ccc

Lapland Longspur

xrr

Snow Bunting

xrr

Bobolink

xx .2 X UC x


xx .1Xx·Xx cc·cc x

Eastern ;V1eauowlark

xx* uur

Yellow-headed Blackbird

r

Rusty Blackbird

xx rrr

Boat-tailed Grackle

rr·1 rr

Conunon Grackle

xx·xx·xx cc·cr x

Brown-head::d Cowbiru

xx·xcU .1 Cu

Orchard Oriole

xx .2 rr

Northern Oriole

xx·xx· uu x

Pine Grosbeak

rr

Purple Finch

xxx uur

House Finch

xx .1Xx·Xx cc·cc

Red Crossbill

xx rr

White-winged Crossbill

xx rr

Common Redpoll

xrr x

Hoary Redpoll

x

Pine Siskin

x·xx ruu

~·)-JLf

, """"1'

11111 liJ. I_II"


1'\cw York Sites

SI

S S F \V

JI3

S S F \V

American GoldfUlch

Evening Grosbeak

House Sparro\\-'

Sum: Spring/Fall

Sum: Sununer/Fall

Grand sum:

x X .1 X x· X

x r x

x x· x· x

N/A N/A 151 95

151 73

48 91 245

r r r

c c· c c

259 280

155 146

316

x

x

~!A

1~3

~ew York Sites

Species: Season: FB

S S F W

j'IP

S S f W

CP UC

S S F W S S F W

for

S SF\\'

Red-throated Loon ux

Common Loon

uxr r r?

Pied-billed Grebe

ux

Homed Grebe

cx

Great Cormorant

•c


ccc xxxx r r xxxx r?

American Bittcrn

ux

Great Blue Ileron

uuu xxxx xxxx r:

Great Egret

ccc xxx xxx

Snowy Egret

ccc xxx· xxx

Little Blue Heron

rr x

Tricolored IIeron

x-.

~

Cattle Egretuxxx

Green-backed Ileron

cxxx x x?

Black-crowned !\"ight Ileron

cc xxxx r?

Glossy Ibis

ccc x . xx

Mute Swan

xxxx

Snow Goose

xxx r?

Brant

ccc xxx r?

Canada Goose

ccc x· xxx xxxx r?

Wood Duck

r?xxx X .IX r?

Green-winged Teal

xxx

American Black Duck

c·x· ;xx x· x X .IXXx r?

Mallard

c·x· x7-X x· Xxx x· xxx x

Northern Shoveler

u

Gadwall

uxxx

Eurasian Wigeon

r

~O( ~fb

I Ii II

AC\\' York Sitcs

Spccics: SC:t!'on: f.n l\IP CP lJC FP

SSFW SSFW SSFW SSFW SSP\\,

American Wigeon cxxx

Canvasback

xxx

Redhead

xxx

Greater Scaup

cxxx

Lesser Scaup

xxx

Oldsquaw

u

Cpmmon Goldl:neye

xxx

Bufflehead

ccc xxx xx

Red-breasted Merganser

cxxx

Ruddy Duck

uxxx

Turkey Vulture

rr

Osprey

uxxx xx

Northern Harrier

xu· xxxxxx xxxx xxxx r?

Sharp-shinned Hawk

ec xxx xxx x

Cooper's Hawk

cu xx xx

l'orthern Goshawk

xxx xxx

Red-shouldered Hawk

r r?

Broad-winged Hawk

rx ·Ix x

Red-tailcd Hawk

uxxx xxx xxx xxxx

Rough-legged Hawk

cxx

American Kestrel

cc· cxx· xxx x· xxx x

Merlin

cxxX .?&.

Peregrinc Falcon

uu xxxx


cc· ccx· xxx x· xxx x· xxx x· xxx

Clappcr Rail

ux x· xxx

Sora

x

Common Moorhen

xx

~~/7

~cw Yark Sites

Species: Season: fB MP CP tiC FP

S S F W S S F W S S F W S S F W S S F W

Amcrican Coot xxx


cu xxx xxx

Lesscr Goldcn-Plovcr

u

Semipalmated Plover

c·xxx xxx

Piping Plovcr

x· xxxx

KiIldcer

cc· x· xxx x· xxx


xu· xxx

Greater Yellowlcgs

cc xxx xxxx

Lesser Yellow1cgs

uxxxx x

Solitary Sandpiper

rxxx r?-

..Willet u

Spotted Sandpiper

c·x· xx xxx

Upland Sandpiper

xx

Ruddy Turnstonc

uu xxx

Sanderling

cc xxx

Scmipalmated Sandpiper

cc xx

Least Sandpiper

uu xx

Pectoral Sandpiper

uu

Purple Sandpiper

r

Dunlin

uxxx

Stilt Sandpiper

r


xx

Common Snipe

uxxxx xx xx

American Woodcock

cc· c xxxx xx x

Laughing Gull

ccc xxx xxxX -?XXXA.

Bonaparte's Gull

ux

Ring-billed Gull

cc xxxx xxxx x? . r1~ <ct'~)..r9

, "

"'1"

New York Sites

Species: Season: FB

S S F W

MP

S S F W

CP

S S F \V

UC

SSFW

foP

S S F \V

Ilerring Gull cccc xxxx xxxx x? x


r


ccc xxx x'xx ~X x?x

Caspian Tern

xx

Common Tern

cxxiX. XXx

Forster's Tern

xx

Least Tcrn

cxxx

Black Tern

x?

Dlack Skimmer

uu xx

Rock Dove

cc· ccx· xxx x· xxx x? x· xxx

Mourning Dovc

cc· ccx· xxx x· xxx x? x· xxx

Budgcrigar

xxxx

Black-billed Cuckoo

r*xx r?

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

uxxx xx X .1X

Common Barn-Owl

u·uxxxx

Eastern Screech-Owl

x

Great Homed Owl

r?

Snowy Owl

rxx

Long-eared Owl

r

Short-eared Owl

u·uxxxx

Northern Saw-whet Owl

r

Common Nighthawk

rxx? x

Whip-poor-will

x

Chimney Swift

u·xx? x· xx

Ruby-throated IIummingbird

xxx x

Rufous IIummingbird

x?

Belted Kingfisher

cr* c xxxx xxx

,111-

~r1

New York Sites

Species: Season: FB MP CP cc FP


Red-headed Woodpecker xx x?r?


x· xxx x· xxx

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

uxx xx x

Downy Woodpecker

uuu x· xxx x· xxx x? x* xxx

Hairy Woodpecker

xxxx x· xxx x· xxx

i'\orthem flicker

u· lxxxx x· x x?x· xx

Olive-sided flycatcher

xx rr

Eastern-wood Pewee

ux· xx· xx


r?

Acadian Flycatcher

r?

Willow Flycatcher

c·xxx'

Least Flycatcher

xxx

Eastern Phoebe

cc xxx xx r?

Great Crested flycatcher

uxx .'x . x· xx

Eastern Kingbird

cu· x· xx X .IX x· Xx

Horned Lark

u·uxxxx

Purple ivtanin

xx

Tree Swallow

c·xxx r?


r?

Bank Swallow

r

Barn Swallow

c·xxx xxx x

Blue Jay

cx· xxx x· xxx x? :•• xxx

American Crow

cc· ccxxxx x· xxx x? x· xxx

Fish Crow

cc· cex·xxx x· xxx x? x· xx


xxxx x· xxx x· xxx

Tufted Titmouse

xx· xxx x· xxx


xx xxx r?

~

:)- ~C-

II' li"I' I' . ~I I·· "I~II,'H; II"I~' ~ i. I; "

Ncw York Sites

Species: Season: FB

S S F \V

MP

S S F W

CP

S S F W

uc

S S F W

rrS Sf\\'

White-breastcd Nuthatch x· xxx x· xxx

Brown Creeper

xx xxx X ·'Xl. x

Carolina Wrcn

r?

House Wren

xx x .IX x·'xx

Winter Wren

xxx x

Marsh Wren

u·x· xxx x· xx

Golden-crowned Kinglet

uxxx xx x?

Ruby-erO\\'ncd Kinglet

uxxx xx x?

Blue-gray Gnatcatchcr

xxx x?

Eastern Bluebird

xx

Veery

xxX x

G~ay-cheekcd Thrush

xx x?

Swainson's Thrush

xxx x

Hermit Thrush

uxx xx x?

\V ood Thrush

xx .IX x· Xx

American Robin

cc· c x· xxx X .IX x·, XX x· xxx

Gray Catbird

cc· c x· xxx X ·Jx x· XXX x· xx

Northern ?\-1ockingbird

x· xxx x· xxx x· xxx x· xxx

Brown Thrcl.sher

c·x· xx x ·Ix x· xx x· xx

Water Pipit

rxx

Cedar Waxwing

cx· xxx xx x?

Northern Shrike

r

Loggerhead Shrike

x

European Starling

cc· ccx· xxx x· xxx x· xx x· xxx

White-eyed Vireo

ux xx x?. Solitary Vireoxx x?

YcHow-throated Vireo

x?

~ ;)...J-l

Specics: Scason: fn

S S F \V

I\ew York Sites

MP CP

S S F W S S F W

UC fP

SSfW SSf\Y

'"

illl ;;,11

II

New York Sites .

Species: Season: FE j\'lP CP LiC FP

S S F W S S F W S S F W S S ·F W S S F W

Swainson's Warbler r?

Ovenbird

xxx X ••


xx x

Louisiana Waterthrush

rxx x

Kentucky Warbler

x?

Mounling \V arbler

x

Common YellO\\1hroat

c·x· xx xx x· xx

Hooded Warbler

xx x

Wilson's Warbler

xx x

Canada Warbler

uxx xx x


xx

Summer Tanager

'Jr.

Scarlet Tanager

·xx xx x· xx

Northern Cardinal

cc· ccx· xxx x· XXX x· XXX x· XXx


xx r

Blue Grosbeak

r?

Indigo Bunting

uu xx X ·Jx XXx

Rufous-sided Towhee

c·x· xxx X .'x x· xx


cc xxx r?

Chipping Sparrow

uu xx .'x x


r?

Field Sparrow

u· uxxx x .'x x· x

Vesper Sparrow

uxxx xx

Lark Sparrow

r

Savannah Sparrow

c·cc x· xxx xx

Grasshopper Sparrow

c·x· xxx


u·xxxx

~ d-").-~

New York Sites

Species: Season: FB MP CP DC [,1'

SSFW SSFW SSFW SSFW SSf\\'

Seaside Sparrow uxxxx x?

Fox Sparrow

xxx xxx xx xx

Song Sparro",,'

cc· ccx· xxX x· xxX x· xxx x

Lincoln's Sparrow

xx r?

Swamp Sparrow

xXX XXXX x .'x x?x


cc xxx xx x


Uxxx r:

Dark-eyed Junco

cxxx x

Lapland Longspur

r

Snow Bunting

uxx x

Bobolink

uu xX .1X XX 'Jr,


c*ux* xxx x *'x x* xx-.

x xx

Eastern Meadowlark

cc· ccxxxx xx

Rusty Blackbird

xx

Boat-tailed Grackle

r

Common Grackle

c*x* xxx X .IX x')x· Xx

Brown-headed Co\\'bird

u* ux· xxx X *IX x* Xx

Orchard Oriole

r?

Northern Oriolc

uxxx X *IX x* XX x* xx

Purple Finch

xx xx x

House Finch

cc· ccx* xxx x· xxx x* xx

Common Redpoll

r?

Pine Siskin

xx r?

American GoldfInch

u\I. uux· xxx X .':<, x· xxx xx

Evening Grosbeak

r:

}louse Sparrow

cc· ccx· xxx x· xxx x· xxx

Black-hooded Parakeet

xxxx

.t.J.V J- e~ t

,"I ~"I' II

New York Sites

Species: Season: FB MP CP cc FP

Sum: SpringiFail

Sum: Summer/Winter


80 73 123 ]47 124 99 34 35 90 4~

67 63 87 93 57 29 51 20 96 17

Grand sum: ]65 171 128 56 143

New York Sites

Species: Season: KP

S S F \V

RP

S S F \V

vc

S S F \V

PB

S S F \V

I\P

S S F \V

Red-throated Loon u:I-

Common Loon

u

Pied-billed Grebe

x?x?ru x

Homed Grebe

cx

Red-necked Grebe

r

Wilson's Storm Petrel

r•

Ci!eat Cormorant

c


x?xxx x? xuxxxx

Americ:m Bittern

xxx x?rr

Least Bittern

x +J

Great Blue Heron

xx xx xcxxxx

Great Egret

x?xrr xxx

Snowy Egret

xxx xxxxx

Little Blue I Icron

rr

Tricolored Heron

r

Cattle Egret

rr

Green-backed Heron

xxx x*1xx*xxx

Black-crowned !\ight Heron

xxx xx x *Ix. X"'2cxXxx

Yellow-crowned I\ight lleron

x

Glossy Ibis

r

Mute Swan

xx x *Ixxx x·c

Greater White-fronted Goose Snow Goose

xx ru

Brant

u

Canada Goose

xxx x x Xl XXX x·cx· xxx

Wood Duck

rx +.Xl r

Green-winged Teal

xxx xuxxx

-u-Y )- ")-c.

I II, 1"li ",II II

New York Sites

Species: Season: KP RP

S S F W S S F W

VC

S S F W

PB

S S F W

AI>

S S F W

American Black Duck xxxx xxx xx x·cx· xxx

Mallard

x· Xxx xxxx X .'xxx x·cx· x 'xx

Northern Pintail

xxx u

Blue-winged Teal

xrr

Northern Shoveler

xxx xXXl r

Gadwall

uxxx

American Wigeon

xc

Canvasback

xcxxx

Redhead

u

Ring-necked Duck

xx r

Greater Scaup

x?rrc Xxx

Lesser Scaup

xx u

Oldsquaw

u

Black Scoter

u

White-winged Scoter

Xu

Common Goldeneye

cxxx

Bufflehead

xcxxx

Hooded Merganser

xXl u

Common Merganser

xXl u

Red-breasted Merganser

cX'xx

Ruddy Duck

x?uxxx

Turkey Vulture

xx rr rr

Osprey

rr x? r

American Swallow-tailed Kite

a

Bald Eagle

rrr rr

Northern Harrier

xxXXX XCXXXx

Sharp-shinned Hawk

xxx xx xx ccu xxx

.ut.~~7

New York Sites

Species: Season: KP

S S F W

RP

S S F W

vc

S S F W

PH

S S F W

Ai>

S S F W

Cooper's Hawk xru xx

Northern Goshawk

u

Red-shouldered Hawk

xxx xx rc

Broad-winged lla\'y"k

xx xx xx

Red-tailed Hawk

x»x xxx xxX x·cxxx

Rough-legged llawk

xc

American Kestrel

x· xxx xx x? xcx· xxx

Merlin

xx rr

Peregrine Falcon

xx r rru


x· xxX x· xxX x· x' xXx·cx· xxx

Northern Bobwhite

x .2

Yellow Rail

r

Clapper Rail

x·. u -.~

x

King Rail

x2

Virginia Rail

xxx xr

Sora

r

American Coot

x?x?u

Black-bellieu Plover

xx

Semipalmated Plover

xx

Piping Plover

r

Killdeer

x· xxx xxx r·cx· xxx

American Oystercatcher

r

Greater Yellow1cgs

xxx xxu xxx

Lesser Yellow legs

x? xxr xxxx

Solitary Sandpiper

xx xxx ·xx

Spotted Sandpiper

xx xxxx x

Upland Sandpiper

r

~ 'r'r-){

I IIH 0.1" "Il; 'I" I II I il·' I,j'l' i,~ I II

New York Sites

Species: Season: K1>

S S F W

RP

S S F W

vc

S S F W

PH

S S"F W

AP

S SF\\'

Ruddy Turnstone rr

S:mderling

c

Semipalmated Sandpiper

x? xx

Least Sandpiper

xx

White-romped Sandpiper

xxr

Purple Sandpiper

u

Dunlin

xxu

Shon-billed Dowitcher

r

Common Snipe

xxx ruxxxx

American Woodcock

xxx X ·'xx x·uxxxx

Wilson's Phalarope

r:.if:.

Laughing Gull

xxx xx xrxxx

Bonapane's Gull

xru x

Ring-billed Gull

xxxx xxxx xxxx xcxxxx

I Ierring Gull

xxxx xxxx xxxX xcxxxx

Iceland Gull

r2u


r

Glaucous Gull

u


xxxxx xxxx xcxxx

Common Tern

xx

Forster's Tern

r

Least Tern

rJ

Black Skinuncr

x

Razorbill

r2

Rock Dove

x· xxx xxxx X .IXXX x·cx· xxx

Mourning Dove

x· xxx x· xxx x *Ixxx x·cx· xxx

Budgerigar

r

~

d-.'J-'J

Species; Season: KP

S S F \V

New York Sites

RP VC

S S F \V S S F W

PB

S S F \V

AP

S SF\\'

Species: Season: KP

S S F W

New York Sites

RP VC

SSFW SSFW

P13

S S F W

AI>

S S F W

Great Crested Flycatcher xx xx x? x·

Eastern Kingbird

x· xx xxx X ··x x·

Homed Lark

xxxx u

Purple !Vlartin

x

Tree Swallow

xxx x?x

Northern Rougll-winged Swallow

x?x·

Bank Swallow

xx

Barn Swallow

x?xx x? x·

Blue Jay

xxxx x· x· xxx ·Ixxx x·cx· xxX

American Crow

xxxx x· x· xxx ·Ixxx x·cxxxx

Fish Crow

xxxx xxxx x? x·cxxxx


xx· x· xXX·IXXX x·c xxx

T'ufted Titmouse

xx· x· xxx? x·c x

Red-breasted i\uthatch

xxx xxu x

White-breasted i\uthatch

xx· x· xxx? x·c x

Bro\\"n Creeper

xxxx xr· xu x

Carolina \Vren

xx rr

I louse Wren

x· x· xx?x·r

Winter Wren

xx x u

Sedge Wren

x .2r

Marsh Wren

x·ux· xxx

Golden-crowned Kin~et

xxx xx x? u


xxx xx x? r


xx xx x?rr

Eastern Bluebird

xx r

Veery

xx xx r?

Gray-checked Thrush

x? xx

~

,-"3J

l'\cw 'York Sites

Species: Season: KP RP VC PB AP

S S F W S S F W S S F W S S r w S S F W

Swainson's Thrush x?xx xx

Hermit Thrush

xxx c

\Vood Thrush

xx xx x· xxx x·rx

American Robin

x· xxx x· x· x X .IXx·Cx· xxx

Gray Catbird

x· xxx x· x· x X .IXx·Ux· xxx

• Northern Mockingbirdx· xxx xxxX Xl X r·cx· xxx

Brown Thrasher

x· xxx x· x· x x ·Ixx·ux· xx

Water Pipit

x? uxxx

Cedar Waxwing

xxx xx X .IX XXu

European Starling

x· x .xxx· x· xxx· xxx x·cx· xxx

White-eyed Vireo

xxxx x x·

Solitary Vireo

xxxx x x xx

YcHow-throated Vireo

xxxx

\Varbling Vireo

xxxx x x· xxx x·

Red-eyed Vireo

xxxx xx x· xxx x·

Blue-winged Warbler

xxxx x x·


xx

Tennessee Warbler

xxxx x xx

Nashville Warbler

xxxx xx? r

Northern Parula

xx xx

Yellow Warbler

x· xxx x· xx x· xxx x· x· xx


,.x xxx xx rt

Magnolia Warbler

xxxx xx xx

Cape May Warhler

xxxx x


xxxx xx xx xx

Ycllow-rumped Warbler

xxxx x x x? cxxx


xxxx x x xx

~:)-:,~

'"I ~ "I '

II

New York Sites

Species: Season: KP

S S F W

RP

S S f' W

VC

S S F W

PD

S S F \V

.AP

S S F W

Dlackbumian Warbler xxxx xx xx

Pine Warblcr

xxxx xx r

Prairie Warbler

xxxx xx xx

Palm Warbler

xxxx x x x?xxr x


xxxx x x xx

B1ackpoU Warbler

xxxx xx xx


xxxx xx x? r

American Redstart

xxxx xx x?xx

\\' orm-eating Warbler

x

Ovenbird

xxxx xx x? x·


xxxx x x?r

Louisiana Waterthru~h

xxxx r

Kentucky Warbler

x?

Mourning Warbler

x

Common )"ellowthroat

x· xxx x· x· x x?x·rx· xx

Hooded Warbler

r

Wilson's Warbler

xxxx xx xx

Canada Warbler

xxxx xx xx


r

Scarlet Tanager

xx xx xxr

Northern Cardinal

x· xxx x· x· xxx·'xxx r·cx· xxx


xxx x· xx x? x·

Indigo Bunting

x· rx x x7x·

Rufous-sided Towhee

xx xx x .'x x·c


xxx xcx

Chipping Sparrow

x· xxx xx· xxx x·u x

Field Sparrow

x? cxxx

~J-~3

i'\cw York Sites

Species: Season: KP

S S F \V

RP

S S F W

VC

S S F \V

PI3

S S F \V

AP

S S F W

Vesper Sparrow r "'1,2u

Savannah Sparrow

xxx x rc

Grasshopper Sparrow

x "'2


x'"r

Seaside Sparrow

•x .2r

fox Sparrow

xxx x cxxx

Song Sparrow

x· xxx x· x· xxX .IX x·Cx'" xxx

Lincoln's Sp:mow

x

Swamp Sparrow

x?xx x? x'"cxxxx


xxx xx·x x?' cxxx


rr2

Dark-eyed Junco

xxx xcx

Lapland Longspur

~r

Snow Bunting

rr

Bobolink

xx rr


x· xxx x· 'xx X .IX x·Cx· xxx

Eastcrn Meadowlark

xxxx c

Rusty Blackbird

x?x?uxx

Common Grackle

xxx x· x· xX .IXXX x·cx· xxx


xxx xx· x x· xxx x·Cx· xxx

Orchard Oriole

xx·

Northern Oriole

x· xx x· x· xx· xxx x·rxxx

Pine Grosbeak

r

Purple Finch

xrx? uxx

llouse finch

xxxx xxxx X .IXX x·Cx· xxx

Common Redpoll

xrxx

Pine Siskin

x uxx

~

~3i

, " ~, ~,11 ~ ,. II 1,1; ,I" I "II I ii, I j., I,

lill Ii"

II, ,.",;,III"",hi~.

New York Sites

Species: Sca~on: KP RP vc PD AI>

S S F WS S F W S S F W S S F W S S F W

American Goldfmch xxxx xxxx X .1X x+Cx· Xxx

European Goldfinch

r2

Evening Grosbeak

r

I-louse Sparrow

x· xxx xxxx x·· xxx x·cx· xxx

Black-hooded Parakeet

r

S~m: Spring/Fall 110 114 103 103 57 50 54 56 73 78

Sum: SummcriWintcr

Grand sum:

89

136

91 47

130

38 91

108

38 115 154

238

50 . 63

86

Species: Season: HII

S S F W

New Yark Sites

Common Loon xxx


xx

Great B.1ueHeron

xx

Green-backed Heron

x

]\'lute S\•.•.an

x

Canada Goose

xxxx

Wood Duck

xxx

Am. Black Duck

xxx

Mallard

xxxx

Ring-necked Duck

x

-.

Buffieheadx

Turkey Vulture

x

Osprey

x

Northern Harrier

xx

Sharp-shinned Hawk

xx

Red-shouldered Hawk

x

Broad-winged Hawk

xx

Red-tailed Hawk

xx

American Kestrel

xxx

Merlin

x


xxx

Lesser Yellowlcgs

x

Solitary Sandpiper

x

Spotted Sandpiper

xx

Common Snipe

xx

American Woodcock

xx

Ring-billed Gull

xxxx

¢=t4d.--3b

"'''I'

~~-~---------------------------------------------

New York Sites

Species: Season: 1II·1

S S F W

Ilerring Gull xx

Rock Dovc

xxxx

Mourning Dove

xxxx

Black-billed Cuckoo

xxx

Ycllow-billed Cuckoo

xxx

Eastern Screech-Owl

xx

Great Homed Owl

xx

Common Nighthawk

x

Chimney Swift

xxx

Ruby-throated Ilummingbird

xxx

Belted Kingfisher

xxx


xxx

r~ellow-bellied Sapsucker

x

Downy Woodpecker

xxxx

Hairy Woodpecker

xxxx

Northern Flicker

xxxx

Pileated Woodpecker

xx

Olive-sided Flycatcher

xx

Eastern-Wood Pewee

xxx

Least Flycatcher

x

Eastern Phoebe

xx

Great Crested flycatcher

xxx

Eastern Kingbird

xx

Tree Swallow

xxx


x

Barn Swallow

xx

Blue Jay

xx·xx

~~"'37

Species:

I I

S;,:ason: liB

S S F W

Aew York Sites

I; , *,~I j' I ~" II

Species: Season: Hll

S S f \V

New York Sites

Blue-winged Warblc.:r xx·x

Tennessee Warbler

xxx

Nashville Warbler

xxx

Northern Parula

xxx

Yellow Warbler

xx


xxx

:vlagnolia Warblcr

xxx

Cape May Warbler

xx


xx

Yellow-romped Warbler

xx


xxx

B1ackbumian Warbler

xxx

Pine Warbler

x

Prairie Warbler

xxx

Palm Warbler

xx


xx

Blackpoll Warbler

xxx


xx·x

American Redstart

xxx

Prothonotary Warbler

x

Worm-eating Warbler

xx

Ovenbird

xxx

~orthern Waterthrush

xxx

Mourning Warbler

xx

Common Yellowthroat

xxx

Hooded Warbler

x

Wilson's Warbler

xx

;z,:# )...~l'

Species: Season: l-II1

S S F \V

i'\cw York Sites

Canada Warbler xxx


x

Summer Tanager

x

Scarlet Tanager

xxx

Northern Cardinal

xx· • xx


xx·x

Indigo Bunting

xx

Rufous-sided Towhee

xx·x


xx

Chipping Sparrow

xx

Field Sparrow

xxxx

Vesper Sparrow

x .;-.

Fox Sparrowxx

Song Sparrow

xx·xx

Lincoln's Sparrow

x

S\vamp Sparrow

xx


xxxX

Dark-eyed Junco

xxx

Bobolink

x


xxxx

Rusty Blackbird

x

Boat-tailed (Jrackle Common Grackle

xx·xx


xxx

Northern Oriole

xx·x

Purple Finch

xx

House Finch

xxxx

.~~'f-0

'"I ~ "I' ~ ,II i 1-1" ~,; I "II I .1,1 ;j'll II

Species: Season: HH

S S f \V

Kc\\' York Sites

Common Redpoll x

Pine Siskin

x

American Goldfinch

xxxx

Evening Grosbeak

xxx

I louse Sparrow

xxxx

Sum: SpringiPall

Sum: Summer/Winter

Grand sum:

lIS 145

80 40

139

KEY·TO TABLE 1

Sites:

SR- Swimming River Natural Area, i\J

SH- Sandy Hook, NJ

CII- Chcesequake Natural Area, ?'J

H\1- Hackensack Meadows, NJ

LP- Liberty State Park, NJ

HR- High Rock Park, Staten Island

PA- Poillon Avenue Wetlands, Staten Island

SI- Staten Island

JB- Jamaica Bay, Brooklyn

NS- Northwestern Staten Island

FB- Floyd Bennett field, Brooklyn

\1P- \1arinc Park, Brooklyn

CP- Cunningham Park, Queens

liC- Udall's Cove and Ravine, Queens

fP- Forest Park, Queens

KP- Kissena Park, Queens

RP- Riverdale Park, Bronx

VC- Van Cortland Park, Bronx

PB- Pelham Bay Park, Bronx

AP- Alley Pond Park, Queens

lIH- Hastings-an-Hudson, NY

Occurrence:

x- prescnt

c- common

u- uncommon

r- rare

a- accidental

.- breeding

Xl - unconfirmed

x2 - past

"I' 11·1 ,I I , I II i,jil,,''f II I III

Occurrence:

?- no season information

Status:

SR- no information

6H- spring data: number of years recorded

March

c= 8-16/16 years

u = 3-7/16 years

r= 1-2/16 years

May

c = 3-6/6 years

u= 2/6 years

r= 1/6 years

summer data: number of nesting pairs

c = 70-575 pairs·

u = 8-40 pairs

r= 1-5 pairs

Where data were present on non-breeders they were also listed.

CH- c= "'very numerous species" and "certain to be seen in suitable hab itat'"

u = "present hut not certain to be seen'" and "seen only a few times per season"

r= "seen only once every 1-5 years'"

IIM- c= "should see"

u = "might see'"

r= "seldom see"

LP- no information

HR- no information

PA- no information

SI- "'r'"used for "'rarities"

lB- c = "'more than 50 individuals recorded every visit'" and "'10-50 indi viduaIs usually recorded every visit'"

u = "1-9 individuals per visit, often missed"

r= "only a few individuals recorded throughout the season. often misse d"

FB- some status information given but no category explanation provide d"

Status:

Mr· no information

Cpo mark used to denote rare or one time sighting transcribed as 'r'

UC· no infonnation

fP- see CP, rare sighting notation without seasonal information trans eribed as 'r'!'

KP- no information

RP- see CP

VC- see CP

AP- no information

PH- winter data: Christmas Bird Count

c= 15·31/31 years

u = 5- 14/3 1 years

r= 1-4/31 years

other seasons: 'r' used for o~e time sighting

I II ,~"I'II

Species

SR

• ~.-.""'_ •• "~"'.&.&.

New Jersey and New York Sites

SII CII HM LP lIR MF GK

Opossum xpxx x 0

Short-tailed Shrew

xp x .p

Masked Shrew

xx

Stamosc :'vIole

x

Eastcrn Mole

xx

Little Brown Myotis

xm x m

Kecn's Myotis

x

Small-footed Myotis

x

Big Brown Bat

x

Red Bat

m

Raccoon

xpxxxxp0

LOnhrtailWeasel

xxx

Mink

xX

Striped Skunk

xxx

Red Fox

0xx

Gre); Fox

xxx

Dog

pX PP

Cat

Px PP

llarbor Seal

b

Woodchuck

xx

Eastern Chipmunk

xxx x

Eastern Gray Squirrel

xpxx xpP

Rcd Squirrel

x

Southern Flying Squirrel

xx

Beaver

x

White-footed Mouse

xp xxx p

+* )-tf~

Species New Jersey and New Yark Sites

SR SH CH . HM LP lIR l\lF GK

Mcadow Vole xpxxxx p

Muskrat

xpxxxxpp

Norway Rat

xp xx

Housc Moul'c

XP X P

Mcadow Jumping !\.louse

x

Eastern Cottontail

x•p xxxxpp

Whitc-tailed Deer

x

Sperm Whale

b.!.l7T

Atlantic Bott1cnol'c Dolphin

b

Sum: 21 18 16 24 6 9 6 12

I II'1"1'

;111 ~ll j, "I_ i ,ii·ll I 1~ I rII

Species New York Sites

fiP FT FD PL DB CA PE FA

Little Brown :\lyotis mm

Red Bat

m

Raccoon

00

Dog

pppppppp

Cat

pppppppp

Harbor Seal

b


pp

White-footed Mouse

pp

]\:feadow Vole

ppp ppp

J\fuskrat

p

Nonvay Rat

ppp ppp

-. __ . -

Black RatXl-

House Mouseppp

Eastern Cottontail

pp pp

Sperm Whale

b#

Sum: 7 12 10 2 5 4 4 4

Species

SC RB

New Yark Sites

CR RU SU .TO j•.•.tP ~s

Opossum 0 x

Masked Shrew

0

Eastern l\.tolc

x

Little Brown J\.lyotis

m x

Silver-haircd Bat

m

Red Bat

m x

Hoary Bat

m x

Raccoon

0 x

Mink

e

Dog

pp

Cat

pP

llarbor Seal

b

Eastcrn Chipmunk Eastern Gray Squirrc.:l

pp x

White-footed Mouse

pp x

Meaco\",· Vole

pp pxx

Muskrat

pp ppx

Norway Rat

ppp pxX

Housc :\louse

ppp px

Black-tailed Jackrabbit

p

Eastern Cottontail

pp pxx

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin

b

Sum: 10 17 2 7 4 12

'U"I' ~I il Il II II


CP UC FP KP AP RP VC PH

Opossum xxx xxx

Short-tailed Shrew

xx xx

Masked Shrew

x

Starnose Mole

x

Eastern i\lole

xxxxxxx

Little Brown Myotis

xx

Silver-haired Bat

Xl

Big Brown Bat

x

Red Bat

xx

Raccoon

xxx xxxc

Mink

xx

Striped Skunk

xxx

Red Fox

xx

Gray Fox

Xl

Cat

xx x

Harbor Seal

b

Hooded Seal

r~

Woodchuck

x

Eastern Chipmunk

xxx xxxu


xxxxxxxc

Southern Flying Squirrel

xxx x

White-footed l\touse

xxxx x

Meadow Vole

xxxxxxxx

Muskrat

xxxx

Norway Rat

xxxxxxxx

Black Rat

xx

House Mouse

x xx x

Eastern Cottontail

xxxxxxxx

:z.t(1- -)-;1


White-tailed Deer

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin

Sum:

CP

11

lJC

9

FP

16

KP

6

AP

16

RP

13

\'C

x

12

PH

24

'1'1'

Sites:

SR- Swimming River Natural Area, AJ

SH- Sandy lIook, NJ

CH- Checscquake Natural Area, NJ

111\1-Hackensack J\.leadows, NJ

LP- Liberty State Park, NJ

IIR- High Rock Park, Staten Island

MF- Miller Field, Staten Island

GK- Great Kills, Staten Island

BP- Breezy Point Tip, Queens

FT- Fort Tilden, Queens

FB- floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn

PL- Plum Beach, Brooklyn

BB- Bergen Bcach, Brooklyn

CA- Canarsic Picr arca, Brooklyn

PE- Pennsylvania Avenue Landfill, Brooklyn

FA- Fountain Avcnuc Landfill, Brooklyn

SC- Spring Creck, Brooklyn

RB- H.uler's Bar Hassock, QueensjBrooklyn

CR- Canarsie Pol, Brooklyn

RU- Ruffle Bar, Brooklyn

SU- Subway Island, Queens

LE- Little Egg Island, Queens

10- loCo Marsh, Queens

Mp· Marine Park, Brooklyn

NS- Northwestern Staten Island


{lC- Udall's Cove and Ravine, Queens

Fp· Forest Park, Queens



RI>- Riverdale Park, Bronx


PD- Pelham Bay Park, Bronx

Occurrence:

x- reported present

p- viable, resident population present

m- occurs as a mih'Tant

b- pelagic marine species, occurs in ocean and bays

e- recently extirpated

i- introduced by National Park Servic~ to establish/restore a population or augment a declining population.

Unless accompanied by a "p", the tr.insplanted population has not defmitcly been established.

0- occasional individuals recorded, possibly released, no evidence of established breeding population

#- this and other whale species occur in ocean waters off Gateway

Xl - unconfirmed

x2 - past

,~ I I'I 'f iljll,~, Ir

II

• u~.w oJ. ~ •••••••••jj"'.l"'''' ~Jl i•.tJ.li";' djj" Ol.IIiPilWIOill:i.tl natural areas In U1e J\ew York-New Jersey lIarbor region.

Specics Ncw Jersey and Ncw York Sites

SR SH HM LP HR PA ~1F SI ~S

Snapping Turtle xpx xX·0Cx

Stinkpot (Musk Turtle)

xx c

Eastern :vI ud Turtle

xXlx Xx

Spotted Turtle

px xu

Bog Turtle

r

\Vood Turtle

xc

Eastern Box Turtle

x0 xx c

Northern Diamondback Terrapin

pxx ux

Eastern Painted Turtle

xpxxxx cx

Atlantic Green Turtle

b

Atlantic r .oggcrhead

b

Atlantic Ridlcy

b

Atlantic Leatherback

b

Eastcrn Fcncc Lizard

x

Northcrn Fi\·c-lincd Skink

x

Northern Watcr Snake

xxxx c

Northern Brown Snake

px xpc

Northern Red-beUied Snakc

x

Eastcrn Gartcr Snake

xxxXlCx

Eastern Ribbon Snake

xel

Eastern lIognose Snake

xex el

Northern Ringneck Snake

xu

Eastern Worm Snake

r

Northern Black Racer

xelX XX Ux

Eastern Smooth Green Snake

xc·

Eastern King Snake

x

Eastern Milk Snake

x0x xu

-wr~S-~

Species New Jersey and New Yark Sih:s

SR SH HM LP IIR PA Mf SI ~s

Marbled Salamander ¢

Spotted Salamand..:r

¢

Red-spotted !'\cwt

xu

Northern Dusky Salamander

c

Red-backed Salamander

xxpex

Four-toed Salamander

x ¢x

Northern Red Salamander

x x

Northern Two-lined Salamander

xc

Eastern Spadcfoot

r

American Toad

xx

Fowler's Toad

xe,lxx xpux

Northern Cricket Frog

xxu

Northern Spring Peeper

xxxXlCX

Gray T reefrog

xux

Southern Chorus Treefrog

x2

New Jersey Chorus Trecfrog

xx

Bullfrog

xxxx ux

Green Frog

xxxxcx

Northern Leopard Frog

x c

Southern Leopard Frog

xxXl x

Pickerel Frog

xxc

Wood Frog

xxc

Sum: 22 15 25 3 15 15 7 38 15

'''''I'


GK BP FT FB BB C\ SC RB

Snapping Turtle 000

Eastern Box Turtle

00

Northern Diamondback Terrapin

pp p

Eastern Paintcd Turtle

0

Red-cared Slidcr

0 0

Atlantic Loggerhcad

bb

l'\orthern Brown Snake

p11P 1,p

Eastern Gartcr Snake

pppp pp

Eastern Ilo~,'noseSnakc Northcrn Black RacerEastern Smooth Green SnakeEastern j\lilk SnakeSpotted SalamanderRed-spotted Ke\'r1

0


p1 1,p

Eastern Spadefoot Fowler's Toad

pppp,l0


p111 1,p

Gray Treefrog Green Frog

0

Sum: 11 3 6 10 3 19

Species Ncw Yark Sitcs

MP CP uc foP KP AP RP vc PH

Snapping Turtle xx xx

Eastern Mud Turtle

xx

Eastern Box Turtle

xxx x

Northern Diamondback Terr~pin

xxx x.

Eastern Painted Turtle

xxx x

Northern Water Snake

x

I\orthern Brown Snake

x xxx

Eastern Garter Snake

xxxx

Spotted Salamander

x

Red-spotted Newt

x


xxx

Two-lined Salamander

x

American Toad

xx

Fowler's Toad

XX


xx

Gray Treefrog

xx

Bullfrog

xxx

Green Frog

xXl

Northern Leopard Frog

x

Wood Frog

x

Sum: 3 5 3 4 13 3 6 10

'1"1'

KJ:.Y TO TABLE 3

Sites:

SR- Swimming River Natural Area, NJ

SII- Sandy lIook, NJ

HM- Hackensack Meadows, KJ

LP- Libc6e P~J ~a.~ v'c~l ~<2."'-

HR- I1igh Rock Park, Staten Islanu

PA- Pail Ion Avenue Wetlands, Staten Island

MF· Miller Field, Staten Island

SI- Staten Island

~S- Northwestern Staten Island

GK- Great KiJls, Staten Island

BP- Breezy Point Tip, Queens

FT- Fort Tilden, Queens

FB- Ployd Bennett Field, Brooklyn

BB- Bergen Beach, Brooklyn

CA- Canarsie Pier area, Brooklyn

SC- Spring Creek, Brooklyn

RB- Ruler's Bar Hassock, QueensIBrooklyn

l\1P- Marine Park, Brooklyn


UC- Udall's Cove and Ravine, Queens

FP- Forest Park, Queens



RP- Riverdale Park, Bronx


PB- Pelllam Bay Park, Bronx

Occurrence:

x· reported present

p- viable, resident population present

'/

Occurrence:

c- common

u- uncommon

r· rare

b- pelagic marine species, occurs in ocean and bays

e- recently extirpated

i- introduced by National Park Service to establish/restore a population or augment a declining population.

Unless accompanied by a "pH,the transplanted population has not defmitely been established

0- occasional individuals recorded, possibly released, no evidence of established breeding population

¢- locally extinct

Xl - unconfmned

x2 - past

XS - species identification unconfirmed

I II ""I' II

APPENDIX D

Maps of Wetlands and Open Space in theNew York/~ew Jersey Harbor Estuary

Compiled by

Christina Kalafus-Kaucinger


Key

toSymbolsUsed

onHabitat

Maps

~••:::

:.:.:.

::!i:

·:-.

::::

.:::

::;:

.•.~

~j~

~.:-

:.::':

::.~

:~~

~..::.:

.::.::

;:::::

'b

~...

......

.....

~•.

.~:~

::::::

:~~~

r:·~

·--~

)~~

.::~

~~W.

f."..

n.o.

.,..t

""

12f.

it•.t

f/••

..\-

~IA

PS

I,

Hudson

River

to

Tappen-Zee

Bridge

2.

Upper

Bay,

New

York

Harbor

3.

Newark

Bay

-Arthur

Kill

4.

East

River

5.

Jamaica

Bay

6a.

Southwestern

Staten

Island

6b.

Southern

Raritan

Bay

't.

e:S+

l"o.

.r'~

~.J

.{~

~J.

~ y ~ o

\,\

.•...,....-,

,.,'::

--,"

',.•.\,

",\•.

......

..~

"""I.

.."""'\

(,~

~',

'~I~

,•••,;-

I,~..

.,''

'''_'''~

'~',,

-,,\-

-,.,,

-\''''

':',

.I

••,

••••

~,.·~

\'lC

'tl:'.'

I•~

"'V-I

:.~

~~

R~

.~~

~~

l~~)

~\~t

'1.:

J,'~

\.~~ •po

..lu.

s+c-

''''''

wcJ

[~~

J..

K.4

l1\

woo

J.M

}.(;

JO.e

.1I\I~

'"d

6c.

Sandy

Hook

nay

6d.

Brooklyn,

Lower

nay,

New

York

Harbor

7.

South

Amboy,

NJ

(topographic

sheet)

8.

Weehawken,

NJ

(topographic

sheet)

9.

Elizabeth,

NJ

(topographic

sheet)

••••

••••

•••

•••

••

••

~.

',,4.

•.\

•.•.

•.v.

J(J(

)J.f,

J.[b

-"'J

,

.'ifl"··"i!:·'i'IIJ,It,"",,j,,,,,,'.LI1II"~"·!1jj'!'1I1~1'1"lit'II'II'II~"!I',~,I!",~,1"1'

/7-t..Lt...1.

laaqso1qde~8odolfN'qlaqez113uopaseg-fN'q~aqez113·6.deW

~~i> ~~.,

IIR<

wr~~ y~~~~

i·.i!i~·it.

'f!..:~~:'.:':'!J.~

(I

to.

..'

~.~~"

,...,'~tt,"i,J;'~'''fi-;ty~,*

,.,.,'ixf'.... ··•.,,"t\,=:\w-lb

,.",' ,t,•• t;tt,"

,~

'%:~I,

,po.II'l .~.·./I'~::::::'il

a ~~

tt

l~<~~:~~'a· ~~~~ ,~,':':':':'~:''':':''',: ~""'''''''IoT('••'.' •.....~:«::.:-..J'~',I'

."pi -.

.~~.:...\ ~\"\"

'.~,

t',t",,"

t,,,,,,

••'."•

·,

"P~

::.:.:,\

~

\

~

\

\\

I,

"-

~

\---.-l.tO.l· ===

,,1'Zvt6arl

\

I'<,

\

\\

\

\,

:n•.•'IV:JIJJlVNI

-~.\J..:',,

••-II

~~..~.~.-··.-t'!.~~"!'y',I,

,•••-.~I,

-,-\-.'I' ,.'

Iil',t,,

[:~' ,':;",~,""',, '""",t-",

'""", ,,..",,,, l'lt."",,'W',,,,\. ;.',,,,,,'.•..,..•:,TT";,,"

,,,-.::..',',,'II

J"'\',,,,,,',I

't,tI""T,'~It I,.J,~.,"If'1',•I,,l"~"",,\.,I'".,..".,,!-:.:~~.:.~~.I•,,,,'Z·::i.i.t.nfll'

I'I"••(\,•r·:....,,t ~t''Tt4••·~J..lt'I,.,,t,~•.w8WUI~,L..1,t,',t

~ti'::,~~ "tI,..,t,",;.,,,,4.1:':'".""

/:"---,.-'...,-"" ~'•.....,,t1·,,,• ~",._\'."")"•.•'~~~l:l'3tI'" I'•,p"',.,'."!,','~,r;~,M·~"i,','I,,...,~Sl!I,l,,,,,,•I

(',t'It""'"

~"',"""\',',',\',,'.'""",.""".. "'"I"~"~"~ "'"""'"t~.~",'.f!.',"",." \,,...·~'.---,l,,,"t;.,--,~ol.'I\,,,,•\II'"'-.t"" ,··'f.\'..•. ..:'.,I",'II'',,''

\1'••.,':.,'l..".'

",,'I" "rT,

t,~.~.\;.:::.,."..f,..~,..,,\.r.·f,,, ~..-.-,'...••-:,t,.'j..I

-";".',.:.....j,\",.,.."I\t;.',~V,,',,'.'..'

~::~:~,''-~.'.~~\\:'~:~:::::'/:?-/~.~-."

\'.',,--='.,,,

·I:~~:;,\. C;~;:*,"\'~;~A:.,:-;'.;.-.•-'?-:::-"'~''i\,."';::::·::;'~oi·),.,M:aN

\i~·~;'i~~·f,.' ",'·1~'.~,~~~',':,";~~~.' r,.",~

r.":..';.::~].1,.•£("

~~~~nrf.~~\\':::.!l:r

/:~;;-...•~ ........, ;,.••VIJ··"

Ic::

o'"\::::t

•..~::l

c:::

I'

..,

(J

,,,,

,~\'~.' -

.•.•.•

w,

:II,:~,.

,,I,

'-,"\,t;:,

~'T)' ~",:,\',.,l' ,,",-;;

'~~."~'I,, tt.'~;.~' t)'.,

''';',t\",:.o.

".;.,

.;~:& cs:.'~','

•••II)

d~paddZU'edde~Ol-JdAHiUQspnH

t

i~

"t~l."lr.

:.~\ ii\

) NAUTICAL. MIL.E

1iII

·lIIIi

I

I

SCAL.t: 1:40.000

Y 0w

Ii

i~

I-'~Brooklyn

KINGS I COUNTY•II

II

lI.

J E RISE

I ::- ~~~

I~~rK-

N E IW

HUOSON

ilfII ""111"';1'11'.

-h=;~-~

.~...

~'r~'", ,'a'

,'il.}'t 'J~~ k~~'J' .,.~; :\9\1 ").-'j

~~'\~"\\':)

,,0"..... l-

000'0""7'lY.)S

'(,,t'=,,.,"l,.

~,"',,::,f~ '!~fJ..",;::.to, .:••'(1'

'10,.';"·i·~'!!.,'i~~~~

''',~~

i// i

I:;"

I'·,' ~:~'O,

1'1:, ~~..

SCIIU:: 1:·\11.1")0

\ /"

o NAUTICAL MII.t:

't:l_t=....

oCI')

't::e:c-

II)...

0;e:o

...l

~"CI

~ ~~ C-. Cl:-,

..:

II~!;,

B

"'I' " ,1,1· ~ II , I"1 II

,,

>''''3''''~toCd

.52C1:l

§..,

III"Z

><

2-~IolUC-

I

u~2-

I

~

I ~

-I~<

§;;:..

:.;...•,"\

.~\".~ ,• I

'i-l

~~--OJ.

~\.\ .

•.;. 'X

I:

~~:-r-

~~

~

~- ."C

l

s:::III

r-4I/)t-4s:::

QJ

<6-JIII

<6-J

tf.Is:::

•...Q

J<

6-JI/)

QJ

~.d <6-J:;j0 tf.I. III\0P.;;!

',. ."

.1_

.""

.•.,.."

&

.~~*~.,-!

.·

,'"

!J.~.:."t~•••••

.~

.,."

~'.'.•.~

"

...

.\..~~$,,>

f.:..l:<l

'{••

$§$:u:;,~~

'l~',$~,§~f'>

ll:t:.....~

/I,,'

~~

:>\.::

!..

0~

x31S

31a

p,,~

•.~~~

'\'::':::':~,i..~·

../....•.\'\

.."

A3

S1:::113('

JV(:::9'N

.-~~

~~

J\:,\'..'.""

,~

'~•.;".

A"

~:-:>';"'"

'i"-.J

....1~~~

;.•

,&.

,,:i,

'-'W

''''''1''5~

.'-:.)-.

,'/u,•"

~.~

~~

-~~;..,•.~..~

..

~.~'~.'..S<

·;:!«'."/""","

,..,...,,""

.,~,:,-

~,.•./.~,

/'.t;),

.~....~~:"<'~

""'/.~''(~

~'.';,'....•

~~;:v}$"'<

'o(V.

~,"1,~~rljjI'

~...•9

\'~:Y

~.

',

'&~

%~

:~~~~,\l

'I,'

~"?i$,'lI~

\f,

'{,:~.

No#'

'\'

I.'·r.~

:~~

,•..;~

~"

I'

~'f\,©:~

'\%').

It~

l'"

.•I

•'

II

'l(o~\'!."

,,

••..~

~.

~,>

p,,

',

,,

,~.•.

~.

1t•

,•

•t"

..'t~

'(r.'

_'

Ist'.

,•

.~:)

~~

i,

,'t',

.'.,

,•••

'';0,\

~~'

"f'~

1

,","1"

""

,,',"r'

,f'

•

'1'1"

;$.,

.'.

t,\

.'"

•~~,

t.'1

,t

't

t,.

'tI't

••'

"(0,'

•

...,.,"

"

tt~~'

t'.~t

t't

,t~

t,.>..

,:,!.t.{••

;,','

~••.,•.:..,.

X'

{W!\.I'}"

,~

,••

,I

"""

I

~.,••

!.J.'a,

'•

't...."

•I.~,fI"'

tW"

'VI

"I·.

I•

''

,!',.•••,'

.mkX

,liI

r,f

tt•

t\\;.;..:i,,',~'l""

,,',l~

'lr.',I

.:::::,.,/f"

-i8*

/J"•.b.•'.i

•

.r,,,

~•,r;,

", "

,.

«

\

t•

IW~"~-

,.:,...~~;1

•••'-~"'7:'.'-·

aN0

~H

"I

U~

ri1i~~

,-.J

I;.)1'..••

]'.""

>Ia:I0

A':'M

3oIukJJi/}h0,

.!I,.JJ,<'/F

.,,•,.

N•,,,,•

I~

"••

s.,

•.t"

••"",

i'fk'"

'.•'•

t',.',',N

.,'•

t.''.'.

":':o'hl'.

,,

.,

,.

W.\\'f

I~

is§1O

f,

,,

•"

'M"

I,

,,

•'*

~"

•••,

••"

••,

••,

#,,*'f

••••'.

"••••

,,""

~"v"""iIt"

~j~..","""'.'

I•')I"~""".'II>

•,

~,.

""I

.''."Jhu

',',I'~

'.",

,••

,.'

,".

I.~

tW

•,'.'

,•

"fl.'

,•

"•

'W,t"

,'~.,'t'.'~'·

-0;.;".

~QI,

t

!)~

Map 6b. Southern Raritan Bay

.,.

..!i

~

c

-+

~

~-~--

~~

--.

+-

"\j ~ I~

t:: CQ~

- -+

CI)

:-:~-

,'v

.• .•-*..-4- .~

l@

,',

~,' II II IIII I ~. II illll,~ II,

'.

:J)

tjco-••••

>.

~

III

j:Q

3

~

CII:t0

0

...:l

I I

~

C

>.pool,lit!.00~j:Q."0\0C.

III::c::

.'rl'.''III''IIII,MI'I!i1'~'I""IIIPl1'·,·,t'I'"111,''~'j"Ij11'''1''II~I'I'III~1'1'II'!II"II,il~''~,I,~"

IL-e.-tn

d~m~1qd~~god01AOqmyq1noSuopas~H-fN'AOqmvq1nos

Nc)J"C!.~:,)li"'~

~::~.,,~, ,

~

.,

'..

~

","

,",-, \"....

}~

",

i~

, l'Il~~ •,t

, "

t

t,,

",,~:..~;~:..

."',;,".,>••iXi!~~.):@k.":7/'-"f~"~U"z.;P,~';,:-;":.'~';.':.'·~~-''i.t:!:Z'·""PJ<-_·'''''•."•..•• .:·.·.'>..n-~.,_....-."",,."

"'~"~~.C;,•••<~:~..,~.:~:;~.~,~.'.-;::.\'.::i\i;..'.;'.~_'"

,;\~',,',..';;~:\~;!itj.;N!.;;~!:: ',;,;;:3,

;.~;,','~"',:/:1ft;"""',':._:::.~~;':....,:'II:.,-.........,.(" .'::':'••4",'-

".-,;,;;"",'-J!;.,..'" ','",.F"".~•.J.',,'~"""t..-~j,,,,'••_,\,

~,,~,,>"-""'.'"r,,__,t."''If•••,<"'C,,<;,·~4..'~'.'''''If"•;",> ••••"k';;~r",·,,,,,••••••~i2iij..•':',c"

'",''~,~.?;',r;'~~."",,',;.:).};':\:'~'",""_7.',"1;~:L?~"t_"'"~'I:.),~. ',''':::''¥',~,,;:;'.,~';.'.'t";(''If,.~.,"y.'-(. '"'-'.,.:.'·•.,....,-b....;'0,"1",.'\

',~,-.~.r.-'.~)_,.~,.':.,"'.•,,,,,·!/L.7-+:.;%"~,.~~:r.','~, •',','+.' ',+•'/1,/<,~-·';.l,~..•tr.t'"", ,+/"."-1':'''""";.",

•••••"~","-<i't<""0~""•• '"'""""'.''>''•'let', ''"!"l~l~,'..•.~••"~••;_'.'.:. 'It'\,,-'~""J':'•.''"l·l.•.~(.f,••.•• ;.:.,-•(v.t,,

,,,,'..•,,r'.'"',, ',,,""'-'-,,,,'.":.,.~::.",.. ''",",,,,,"".••.....',',t"'t','"'."',,~,' "'"~,(v

",'w',t",,'.,,,•'J'::,,"t,t,

',,~1t'r.,•~.".4_',,,.,/.' .•!,t;0:*,~.J;-"'','J:";'f~.,,~,\~;VY

,,.~.,'~,, "","",,"T;' "'",.., t,,",'••,.t_,/0''"",',",,,,,:J.&J'",',,,".:,, ,,",,••,t, "",,,'.),, ',''.•..i' 'r';'

'~"~"~,, ,·,.

"I'".

, t, t,,' , ,H\

r

"

t,.

,,,"

.':,r

,•

"r

-.'

,,

tf1,.", ,,,,

t'0,')•.rr;~~

'.~""

••';t,

,t

,

, "' ••

.,:...•.,

tf

"f,

, ,,t,, "",

"

, y'

'...

}'Jf:''r;-

,.

",',',. ,t,, "",,,,, "",',

9,"" ,,,, , •t, ..

,t•

~~i~:~~:~ ~;~~

,' t

!,

.rt·"'~I''':.

l{~:}Y';'~~

t:,..~~

.,~.f

~~.~..~. 'll

.f{t,{ <f,~~~"i

::ii}~~J~':, •••:-- I

.'11) ..•.., ••• 0'/

f.§'/5-; .-rlt~~

...- .

f

.~-,

Map 8. Weehawken NJ - Based on Weehawken, NJ topographic sheet

APPENDIX E

The Influence of Urban Structure and Human Settlementon Birdlife in the

New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary

by

Nels Earrett

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary EiologyThe University of Connecticut

"

TIlE INFLUENCE OF URBAN STRUcruRE AND HUMAN SElTLEMENTON BIRDLIFE IN THE NEW YORKINEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY

AREA

Ne1s Barrett

Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyThe University of Connecticut

THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN STRUCTURE AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTON BIRDLIFE IN lHE NEW YORKINEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY

AREA

Nels Barrett


INTRODUCTION

Urban environments in the New York/New Jersey Harbor EstuaryProgram (NYINJ HEP) region vary widely from built-up, densely populatedareas, e.g. New York County, 64,922persons/square mile (1990census) to lessbuilt-up, unsettled,and more natural areas, like Jamaica Bay. Urbanization ischaracterized by extensive modification of the landscape by human designand the dispersion of people in such landscapes. Therefore, depending on thedegree of urbanization, a wide spectrum of 'habitats' is produced. Theseurban habitats may represent original cover, such as, wetlands, woodlands,and parks, or more modified habitats, like gardens, city parks, cemeteries,schoolyards, golf courses, derelict lands, landfills, raUyards, petroleum storageareas, commercial/industrial sites, and residential areas.

Of equal importance as the range in the types of habitats, is the scale ofthe habitat mosaic as imposed. by humans. In more rural areas, habitatheterogeneity is influenced by topography, geomorphology, and less intensiveland use, often yielding more uniform habitat cover sometimes over aconsiderable area. In stark contrast, cities, owing to the effects of humanculture and technology, exhibit dramatic habitat changes over short distances,creating a small scale habitat mosaic. Therefore, the occupancy of urbanhabitats by wildlife varies not only with the suitability of a specific habitat toprovide essential needs for wildlife in specific habitats, but also upon theinfluence of the surrounding habitat mosaic.

The analog of island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson 1967) hasbeen forwarded to explain species distributions on 'habitat islands' of urbanecosystems, but has met with mixed success. Problems with the conceptinclude identifying outside reservoirs for recruitment, separating pseudoturnover from colonization, and addressing the impacts of humandisturbance (Davis and Glick 1978). However, it is clear that the range and

number of habitats must be considered as interrelated, not as separate units.This study examines the influence of the urban landscape on birdlife from a·broad, regional perspective. Birds were chosen as the subject of study becausemore information existed on their distribution in the NY INJ HEP regionthan for other organisms.

Birdlife status and habitat suitability for birds of the NYINJ REP regionwere evaluated using an extensive, comparative approach. The aim of thisapproach was to measure the effects of urban landscape patterns ongeographical patterns of bird use and Wer a general explanation. Tocharacterize the urban landscape pattern in a manner ecologically meaningfulfor birds, the 'representativeness' of the habitats were assessed as the measureof the contribution of different habitats to each geographic site.Representativeness is defined as the range in variation of habitats thatcontribute to the landscape mosaic at each site. Note that representativenessdoes not simply refer .to the notion of typicalness or common occurrence(Austin and Margules 1986). Therefore, changes in habitat representativenessmay be used to identify how the surrounding habitat mosaic affectsconstituent bird communities. Assuming that the distribution of birds isassociated with changes in habitat representativeness reflecting bird use, afunctional 'guild' approach was used (Root 1967). Although the usefullnessof guilds is debated (Bayer and Porter 1988),the results here were expected tobe more interpretable and generalizable when the studies conducted at broadscales.

The SPecificobjectives of this study were:

(1) to characterize the habitat representativeness of selectedgeographic sites throughout the NYIN} liEP region,

(2) to characterize the guild spectrum of those geographic sitesaccording to various ecological bird classifications,

(3) to evaluate structural habitat categories as determinants of the birdguilds, and

(4) to determine the influence of urbanization on birdlife.

'" '''I'

METHODS

Selection of geographical sites:

Twenty sites were selected throughout the NY /NJ fIEP region. Siteswith adequate information on birds were selected from sources identified inthe Atlas of Parks and Natural Areas Within the Vicinity of NY/N/ HarborEstuary (Appendix). These sites collectively represented an adequategeographical coverage of the NY /N} HEP Study Area.

Habitat categories:

The relevant habitat attributes had to be chosen to reflect the limits

imposed by the broad, regional scale of the study and the need to somehowevaluate wildlife/bird use of habitat. In this study, the working definition ofhabitat is based on the notion of 'place.' As landscape units, these categoriesof habitat are defined in broad physiognomic terms. Habitat 'structure' isboth ecologically meaningful to birds and wildlife in general and can easily bedetermined from the field or the literature. Habitat categories were adaptedfrom subclasses of the National Wetland Inventory of the U. S. Fish andWildlife Service (Cowardin et ai. 1979) conducted in 1976 and U.S.G.S. 7.5'quadrangle series (Kalafus unpublished maps). Map references, reliability,and dates are listed in the Atlas (Appendix). Nine habitat categories wererecognized: water, flats, shores, estuarine, palustrine, nonforest, forest, seminatural, and urban areas (built-up areas that can not be defined by other .structural categories of habitat).

Habitat representativeness

Habitat representativeness is a measure of the range of different.habitats found within each site. Throughout the NY /NJ HEP region, habitatrepresentativeness was evaluated using physiognomic criteria. The .representation of areal coverage of habitat categories was determined within acircular area of 100 km2, centered on each of the designated natural areas (5.6km radius). Habitat categories were determined at a scale of 1:24000 (0.61

lan/inch) at a resolution of 0.023 km2 (approx. 4200 units/site). Geographicalsites chosen at this size adequately describe the larger landscape mosaicsurrounding the natural area. At this scale, the geographical sites collectivelycovered most of the area of the NY /NJ HEP region with some overlap. Unitsfor representativeness are expressed by proportion, where the total equals

one. Areal coverages of habitat may be obtained by multiplying by 100sinceall samples are of equal size.

Birds: composition, species richness, and guild structure

The presence/absence of bird species at each geographic site wereprovided by sources identified in the Atlas (Appendix). These sources werelargely checklists compiled by park personnel or compiled by local birdingclubs. Such checklists provide a cumulative list of bird occurrences withineach site. While the reliability of these checklists is assumed to be adequate,not all geographic sites have had bird records collected for equal amounts oftime. Species richness of birds was calculated as the total of all occurrences ofbird species for each geographic site.

The guild structure of the bird communities was used to combine·individual species into ecologically meaningful groups that respond in asimilar fashion to changes in habitat (DeGraaf and Rudis 1986). The guildstructure was based on four ecological classifications, standardized in recentpublications (DeGraaf and Rudis 1986, DeGraff et al. 1985,Freemark andMeniam 1986, Bu1l1964), i.e. (1) migratory status, (2) foraging stratum, (3)breeding status and, (4) breeding stratum, ..

Site similarity (cluster analysis)

Cluster analysis was used to evaluate the dissimilarity among sitesacross the NY/NJ REP region. Average linkage cluster analysis (SAS 1985)was performed to evaluate dissimilarity among groups (Le. a hierarchicalmeasure of degradation). To determine the appropriate number of clustersand groupings, the total peak value of Pseudo F scores and simultaneous dipof Pseudo t2 scores were used as the diagnostic criteria (SAS1985).

Two cluster analyses were performed separately, (1) on the basis ofhabitat and (2) on guild structure of a site. Areal coverages of habitats werelog transformed to better approximate a normal distribution. Comparisonsbetween the results of the separate cluster analyses were made:

Habitat differences as indicators of wildlife use (regression analysis) andeffects of urbanization

Multiple linear regressions were used to determine the relationshipsbetween each bird guild and habitat categories. Regressions were done using

,~ "I I

stepwise backward elimination (SAS 1985). Th~ relative importance of eachvariable was considered significant at p < 0.1 (SAS1985).

Changes in bird species richness with respect to increasing urbanizationwere noted. Also, trends of total species richness with respect to the degree ofurbanization for each site were ranked and summarized.

RESULTS

Study sites within the region

The geographical locations of the study sites show the extent ofcoverage throughout the NYINJ HEP region (Figure 1).

Habitat representativeness

Habitat representativeness summarizes the surrounding areal coverageof nine different habitat categories within a circle of 100 km2 area centered ona specific natural area or park site (Table 1). The range in area of differenthabitats among sites shows just how variable the habitats are in the NYINJHEP area from a regional perspective. The most variable habitat category isurban area. The range in the amount of urban area may be visualized as thedegree of urbanization across the NYINJ HEP region. A gradient ofurbanization is suggested in the rank order of sites by increasing urbanization(Figure 2).

Birds

A total of 316 bird species was tallied for all sites. The number of birdspecies occurring at each site varied throughout the NYIN} HEP region.Generally, bird species richness tends to decline with increasing urbanizationaccording to sites ranked in order of increasing urbanization (Figure 3). Notethat exceptions to this inverse trend are evident (Figure 4; R2 = 0.294)

The ecological classification of bird species into guilds based on (1)migratory status, (2) foraging stratum, (3) breeding status, and (4) breedingstratum is summarized in Table 2. The guild structure for each site issummarized in Table 3.

III /,.,/

~MONMOUTH CO

L

ATLANTIC

SCALE 1:450.000

10 IS20 SAI."T1CAL MILES (l 10 20 KlLOM£n:RS

Figure 1. Geographic locations of 2() study sites representing the greaterNY INJ HEP region. Key to site abbreviations (for additional information seeAtlas (Appendix): SH, Sandy Hook; CQ, Cheesequake; HM, HackensackMeadowlands; LP, Liberty Park; SG, Staten Island Greenbelt; SP, Staten IslandPoiilon Avenue Wetlands; 51, Staten Island South; SN, Staten IslandNorthwest;}B, Jamaica Bay; FB, Floyd Bennett Field; MP, Marine Park; CP,Cunningham Park; UC, Udall's Cove; FP, Forest Park; KP, Kissena Park; RP,Riverdale Park; VC, VanCortlandt Park; PB, Pelham Bay Park; AP, AlleyPond; HH, Hastings-on-Hudson.

Iii ""I' ~- II

,.~ 'i

".

Comparisons among sites

A dendrogram showing dissimilarity among sites based on habitatcriteria (Figure 5) shows six major groupings (average linkage distance of0.75). A dendrogram showing dissimilarity among sites based on guildcriteria (Figure 6) shows six major groupings (average linkage distance of0.53).

The geographical representation of each cluster analysis (Figure 7a and 7b)shows that the grouping of sites based on habitats has strong geographicaffinities among sites, i.e. adjacent sites tended to be grouped together. Thissame trend is not evident in the groupings of sites based on bird guildstructure (with the pos,sibleexception of ffii, RP, VC, FP, AP, CP, and KP).Clusters based on bird guild structure appear more strongly related to trendsin species richness.

Effectsof habitat categories on bird species:

Regression analysis shows how the importance of habitat categories asdeterminants of each bird guild varied among the 18 guilds defined. Thosehabitat categories that could contribute significantly (p < 0.10) in predictingeach ecological class of birds are listed in Table 4. As an example, consider themigratory status of birds. Short term migrants were largely associated withwater and urban areas. These results suggest large concentrations ofwaterbirds and perhaps edge species more tolerant of human settlement.Similarly, long distance migrants were associated with estuarine and forestcategories, reflecting shorebirds and neotropical migrants, respectively.Resident birds, most tolerant of human presence, were predicted by the urbancategory. Estuarine, palustrine, water, urban area, and forest were the mostcommon habitat categories se~ected.

Conversely, habitat categories which did not contribute significantlytoward predicting any particular guild may be informative. For example,different guilds of birds listed by breeding stratum were largely determined bytwo wetland habitats, estuarine and palustrine habitats, and to a lesser degreenonforested areas. Breeding activity was not predicted by other habitatcategories as expected. Assuming that guild assignments and habitatcategories were appropriate, these results suggest absent habitat categorieswere not important to that particular guild and/or the influence of_confounding factors not considered in the model.

-i ~ \

~ wz ~ ~!z0.

5w

en ~ Go0.

4~

~

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

9iJB

MP

SP

FB

PO

CO

SI

93H

Ml.C

•.••

SN

LPR

'~

KP

FP

AP

CP

SIT

ES

RA

NK

ED

BY

INC

RE

AS

ING

UR

BA

NIZ

AT

ION

E:]

sem

inat

ural

mfo

rest

iiino

nfor

est

•pa

lust

rine

oes

tuar

ine

EI

beac

hes

•fta

ts•

wal

8r•

urba

n

:: ...

Figu

re2.

Hab

itat

repr

esen

tativ

enes

sof

20st

udy

site

sin

the

NJ7

NY

HE

Pre

gion

eval

uate

don

the

basi

sof

9ha

bita

tca

tego

ries

.Si

tes

are

rank

edac

cord

ing

toin

crea

sed

urba

niza

tion.

The

key

toge

ogra

phic

site

abbr

evia

tions

are

from

Figu

re1.

The

actu

alar

eal

cove

rage

sar

elis

ted

inT

able

1.

300

200

~iC[f

l ~

~

VJ

a..

i10

0

Y

fTJ

UJ

o!Ii

JBM

PS

PF

UP

Bm

SI

S3

•.••

•LC

f-H

SN

LPF

P~

KP

FP

AP

CP

SIT

ES

RA

NK

ED

BY

INC

RE

AS

ING

UR

BA

NIZ

AT

ION

"

Figu

re3.

Bir

dsp

ecie

sri

chne

ssof

indi

vidu

alsi

tes

rank

edby

incr

easi

ngur

bani

zatio

n.

y '"' 242.47 - 170.40x R"2 '"' 0.294

300

00

I"""--

0

I 200I0

~ 00 ~

l00~

55~~

io 0

0~

0

o0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

. URBANIZATION

Figure 4. Inverse relationship of bird species richness and urbanization.

I II, . -1"1'I, •• "'I" II

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1 Yo \1

'\

Sand

yH

ook

Stat

enIs

.Po

illon

Ave

.St

aten

Is.G

reen

belt

Stat

enIs

.So

uth

Che

eseq

uake

'"St

aten

Is.N

orth

wes

t~

Jam

aica

Bay

Mar

ine

Park

Floy

dB

enne

ttFi

eld

~H

acke

nsac

kM

eado

ws

Ube

rty

Park

Pelh

amB

ayPa

rkU

dall'

sC

ove

Kis

sena

Park

Fore

stPa

rkA

lley

Pond

Cun

ning

ham

Park

Has

tings

-on-

Hud

son

Riv

erda

lePa

rkV

anC

ortla

ndt

Park

•.

/

1.1

1.2

Figu

re5.

Den

drog

ram

base

don

habi

tatc

rlte

ria

(dus

teri

Ilg-

liase

aon

pseu

doF

and

pseu

do12

scor

esw

ithav

erag

elin

kage

dist

ance

of0.

75(S

AS

1985

).

- ~"'"

~ ,.J

dC ()

Sand

yH

ook

Pelh

amB

ayPa

rkSt

aten

Is.

Sout

hH

acke

nsac

k~e

adol

Vs

Jam

aica

Bay

~ari

nePa

rk

Floy

dB

enne

ttFi

eld

Che

eseq

uake

Ube

rty

Park

Stat

enIs

.N

orth

lVes

tSt

aten

Is.

Poill

onA

ve.

Has

tings

-on-

Hud

son

Riv

erda

lePa

rk

Cun

ning

ham

Park

Fore

stPa

rkK

isse

naPa

rkV

anC

ortla

ndt

Park

Alle

yPo

nd~

Stat

enIs

.G

reen

belt

Uda

ll's

Cov

e

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

figu

re6.

Den

drog

ram

base

don

bird

guild

crite

ria

(cft

iste

ring

oase

duon

pSeu

do-f

and

pseu

dot2

scor

esw

ithav

erag

elin

kage

dist

ance

of0.

53(S

AS

1985

).

~ <¥ ~, --l

aA

OC

~U>

NO

COI

Ij

\,\.

,.'Y

,.

W(s

TC

HrS

~AC

O/'/

./

~l~

:::'"'. , \

AT

LA

N

b

I I~

A()

C~U

>N

OC

O

iiI

.\,.,/

~'

W(S

TcO

Irsl

£AC

~,/'·

"'·

.

~~

~.•

..'\

Jr\\

1\.,

AT

lAN

,.•.

Fig

ure

7.G

eogr

aphi

cal

repr

esen

tati

onof

site

grou

ping

s:(a

)gr

oupi

ngs

base

don

habI

tatc

rIte

ria~

and

(b)

grou

ping

sba

sed

onbi

rdgu

ildcr

iter

ia.

DISCUSSION

Interpreting the ecological significance of bird species distributions bygeographical comparison at a broad, regional scale is difficult.. Using anextensive, comparative approach has both pitfalls and advantages (Peters et al.1991). Guild analysis, although subject to some debate (Bayer and Porter 1988)is a more interpretable and functional approach (DeGraaf et al. 1985). Guildanalysis has revealed how birds use a mosaic of different habitats that describeeach geographic site across the NY INJ HEP region. Habitat Iguild relationsshown by regression were generally reasonable, yet some results wereunexpected or unintuitive (e.g. lack of predictable breeding activity).Exceptionally broad habitat categories (DeGraff and Chadwick 1984)andhabitats with much internal heterogeneity (Freemark and Merriam 1986) maynot be.well suited to distinguish among certain bird guilds. Consequently, thelack of discriminatory ~wer of such habitats causes more overlap thatexpected among the separate guilds within each ecological class of birds. Suchdeficits may be compensated by the regional scale of the study. Consideringlarge numbers of species will compensate for some lack in the discriminatingpower of the habitats (Degraff and Chadwick 1984). Also, more generalinterpreta~ons are acceptable in studies conducted at broader scales (Peters etal. 1991).

One major contribution of guild analysis has been to show the degreeof uniqueness among different sites (Degraff and Wentworth 1986). In thisstudy, the degree of geographical uniqueness is characterized by the habitatmosaic and the corresponding bird guild structure. Upon casual inspection,the lack of correspondence between the groupings based on the habitat mosaicand the groupings based on bird guild structure suggests that multiple habitatpreferences of some guilds (as selected by regression) may render directcomparison between habitat mosaic and guild structure more difficult. Analternate explanation is that habitat mosaic alone may not adequately explainthe regional distribution of birds.

Increasing urbanization coincides with a progressive decline in thesPecies richness of birds. This relationship is well documented (Noyes andProgulski 1973; Hounsome 1979; Gill and Bonnett 1973). Most accountsattribute this decline to habitat fragmentation, modification, and loss(Wilcove 1988; Freemark 1988; Hounsome 1979). However, exceptions to thisinverse trend between urbanization and species richness do occur when (1)sites with viable ~abitats exhibit unexpectedly low counts of species richness,and (2) sites largely composed of urban areas exhibit more species thanexpected. In the first case, species richness counts occurred lower thanexpected at Udall's Cove (UC), Staten Island Poillion Avenue wetlands (SP)and Staten Island Greenbelt (SG).· A depauparate avifauna may occur in smallpark areas such as UC as a consequen~e of high recreational demands,

"'I' ~ ~,a II ,~, .111 IIHi ,I I ,,'ll I, ~> II II I,,"~III IHI 11.1~,

I I I ""t ,,. ,I, , ' '" "'I' I "'II' i' 'r

regardless of habitat. The recreational density and the recreational pattern ofhuman use can depress bird species richness if the frequency wildlife/humanconflicts are common. This is especially. true of parks in highly urbanizedcenters (Gill and Bonnett 1973) and small parks with exceptional recreationaldemands (Gilbert 1989).

Habitat modification may also depress bird species richness if basicneeds become limiting (e.g. food, water, cover, roost, and nest sites). Highlymanaged landscapes (e.g. cemeteries and certain gardens) can exhibit a veryspecific flora and fauna (Gilbert 1989). Lack of habitat heterogeneity can limitthe number of species found there (Gilbert 1989,Freemark 1988)

It is conceivable that low bird count can be attributable to an artifact ofthe study. This may be due to either inadequate data or short length ofbirding records (e.g. SG is represented by a single survey of High Rock Park)

The second noted exception to the inverse trend between urbanizationand bird species richness occurred when largely urbanized areas exhibitcounts higher than expected (e.g. Staten Island (51),Hackensack Meadowlands·(HM), and Forest Park (FP». In such cases, greater bird species richness mayreflect the absence of human disturbance. Birds are not displaced becauseconflicts with humans are infrequent or absent. .As a technological landscape,urban areas show a wide range in land use and human occupation. Unsettledurban areas, such as petroleum storage areas, derelict railways and lots, andabandoned landfills many be poor habitats for wildlife, but these areas are notfrequented by people. Unsettled urban areas provide refugia for spe~estolerant of urban habitat conditions but less tolerant of human presence orsettlement. Areas where people are actively excluded, like tank farms alongthe Arthur Kill (51),are a good example.

The historic pattern of bird use along the Hudson River flyway offersanother plausible explanation for high species richness within a particularsite. The birds are following ancient pattern of the flyway and have notaltered those patterns in the face of urbanization. The HackensackMeadowlandss (HM), besides having large unsettled tracts of land, hashistorically supported a rich avifauna. In addition, Forest Park (FP) situated ata higher elevation than surrounding areas, may have historically interceptedwoodland migrants upon arrival. Also, species richness may be due to habitatisland effects. Birds use habitat islands as refugia, and in seeking food cover,etc., they may become concentrated

In summary, two general factors emerge that may explain thedistribution of birds throughout the NY/N} HEP region at the scale of thisstudy. The first factor is structural urbanization, as a gradient of landscapechanges from a largely biological landscape to a technological, urbanizedlandsc..'':.pe.The second factor is the human population gradient fromunsettled landscapes to highly populated landscapes. If we visualize changes

in structural urbanization and human population as two opposing axes, theresulting ordination shows the variability of landscapes found in the NY/NJHEP region. The four extreme endpoints of the ordination can be used tocategorize four major landscape types (adapted from Gilbert 1989)and theireffect upon bird species richness (Figure 8).

(1) 'Dynamic natural' landscape, where patterns and processes arehistorically natural elements of the landscape which have not been severelyaffected by human technology or by human presence. Examples of thislandscape type include more remote natural areas where human/wildlifeconflicts are minimal.

(2) 'Gardenesque' landscape, where natural patterns and processes aremodified by human design and are managed to include human recreation orsettlement. Examples of this type include gardens, parkland, and seminatural areas such as campuses ..

(3) 'Unsettled urban' landscape, where technological patterns andprocesses have displaced natural landscapes but lack the human presence ofsettled landscapes. Examples of this landscape type include petroleum tankfarms, where people are actively excluded, and may include other derelicturban sites or remote urban areas where human/wildlife conflicts areminimal. .

(4) 'Settled urban' landscape, where technology has dramaticallymodified natural patterns and processes or provided artificial substituteswhich are managed solely for human activities and/or occupation .. Examplesof this landscape type include highly populated urban centers and-residentialcomplexes.

I'Iii ;illl

structural urbanizationgradient

biological technological

humanpopulation

gradient

unsettled

settled

dynamic unsettlednatural

urbanlandscape

landscape

gardenesque

settledlandscape

urbanlandscape

Figure 8. Categories of urban landscapes based on the structural urbanizationgradient and the human population gradient.

These categories approximate the system used. by Gilbert (1989) withadditional emphasis on human presence. The general inverse trend betweenbird species richness and urbanization remains preserved in the relationbetween the dynamic natural landscape and the settled urban landscape.However, variations in this trend can be realized as more than simplyexceptions and are depicted by the gardenesque and the unsettled urbanlandscapes (notwithstanding other compounding factors such as historic birduse patterns and habitat island effects).

Implications of the findings on wildlife management in urban landscapes

The ecological consequences of urbanization have created a challengefor many professional managers of diverse backgrounds, {rom urbanecologists to landscape designers (seeBornkam et al. 1990,Laurie 1979,Gilland Bonnett 1980, Gilbert 1989). Currently, managers are advocating anecosystem viewpoint, acknowledging urbanization as an "ecological forcingfunction" responsible for dramatic changes in environment that distinguishcities from rural areas (McDonnell and Pickett, 1990). By applying ecologicalprinciples to address wildlife problems in urban landscapes, managers hope torealize the maximum potential of the habitat for wildlife. ''Naturalisticlandscaping" (Kenfield 1966), "restoration ecology" Gordan et al. 1987), andthe "ecological approach" (Gilbert 1989) represent cogent approaches toembellish wildlife habitat by emulating a dynamic natural landscape bysoundly applying ecological principles.

However, planning for habitat must also include a willingness toperceive humans as a biological component of the ecosystem (McDonnell andPickett 1990). These findings imply that if the limited occurrence of manybird species is attributable not only to habitat limitations but also to being lesstolerance of human presence, than we should infer that habitat managementmust also include people management. Minimizing human/wildlife conflictby controlling human access and educating people about wildlife needs areessential steps toward providing and sustaining adequate habitat refuges forwildlife in a variety of urban landscapes.

""I'II

Tab

le1.

Are

alco

vera

ge(k

m2)

of9

diff

eren

tha

bita

tsw

ithin

a5.

6km

radi

us(1

00km

2)su

rrou

ndin

gea

chge

ogra

phic

site

.Pr

opor

tiona

lva

lues

for

each

habi

tat

wer

eus

edto

asse

ssha

bita

tre

pres

enta

tiven

ess.

Geo

grap

hic

Site

Urb

anW

ater

Est

uar-

Pal

us-

-Non

--Se

mi-

Tot

alar

eas

bodi

esF

lats

Bea

ches

ine

trin

efo

rest

For

est

natu

ral

Sand

yH

ook

(SH

)

10.3

078

.00

3.70

1.00

1.80

0.00

3.40

1.70

0.10

100.

00

Jam

aica

Bay

(JB

)

13.9

048

.00

19.1

01.

0010

.40

0.00

7.10

0.20

0.30

100.

00M

arin

ePa

rk(M

P)21

.00

51.4

011

.60

2.00

4.10

0.00

8.40

0.00

1.50

100.

00St

aten

Is.,

Poill

onA

ve.

(SP)

34.7

037

.70

5.70

1.00

1.50

1.00

9.10

8.50

0.80

100.

00

Floy

dB

enne

ttFi

eld

(FB

)

36.4

028

.70

16.0

01.

006.

400.

009.

600.

001.

9010

0.00

Pelh

amB

ayPa

rk(P

B)

36.4

047

.00

1.40

0.00

1.40

0.00

5.70

4.30

3.80

100.

00

Che

eseq

uake

Nat

.A

rea

(CQ

)

36.8

024

.70

6.50

0.00

7.70

2.00

J2.8

09.

000.

5010

0.00

Stat

enIs

.,So

uth

(51)

40.1

037

.40

5.60

0.00

1.30

1.00

6.40

7.60

0.60

100.

00St

aten

Is.,

Gre

enbe

lt(S

G)

50.6

015

.50

4.30

1.00

3.10

3.00

12.4

07.

702.

4010

0.00

Hac

kens

ack

Mea

dow

land

s(H

M)

50.9

012

.90

3.50

0.00

22.3

02.

006.

000.

202.

2010

0.00

Uda

ll's

Cov

e(U

C)

52.0

037

.60

0.60

0.00

0.30

0.00

2.80

2.00

4.70

100.

00

Has

tings

-on-

Hud

son

(HH

)

53.7

020

.60

0.00

0.00

1.30

2.00

5.10

15.9

01.

4010

0.00

tSt

aten

Is.,

Nor

thw

est

(SN

>53

.80

13.4

03.

300.

005.

803.

0013

.60

5.10

2.00

100.

00

Ube

rty

Park

Nat

Are

a(L

P)

55.0

036

.50

2.50

0.00

'0.

500.

003.

400.

002.

1010

0.00

Riv

erda

lePa

rk(R

P)56

.80

19.0

00.

000.

000.

001.

004.

1012

.30

6.80

100.

00V

anC

ortla

ndt

Park

(VC

)61

.80

17.5

00.

000.

000.

000.

003.

909.

307.

5010

0.00

~

Kis

sena

Park

(KP)

78.4

06.

301.

000.

000.

200.

006.

501.

106.

5010

0.00

Fore

stPa

rk(F

P)

80.4

01.

400.

000.

000.

200.

006.

200.

9010

.90

100.

00

\}J

Alle

yPo

ndPa

rk(A

P)81

.40

4.00

0.20

0.00

0.40

0.00

4.90

2.60

6.50

100.

00

Cun

ning

ham

Park

(a)

85.8

01.

600.

200.

0003

00.

0023

02.

607.

2010

0.00

Table 2. Ecological classifications of bird species recorded in the study areas. (Classes are:migratory status (i, resident; SO, short distance; LO, long distance), foraging stratum 0N,water; G, ground; A, air; LC, lower stratum including shrubs, UC, upper canopy; B, bark; 0,other), breeding status (B, breeding; N, not breeding), breeding stratum (G, ground; C, cliff; Le,lower stratum including shrubs; UC, upper canopy; H, cavity; 0,other). Nomenclature followsA.O.U. Checklist of the birds of North Amtriaz (6th ed. 1983). Migratory status determinedfrom Bull (1964) and A.O.U. Checklist (6th ed. 1983). Breeding status determined from Bull(1964) and Andrle and Carroll (1988). Foraging stratum and breeding stratum adapted fromDeGraaf and Rudis (1986).

Migratory

ForagingBreedingBreeding

51!.ecies

statusstratumstatusstratum

Red-throated Loon

SOWNG.:>&l ulOO Loon

SOWNPied-billed Grebe

SOWB0Horned Grebe

•SO

WNRed-necked Grebe

SOWNEared Grebe

SOWNWilson's Storm-Petrel

LOWNNorthern Gannet

SOWNGreat Cormorant

SOWNDouble-breasted Cormorant

RWB0American Bittern

SOWB0Least Bittern

RWB0Great Blue Heron

RWBLC

Great Egret

'SOWBLC

Snowy Egret

SOWBLC

Little Blue HeronSOWBLC

Tricolored Heron

SOWBLC

Cattle Egret

SDGBLC

Green-backed HeronSOWBLC

Black-crowned Night-Heron

RWBLC

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

SOWBLC

Glossy Ibis

SO0BGMute Swan

RWBG

Greater White-fronted Goose

SOGNSnow Goose

SOGNBrant

SOGNCanada Goose

RGBG

Wood DuckSOWBH

Green-winged Teal

SOWBGAmerican Black Duck

SOWBGMallard

RWBG

Northern Pintail

SOWN

Blue-winged Teal

SOWBG

Northern ShovelerSOWN

GadwallSOWBG

American Wigeon

SOW'BGCanvasback

SOWNRedhead

SOWN

Ring-necked Duck

SOWN-

'1'1'd!llI iit 'r

Greater Scaup SOWNLesser Scaup

SOWNCommon Eider

SOWNKing Eider

SOWNHarlequin Duck

SOWNOldsquaw

SOWNBlack Sooter

SOWNSurf Scoter

SOWN

White-winged Scoter

SOWNCommon Goldeneye

SOWNBarrow's Goldeneye

SOWNBufflehead

SOWNHooded Merganser

SOWNCommon Merganser

SDWNRed-breasted Merganser

SDWNRuddy Duck

SOWBGTurkey Vulture

RGBG

OspreySOWBUC

Bald EagleSOWN

Northern HarrierSOGBG

Sharp-shinned HawkSOABG

Cooper's HawkSOAN

Northern GoshawkSOAN

Red-shouldered HawkSOGBUC

Broad-winged HawkLOGBUC

Swainson's HawkLOGN

Red-tailed HawkRGBUC

Rough-legged Hawk

SOGN

Golden Eagle

SOGNAmerican Kestral

SOGB-.-UC

MerlinSOABUC

Peregrine Falcon

SOABC

Gyrfalcon

SOAN


RGBGRuffed Grouse

RGBGWild Turkey

RGBGNorthern Bobwhite

RGBGYellow Rail

SO0NBlack Rail

SO0NClapper Rail

SO0BGKing Rail

SO0NVirginia Rail

SO0BGSora

SO0BGCommon Moorhen

SO0BGAmerican Coot

SOWBGBlack-bellied Plover

SOGN

Lesser-golden Plover

LOGN

Semipalmated Plover

SOGN

Piping Plover

SOGBGKildeer

SOGBG

. American Oystercatcher

SOWBGBlack-necked Stilt

SO0NAmerican Avocet

SO0NGreater Yellowlegs

SOWN

Lesser Yellowlegs

.SO WN

Solitary SandpiperLOWN

WilletSOGBG

Spotted SandpiperSO0BG

Upland SandpiperLOGBG

Eskimo CurlewLOGN

WhimbrelSOGN

Hudsonian GodwitLOGN

Marbled GodwitSOGN

Ruddy TurnstoneSOGN

Red KnotSOGN

SanderlingSOGN

Semipalmated SandpiperSOGN

Western SandpiperSOGN

Least SandpiperSOGN

White-romped SandpiperLOGN

Baird's SandpiperLOGN

Pectoral Sandpiper'LOGN

Purple SandpiperSOGN

DunlinSOGN

Curlew SandpiperSOGN

Stilt SandpiperLOGN

Buff-breastedLOGN

Short-billed DowitcherSDGN

Long-billed DowitcherSOGN

Common SnipeSO·GN

American WoodcockSOGBG

Wilson's PhalaropeLOWN

Red-necked PhalaropeLOWN

Red PhalaropeLOWN

Pomarine JaegerLD0N

Parasitic JaegerLO0N

Long-tailed JaegerLO0N

Laughing GullLO0BG

Franklin's GullLO0N

Little GullLD0N

Common Black-headed GullLO0N

Bonaparte's GullSD0N

Ring-billed Gull

SO0NHerring Gull

R0BGIceland Gull

SO0NLesser Black-backed Gull

SO0NGlaU<DUSGull

SD0NGreat Black-backed Gull

SO0B"G

Black-legged Kittiwake

SOWNGull-billed Tern

LDWNCaspian Tern

SOWNRoyal Tern

SOWNRoseateTem

LOWNCommonTem

SDWBGArticTem

LOWNLeast Tern

LOWBGBlack Tern

LOWNBlack Skimmer

SOWBG

'" ,~I' I I, "

RcckDove RGBCMourning Dove

SO'GBUCMonk Parakeet

RGBLCBlack-hooded Parakeet

RGBUCBudgerigar

RGBLCBlack-billed Cuckoo

LOLCBLCYellow-billed Cuckoo

LOLCBLCBarn owl

RGBCEastern Screech..()wl

RGBHGreat Horned Owl

RGBUC

Snowy owl

SOGNBarred Owl

RGBH

Long-eared Owl

SOGBUCShort-eared Owl

SOGBGNorthern Saw-whet Owl

SOGBH

Common Nighthawk

LOABGChuck-will's-widow

LOANWhip-po or-will

SOABGChimney Swift

LOABC


LO0BLC

Belted Kingfisher

SOWB0Red-headed Woodpecker

SOBBH


R·BBH

Yellow-bellied SapsuckerSOBBH

Downy Woodpecker

RBBH

Hairy Woodpecker

RBBHNorthern flicker

SOGBH

Pileated Woodpecker

RBBH

Olive-sided Flycatcher

LOANEastern Wood-Peewee

LOABUC


LOAN

Acadian Flycatcher

LOABUC

Alder Flycatcher

LOABLC

Willow Flycatcher

LOABLC

Least Flycatcher

LOABUCEastern Phoebe

SOABC

Say's Phoebe

SOAN

Great Crested Flycatcher

LOABH

Western Kingbird

LOANHomed Lark

SOGBG

Purple Martin

LOABCTree Swallow

SOABH

Northern Rough-wg. Swallow

LOABCBank Swallow

LOABCCliff Swallow

LOANBarn Swallow

LOABC

Blue Jay

RLCBUCAmerican Crow

RGBUCFish Crow

SOGBUCCommon Raven

SOGNCarolina Chickadee

SOLCN

Black-capped .Chickadee

RLCBHBoreal Chickadee

SOLCNTufted Titmouse

RLCBH

Red-breasted Nuthatch SOBBHWhite-breasted Nuthatch

RBBHBrown Creeper

SOBBHCarolina Wren

RLCBHHouse Wren

,SOLCBHWinter Wren

SOGNSedge Wren

SOGNMarsh Wren

R0BGGolden-crowned Kinglet

SOLCNRuby<rowned Kinglet

SOLCNBlue-gray Gnatcatcher

SOUCBVCEastern Bluebird

SOGBHVeery

toGBGGray-checlced Thrush

toGNSwainson's Thrush

toGNHermit Thrush

SOGBGWood Thrush

toGBLCAmerican Robin

SOGBLVGray Catbird

SOGBLVNorthern Mockingbird

RGBLVBrown Thrasher

SOGBLVAmerican Pipit

SOGNCedar Waxwing

SOUCBVCNorthern Shrike

SOGNLoggerhead Shrike

SOGN

European StarlingRGBC

White-eyed VireoSOLCBVC

Solitary VireoSOLCN

Yellow-throated VireotoUCBVC

Warbling Vireo

toVCBVC

Philadelphia Vireo

toUCBUC

Red-eyed VireoLOUCBUC

Blue-winged WarblerLOLCBG


LOLCBGTennessee Warbler

LOUCNOrange<rowned Warbler

SOLCNNashville warbler

LOLCNNorthern Parula

LOUCNYellow Warbler

toLCBLC

Chesnut-sided WarblertoLCBtC

Magnolia Warbler

toLCN

Cape May Warbler

toUCNBlack-throated Blue Warbler

toLCN

Yellow-rumped Warbler

SOLCNBlack-throated Green Warbler

toVCNBlackbumian Warbler

toUCNYellow-throated Warbler

toUCNPine Warbler

SOBNPrairie Warbler

SOtCBLC

Palm WarblerSOGBG

Bay-breasted

toUCNBlackpoll Warbler

toUCNCerulean Warbler

toVCNBlack-and-white Warbler

toBBG

,II I' IIII I. I,

American Redstart LOLCBLCProthonotary Warbler

LOGN

Worm-eating WarblerLOGBG

OvenbirdLOGBG

Nothern WaterthrushLO0N

Louisiana WaterthrushLO0N

KentuckyWarbler

LOGBGConnecticut Warbler

toGN

Mourning Warbler

toGNCommon Yellowthroat

SOLCBGHooded Warbler

toLCBLCWilson's Warbler

toLCNCanada Warbler

LOLCNYellow-breasted Chat

LOLCBLC

Summer Tanager

LOUCNScarlet Tanager

LOUCBUCNorthern Cardinal

•R

GBLCRose-breasted Grosbeak

toUCBUCBlue Grosbeak

LOGBLC

Indigo Bunting

toLCBLCDickcissel

toGNRufous-sided Towhee

SOGBGAmerican Tree Sparrow

SOGN

O1ipping Sparrow

SOGBLC

Oay-colored Sparrow

LOGN

Field Sparrow

SOGBG

Vesper Sparrow

SOGN

Savannah Sparrow

SOGBG

Grasshopper Sparrow

SOGBG

Henslow's Sparrow

SOGNShap-tailed Sparrow

SOGBG

Seaside Sparrow

SDGBG

Fox Sparrow

SO'GN

Song Sparrow

RGBG

Uncoln's Sparrow

SDGN

Swamp Sparrow

SDGBG


SOGBG


SOGN

Oark-eyed Junco

SDGNLapland Longspur

SOGNSnow Bunting

SOGNBobolink

LOGBG


SOGBLC

Eastern MeadowlarkSOGBG

Yellow-headed BlackbirdSOGN

Rusty Blackbird

SDGNBoat-tailed Grackle

SOGBUCCommon Grackle

SOGBUCBrown-headed Cowbird

SOGB0Orchard Oriole

LOUCBUCNorthern Oriole

LOUCBUCPine Grosbeak

SOUCN

Purple Finch

SOUCBUCHouseFmch

SOGBUC

.."-...

."

~ )-91

Red Crossbill SOGNWhite-winged Crossbill

SOGNCommon Redpoll

SOGN

Hoary Redpoll

SOGNPine Siskin

SOGNAmerican Goldfinch

RGB-LC

Evening Grosbeak

SOGN

House Sparrow

RGBH

'~I I II ;1 il ,,~ ~ II II· Hi·1 I

,I If ,i." 'II,

II j,l,ilil>.,,;,liiilll

Table 3. Bird guild spectrum: frequency of occurence of ecological classes of birds.

Geogr.

Migrlltory 'tatllS Foraging substratumsite

LongShortRes.AirBarkGroundLowHigh Water Other

SH

62139282198027. 195419JB

8818328261011628246728MP

35113241566916133815SP

2644218636169142FB

38110181457417103313PB

531473417119224175221CQ

57104271787328183212SI

65IS32820109527215023SG

11181933269331HM

701552721810125165625UC

53615023021138HH

SO6425138592516135SN

2181208249923814LP

2813420135721695314RP

466127129522516137VC

24612410544127256KP

4473211395521151510FP

596123151058262077AP

658222741722070'48S92112955261457

Geographic

Breeding subs tatumBreeding statussite

CanopyNot

Cliff

GroundHoleLowHighOtherBreedbreed -.-Total

SH

846183032614188 229

JB

8561932356156143 299

MP

645152523511854 '172

5P31316202247813 91

FB640112324510957 166

PB753202832614589 234

CQ646183127513256 188

516522029336145101 246

SG281111131462 48

HM10481629326140112 252

UC217410924412 56

HH625152328310138 139

SN7358191558834 122

LP93892322610775 182

RP524172328310034 134

VC42414202258821 109

KP428142327510137 138

FP425182230210142 143

AP72012151246422 86

CP3271522242933S 128

Tab

le4.

Res

ults

ofm

ultip

lere

gres

sion

.P

<0.

1fo

rin

depe

nden

tva

riab

les,

habi

tat,

that

cont

ribu

ted

sign

ific

antly

toth

eex

pres

sion

ofea

chgu

ildan

dto

tal

bird

sped

es.

- ; ~ '" j

~.

\ji ~ r

Eco

logi

cal

clas

sifi

catio

n/gu

ild

Mig

rato

rySt

atus

shor

tdi

stan

celo

ngdi

stan

cere

side

ntFo

ragi

ngSu

bstr

ate

air

wat

erba

rkgr

ound

low

erst

ratu

mup

per

cam

pyot

her

Bre

edin

gSt

atus

bree

dno

tbr

eed

Bre

edin

gSu

bstr

ate

hole

grou

ndcl

iff

low

erst

ratu

mup

per

cano

pyot

her

Tot

albi

rdsp

ecie

s

0.05

520.

0008

0.07

70

0.01

46

Sem

ina

tura

lU

rban

0.01

22

0.07

55

0.05

900.

0035

0.07

55

0.07

86

LITERATURE CTED

Andrle, R F. & Carroll, J. R. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New YorkState. Cornell University Press. 551 p.

Austin, M. P. & Margules, C. R 1986. Assessing representativeness. P.42-67in Usher, M. B. (ed.) Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman andHall, Ltd., London.

Bayer, M. & Porter, W. F. 1988. Evaluation of a guild approach to habitatassessment for forest dwelling birds. Environmental Management12:797-801.

Bornkam, R., Lee, J. A, Seaward, M.RD. 1980. Urban Ecology: the SecondEuropean Ecological SympOsium. Blackwell Scientific Publications,Oxford and Edinborough. 370 p.

Bull, J. 1964. Birds of the New York area. Harper & Row, New York. 540 p.

Corwardin, L. M., Carter, M. V., Galet, F. c., & LaRoe, E. T. 1979.Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service FWS/OB5-79/31. 103 p.

Davis, A. M. & Glick, T. F. 1978. Urban ecosystems and island biogeography.Environmental Conservation 5:299-304.

DeGraff, R. M. & Chadwick, N. L. 1984. Habitat comparison: a comparisonusing avian species and guilds. Environmental Management 8:512-518.

DeGraff, R. M. & Rudis, D. D. 1986. New England Wildlife: Habitat, NaturalHistory and Distribution. USDA, N. E. Ror. Exp. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rpt.NE-108.

DeGraff, R M., Tilghman, N. G., & Anderson, S. H. 1985. Foraging guilds ofNorth American Birds. Environmental Management 9:493-536.

,DeGraff, R M. & Wentworth, J. M. 1986. Avian guild structure and habitat

association in suburban bird communities. Urban ecology 9:399-412.

Freemark, K E. 1988. Landscape ecology of the forest birds in the Northeast.P. 7-12 in DeGraff, R & Healy, W. M. (eds.) Is Forest Fragmentation aManagement Issue in the Northeast? General Technical Report NE140, Radnor, PA. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,Northeast Forest Experiment Station. 32 p.

Freemark, K. E., & Merriam, H. G. 1986. Importance of area and habitatheterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forest fragments.Biological Conservation 36:115-141.

Geis, A. D. 1973. Effects of urbanization and types of urban development onbird populations. P. 97-105 in Noyes, J. H. & Progulske, D. R (ed.)Wildlife in an Urbanizing Environment. Symposium of Planning,Resources, & Development Service, The University of Massachuesetts,Amherst, MA. 182 p.

Gilbert, O. L. 1989. The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman and Hall,London. 369 p.

Gill, D. & Bonnett, P. 1973. Nature in the Urban Landscape: a Study of CityEcosystems. New York Press, Inc. Baltimore. 210 p.

Hounsome, M. 1979. Bird life in the city. P. 179-201 in Laurie,!. C. (ed.)Nature in Cities: the Natural Environment in the Design andDevelopment of Urban Green Space. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.428p.

Jordan, W. R ill, Gilpin, M. E. & Aber, J. D. 1987. Restoration Ecology: aSynthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge UniversityPress. 342 p.

Kenfield, W. G. 1966. The wild gardener in the wild landscape. HafnerPublishing Co.

Laurie, 1. C. (00.) 1979. Nature in Cities: the Natural Environment in theDesign and Development of Urban Green Space. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester. 428 p.

MacArthur, R H. & Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography.Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

McDonnell, M. J., & Pickett,~. T. A. 1990. Ecosystem structure and functionalong urban-rural gradients; an unexploitOO opportunity for ecology.Ecology 71:1232-1237.

Noyes, J. H. & Progulske, D. R (eel.) Wildlife in an Urbanizing Environment.Symposium of Planning, Resources, & Development Service, TheUniversity of Massachuesetts, Amherst, MA. 182 p.

Peters, R H., Armesto, J. J., Boeken, B., Cole, J. J., Driscoll, C. T.,Duarte, C. M.,Frost, T. M., Grime, J. P., Kolasa, J., Prepas, E., & Sprules, G. 1991. Onthe relevance of comparative ecology to the larger field of ecology. P.46-63 in Cole, J., Lovett, G, & Findlay, S. (eds.) Comparative Analyses of

'1'1' II

Ecosystems: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Theories. Springer-Verlag,New York.

Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher.Ecological Monographs 37:317-350.

SAS 1985. SASUser's Guide: Statistics, Version 5. SASInstsitute, Inc., Cary,North Carolina. 956 p.

Wilcove, D. 1988. Forest fragmentation as a wildlife issue in the Northeast.P. 1-7 in DeGraff, R. & Healy, W. M. (eds.) Is Forest Fragmentation aManagement Issue in the Northeast? General Technical Report NE140,Radnor, PA. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,Northeast Forest Experiment Station. 32 p.

Appendix F

A Bibliogrqaphy of the Habitats and Wildlifewithin the Vicinity of the

New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary

Compiled by

Nels Barrett

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biol~~yThe University of Connecticut

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE HABITATS AND WILDLIFEWITHIN THE VICINITY OF

THE NEW YORKINEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY

Compiled by Nels Barrett


This bibliography was prepared as one of the products of the NewYork/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, funded by the U. S.Environmental Protection Agency. One project of the Harbor EstuaryProgram was to study the nearshore habitats of the estuary and surroundingurban areas. The tasks included characterizing the habitats within thevicinity of the New York/New Jersey Harbor and assessing the constituentwildlife, noting the implications of urbanization upon conditions of thehabitat and trends in wildlife populations. This bibliography was prepared asa part of those tasks.

The purpose of this bibliography is to produce a list of referencesspecific to the habitats and wildlife within the vicinity of the New York/NewJersey Harbor Estuary. It is not meant to be a comprehensive source for allpublished material relating to the natural resources and environment of theregion. This bibliography is a selection of 592 references relating specifically tothe habitats and wildlife within the vicinity of the New York/New JerseyHarbor Estuary. The material selected here comes from many sources andjournals. Primary sources are:

Ancide, R. F. «Carroll, J. R. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in NewYork State. Cornell University Press. 551 p.

Bull, J. 1964. Birds of the New York area. Harper« Row; New York.540p.

Howe, M, Clapp, R. B.,& Weske, J. S. 1978. Marine and Coastal Birds.MESA New York Bight Atlas Monogr. 31. New York Sea GrantInstitute, Albany, New York. 87 pp.

Kaucinger, C. I<alafus. 1991. Atlas of Parks and Natural Areas withinthe vicinity of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary.Unpubl. Manuscript.

Pouyat, R. V. «McDo~ell, M. J. 1990. The ecology and naturalresources of New York City: a bibliography. OccasionalPublication of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies No.5. The NewYork Botanical Gardens, Mary Flagler Cary Arboretum, Instituteof Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY.

The references are listed alphabetically by author and/or representingagency.

Able, K. P. 1983. Trends in the state list of New York birds. Kingbird 33:6-11

Ahles, H. E. 1951. Interesting weeds of New York City. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club112:87-88.

Airola, T. M. & Bucholz, K. 1982. Forest community relationships of theGreenbrook Sanctuary, New Jersey. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 109:205-218.

Airola, T. M. &t Bucholz, K. 1984. Species structure and soil characteristics offive urban forest sites along the New Jersey Palisades. Urban Ecol.8:149-164.

Allen, R P. 1938. Black-crowned night heron colonies on Long Island. Proc.Linnaean Soc. New York 49:43-45.

Alperin, I M. & Eisemnann, E. 1951. Brewer's sparrows on Long Island.Proc. Linnaean Soc. New York 58-62:74-75.

Amaden, D. 1969. Gotham's birds. Natur. Rist. 73:48-55.

Ames, E. A. & McDonnell, M. J. 1987. Managing urban woodlands: achallenge for the 1990's. Garden 11:3-4.

Anderson, J. W. 1975. New York's urban forests. NARD 8:6-9. SUNY, StateEducation Dept., Albany ..

Andrle, R. F. & Carroll, J. R 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New YorkState. Cornell University Press. 551 p.

Antenen, S. 1982. Taking over? A guide to eleven non-native plants that arepests in Wave Hill's Woods. Wave Hill Brochure, Wave HillEnvironmental center, Bronx, New York. IIp.

Anteys, E. 1932. The quaternary ice age in North America, with specialreference to Long Island. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Rec. 21:186-202.

Arbib, R 5., Pettingill, O. 5., & Spofford, S. H. 1966. Enjoying Birds aroundNew York City. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston & Riverside Press,Cambridge. 160 p ..

Balter, H. & Heusser, C. T. 1980. Forest-soil relationships on limestone andgneiss in southeastern New York and northern New Jersey.Dissertation, New York Univ., New York, NY. 177 p.

Balter, H. & Loeb, R E. 1983. Arboreal relationships on limestone and gneissin northern New Jersey and southeastern New York. Bull. Torrey Bot.Club 110:370-379.

,~ 'I I I dlil;fili 'r

Barlow, E. 1969. The Forests and Wetlands of New York City. Little, Bro'wnand Co., Boston. 160 p.

Bassuk, N & Whitlow, T. 1988. Environmental stress in street trees.Arboriculture Journal 12:195-20l.

Bast, T. F., Whitney, E., & Benach, J. L. 1973. Considerations on the ecology ofseveral arborviruses in eastern Long Island. Amer. J. Trop. Med, Hyg.22:109-115.

Bell, J. 1963. Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. Animal Kingdom 66:136-140.

Bell, J. 1964. Birds of the New York Area. Dover Pub!., New York. 540 p.

Berrang, P. & Karnosky, D. F. 1983. Street trees for metropolitan New York.New York Bot. Garden Instil. Urban Hort. Pub!. No.1.

Betros, H. 1957. Shrubs and vines - William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge. Proc.Staten Island Inst. Arts £:I Sd. 19:79.

Bicknell, E. P. 1878. Evidence of the Carolinian fauna in the lower HudsonValley. Bull. Nuttall Ornith. Club 3:128-132.

Bicknell, E. P. 1880. Some of the rarer plants of our northern suburbs. Bull.Torrey Bot. Club 7:51-54.

Bicknell, E. P. 1898. Two new grasses from Van Cortlandt Park, New YorkCity (Savatana nashii, Chaetochloa versicolor). Bull. Torrey Bot. Club25:104-107.

Bicknell, E. P. 1908. The White Cedar Forest in western Long Island. Torreya8:27-28.

Bisky, J. A Notes from Queens County, Long Island. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club14:13-14.

Blizzard, A. ·W. 1931. Plant sociology and vegetational change on High Hill,Long Island, New York. Ecology 12:208-231.

Bonsteel, J A. & Party. 1904. Soil survey of the Long Island area, New York.U.s.Dept. Agriculture., Bureau of Soils, G.P.O. Wash. D. C. 42 p. & 2maps.

Borque, R & Borque, J. ca, 1987. Birds of Floyd Bennett Field. Unpubl.

Bourque, R & Bourque, J. 1982. The breeding bird areas project insoutheastern Brooklyn. Linnaean News-letter 36:1-2.

Bouton, J. J. 1987. Sandy Hook hawk watch - Spring 1987. Peregrine Observer10:4.

BOyko, O. 1980. Liberty Park Natural Area Management Plan. Draft. NewJersey Department of Environmental Protection, Div. Parks & Forestry.

Brady, E. P. 1958. Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. New York StateConservationist 13:30-31.

Braislin, W. C. 1907. A list of the birds of Long Island, New York. Abstr.Proc. Linnaean Soc. New York 17-19:31-123.

Bridges, J. T. 1976. An assessment of the ecological impact of VirginiaCreeper on other plant species in the west pond area of Jamaica BayWildlife Refuge. Unpubl. rpt. National Park Service & New York Bot.Garden Coop, Res. Unit. 18 p.

Bridges, J. T. 1976. Vegetation survey, soils map, and estimate of plant healthcondition at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. Unpubl. rpt. National ParkService & New York Botanical Garden. 117 p.

Bridges, J. T. 1977. Field Trip of June 12, 1977:.ecologicalwalk along the BronxRiver, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. Bull.Torrey Bot. Club 104:67-68.

Briggs, P. T. 1983. An annotated list of the fishes found in the native watersof New York. New York State Dept. of Environ. Conserv.,-StonyBrook, NY. 42 p.

Britton, E. G. 1890. Preliminary list of the mosses of Staten Island. Proc.Natur. Sci. Assn. Staten Island 2:54-57.

Britton, E. G. 1927. Rare wild flowers of New York City and vicinity. J. NewYork Bot. Garden 28:248-249.

Britton, N. L. 1877. Staten Island plants. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 6:177-179.

Britton, N. L. 1880. On the northward extension of the pine barren flora onLong Island and Staten Island. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 7:81-83.

Britton, N. L 1888. Our native pines. Staten Island Mag. 1:14-16.

Britton, N. L. 1892. The ash trees of Staten Island. Proc. Natur. Sci. Assn.Staten Island. 3:21.

~311

,~ I I

Britton, N. L. 1899. List of plants growing in Bronx Park in report of thedirector-in-chiei of The New York Botanical Garden for 1898. Bull.New York Bot. Garden 1:171-242.

Britton, N. L. 1906. The Hemlock Grove on the banks of the Bronx River andwhat it signifies: with a review of the history and literature of thehemlock tree. Trans. Bronx Rist. Soc. 1:5-15.

Britton, N. L. 1913. Notable trees in New York City, Inwood Tulip TreeCelebration. 18th Ann. Rpt. American Scenic cSt Historic PreservationSoc. p.191-193.

Britton, N. L. 1926. An attempt to aid the natural propagation of hemlocks. J.New York Bot. Garden 27:6-9.

Britton, N. L., Sterns, E. E., cSt Poggenburg, J. F. 1888. Preliminary catalogue ofAnophyta and Pteridophyta reported as growing within 30 miles ofNew York City. Lyceum of Nature Museum of New York, Webster andSkinner, Albany, N.Y.

Brodo, I. M. 1966.Lichen growth and cities: a s~dy on Long Island, NewYork. Bryologist 69:427-449.

Brodo, L M. 1968. The Lichens of Long Island. New York State Museum andScience Bulletin 410. 306 p.

-.

Brown, A. 1878. List of plants introduced with ballast and on made land.Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 6:255-258.

Brown, A~ 1880. Notes on the local flora - synopsis of paper read at meetingof the Torrey Botanical Club, October 12,1880. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club7:114.

Brown, T. L. cSt Dawson, C. P. 1978. Interests, needs, and attitudes of NewYork's metropolitan public in relation to wildlife. Cornell University,Dept. of Natural Resources Research and Extension Series no. 13,Ithaca, N.Y. 53 p.

Brown, T. L., Dawson, C. P., cSt Miller, R. L. 1979. Interests and attitudes ofmetropolitan New York residence about wildlife. In: Trans. 44th NorthAmerican Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 1979, WildlifeManagement Inst., Wash. D. C. p. 289-297.

Brundage, H. M. 1978. Fish eggs and larvae of the Arthur Kill. UnderwaterNaturalist 11:11-15.

Buckley, P. A. 1961. The 1960 fall migration in the New York City region.Linnaean News-letter 14.

Buckley, P. A. & Buckley F. G. 1980. Population and colony site trends ofLong Island waterbirds for five years in the mid-1970's. Trans.Linnaean Soc. 9:23-56.

Buckley, P. A. & Buckley F. G. 1984. Expanding double-crested cormorant andlaughing gull populations on Long Island, New York. Kingbird 34:146155.

Buegler, R & Parisio, S. 1981. A comparative flora of Staten Island. StatenIsland Inst. of Arts & Sci., Staten Island, N.Y.

Buell, M. F., Langford, A. N., Davidson, D. W., & Ohman, L. F. 1966. Theupland forest continuum in northern New Jersey. Ecology 47:416-432.

Bull, J. 1964. Birds of the New York area. Harper & Row, New York. 540 p.

Bull, J. 1965. Study of bird hazards to aircraft operations at KennedyInternational Airport, New York, during calendar year 1965. Unpubl.Rpt. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Wash. D. C.

Bull, J. 1970. Supplement to' "Birds of New York Area". Proc. Linnaean Soc.,New York 71:16.

Bull, J. 1971. Monk parakeets in the New York City region. Linnaean Newsletter 25:1-2.

Bull, J. 1974. Birds of New York State. Garden City New York, DoubledayNatural History Press.

Burges, J. 1982. Jamaica Bay studies 1. Environmental detriments ofabundance and distribution in common terns (Sterna hirindo) andblack skimmers (Rynchops niger) at an east coast estuary. ColonialWaterbirds 5:148-160..

Burnham, S. H 1913. The flora of the sand barrens of southern Staten Island.Torreya 13:249-255.

Burnley, J. M. 1970. The northern two-lined salamander on Long Island.Engelhardtia 3:12-15.

Cain, S. A. 1936. The composition and structure of an oak woods, ColdSpring Harbor, Long Island, with special attention to samplingmethods. Amer Midi. Natur. 17:725-740.

I I,I' ~I I

Cain, S. A. & Penfound, W. T. 1938. Aceretum rubri: the red maple swampforest of central Long Island. Amer MidI. Natur. 19:390-416.

Calhoon, R E. & Haspel, C. 1989. Urban cat populations compared by season,subhabitat and supplemental feeding. J. Anim. Ecol. 58:321-328.

Carleton, G. 1958. The birds of Central and Prospect Parks. Proc. LinnaeanSoc. New York 66-70:1-60.

Cartica, R J. 1988. Uberty Park Natural Area Management Plan. NJ Dept.Div. of Parks and Forestry, Office of Natural Lands Management,Trenton, NJ. 27 p.

Carroll,J. 1982. Occurrence of the Nanday Conure in Westchester County,New York. NY Fish & Game J. 29:217.

Cattel, J. M. 1940. The herbarium of the New York Botanical Garden. Science92:572.

Cerniglia, P. 1980. Vegetation survey of an upland area at Jamaica BayWildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. New York Univ., New York. 95 p.

Cerniglia, P. 1982. Plant species inventory and tree population survey withinthe sewer right-of-way at the Swamp White Oak Forest. Gateway Ir.st.for Nat. Res. Sci., Gate-N-003-1.

Chapman, F. M. 1906.. Birds in the vicinity of New York City. Amer. Mus.Journal 6:81-102.

Chapman, F. M. 1894. Visitor's guide to the collection of birds found within50 miles of New York City. Amer. Mus. Natur. Rist., New York.

Clay Pits Pond State Park Preserve. 1985-1988. Species lists. Unpub:.(Contact: P. Gentile, Clay Pits Pond State Park Preserve, 83 NielsonAve., Staten Island, NY. 10309).

Clute, W. N. 1900. A list of ferns seen in Bronx Park. Fern Bull. 8:43.

Collins, S. 1956. The biotic communities of Greenbrook sanctuary. Ph. D.Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

Conard, H. S. 1935. Plant associations of central Long Island. Amer Midi.Natur. 16:433-516.

Conner, P. F. 1971. The mammals of Long Island, New York. New YorkState Museum Bulletin 416. 78 p.

Cook, R. 1989. Mammals. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service,Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R. 1989. Reptiles and Amphibians. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. Pamphlet.

Cook, R P. &t Pinnock, C. A. 1987. Recreating a herpeto-faunal community atGateway National Recreation Area, New York. P. 151-154 in Adams, L.W. &t Leedy, D. L. (eds.) Integrating man and nature in themetropolitan environment. Nature Inst. for Urban Wildlife.Columbia, MD.

Cooper, I. C. G. 1957. Flowering plants - William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge.Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci. 19:74.

Cox, L. D. 1916. A street tree system for New York City, Borough ofManhattan: report to Hon. Cabot Ward. The University Press,Syracuse, N.Y..

Croizat, L. 1936.. An interesting oak in New York City, with brief notes onQuercus richteri Baen. Torreya 36:139-142.

Croizat, L. 1936. Lindens in the city of New York and its vicinity, J. New YorkBot. Garden 37:225-231.

Croizat, L. 1936. The rare trees and shrubs of Kissena Park. BrooklynBotanical Garden Leaflet, series 24, no. 35.

Cruickshank, A. D. 1942. Birds around New York City. American .Museumof Natural History Handbook Series No. 13, New York. 489 p.

Curtis, C. C. 1895. Some interesting features of well-known plants of NewYork Harbor. J. N. Y.Micros. Soc. 11:63-73.

Davis, T. H. 1968. Willet nesting on Long Island, New York. WilsonBulletin 80:330.

Davis, T. H. 1976. The birds of Jamaica Bay.Wildlife Refuge. Kingbird 26:1122.

Davis, T. H. 1972. Photographs of New York rarities - 22: Chuck-will'swidow. Kingbird 22:157.

Davis, T. H. 1975. Notes concerning the first New York nesting of Chuckwill's-widow. Kingbird 2?:132.

-"\I"l" 3})/

,If ~ II ,~,. II

I dHI I .~, i r

II

DaVis, T. H. 1981. Boat-tailed grackles breeding at Jamaica Bay WildlifeRefuge. Kingbird 31:214. '

Davis, T. H. 1982. The 1981 fall shorebird season at Jamaica Bay WildlifeRefuge. Kingbird 32:85-95.

Davis, T. H. 1982. Birds of the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. U. S. Dept.Interior, National Park Service, Gateway National Recreational Area.

Davis, W. T. 1884. Butterflies of Staten Island. Proc. Natur. Sci. Assn. StatenIsland 1:15.

,Davis, W. T. 1884. The reptiles and batrachians of Staten Island. Proc. Natur.

Sci. Assn. Staten Island 1:13.•

Davis, W. T. 1885. Preliminary list of the Mammalia of Staten Island. Proc.Natur. Sci. Assn. Staten Island 1:23.

Davis, W. T. 1892. Interesting oaks recently discovered on Staten Island.Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 19:301-303.

Davis, W. T. 1895. A zone of vegetation on the perpendicular bluff at St.George. Proc. Natur. Sci. Assn. Staten Island 4:83.

Davis, W. T. 1898. Preliminary list of the freshwater fishes of Staten Island.Proc. Natur. Sci. Assn. Staten Island 6:51.

Davis, W. T. 1902. Local notes on vanishing wildflowers. Proc. Natur. Sci.Assn. Staten Island 8:29.

Davis, W. T. 1904. Preliminary list of Staten Island moths belonging to thefamilies Satumiidae, Ceratocampidae, Synotomidae, Arctiidae andAgaristidae. Proc. Natur. Sci. Assn. Staten Island 9:15.

Davis, W.T. 1906. Noteworthy Staten Island insects, with additions to theloca11ists. Proc. Staten Island Inst. Assn. Arts & Sci. 1:104.

Davis, W. T. 1911. The periodical cicada on Staten Island in 1911. Proc.Staten Island. Inst. Arts & Sci. 4:1-3.

Davis, W. T. 1916. The Tabanidae of Staten Island. Proc. Staten Island. Inst.Arts & Sci. 6:201.

Davis, W. T~ 1917. Juniperus communis on Long Island and Staten Island.Torreya19:99-100.

Davis, W. T. 1918. The cold winter of 1917·18and its effect upon vegetationon Staten Island, New York. Proc. Staten Island. Inst. Arts & Sci. 1:49.

Davis, W. T. & Hollick, A. 1888. Hybrid oaks of Richmond Valley. Proc.Natur. sci. Assn. Staten Island 1:71-72.

Davis, W. T. & Leng, C. W. 1924. List of the Coleoptera of Staten Island, N.Y.Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts & sci. 2:1.

Deed, R. F. 1951. Notes on the northward movement of certain species ofbirds into the lower Hudson Valley. Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 5862:63-66.

Degraaf, R. M. & Rudis, D. D. 1986. New England Wildlife: habitat, naturalhistory and distribution. USDA, N. E. Ror. Exp. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rpt.NE-I08.

Denslow, H. M. 1924. Native orchids of Manhattan Island. J. New York Bot.Garden 25:290-293

Denslow, H. M. 1928. Brief notes on local plants. Torreya 27:105.

Doney, C. F. 1940. Some interesting woody plants in the Brooklyn BotanicalGarden. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Rec. 29:10-13.

Dowell, P. 1906. Distribution of ferns on Staten Island. Proc. Staten IslandAssn. Arts '& sci. 1:61.

Dowell, P. 1910. Notes on some Staten Island ferns. Proc. Staten Island Assn.Arts & sci. 3:163.

Dowell, P. 1910. The violets of Staten Island. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 37:163179.

Dresdner Associates, Inc. 1984. Environmental Assessment for the PortLiberty Project, Jersey City, New Jersey. Consultant's Rpt. Prepared forThe Spoeery Group, Developers, and the Ehrenkranz Groups,Architects.

Drury, W. H. 1973. Population changes in New England sea birds. Birdbanding 45:1-15.

Drury, W. H. and Kadlec, J. A. 1974. The current status of the Herring Gullpopulation in the northeastern U. S. Bird-banding 45:297-306.

~317

I II "I' II

Duffy, D. C. 1977. Breeding populations of terns and skimmers on LongIsland Sound and eastern Long Island. proc. Linnaean Soc., New York73:1-48.

Dutcher, W. 1886. Destruction of bird life in the vicinity of New York. AOUCommittee on Protection of Birds Bull. 1:7-9.

Earle, O. 1953. Plants and animals of Staten Island. Staten Island Inst. of ArtscSt Sci. publ., New York, N.Y.

Edwards, S. V. 1982. Second sitings: a history of ornithology in Riverdale,New York. Wave Hill, Inc. 16 p.

Elliot, J. J. 1941. The Henslow's sparrow on Long Island. Proc. Linnaean Soc.,New York 52:142-144.

Elliot, J. J. 1951. The prairie warbler on Long Island. Prac. Linnaean Soc.,New York 58-62:72-73.

Elliot, J. J. 1953. The nesting sparrows of Long Island 1. Sparrows of themarshes. Long Island Naturalist 2:15-24..

Elliot, J. J. 1954. The nesting sparrows of Long Island 2. Sparrows of theuplands. Long Island Naturalist 3:10-18.

Elliot, J. J. 1956. British goldfinch on Long Island. Long Island Naturalist 5:315.

Elliot, J. J. 1960. Falcon flights on Long Island. Kingbird 10:155-157.

Elliot, J. J. 1962. Sharp-tailed and seaside sparrows on Long Island, New York.Kingbird. 12:115-123.

Ellison, L. A. 1957. Bryophytes and lichens - William T. Davis WildlifeRefuge. Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci. 19:62.

Euler, A. 1977. Field trip of June 26, 1977. Oakland Lake and Rabine, Queens,New York. Bull. Turrey Bot. Club 104:400 ..

Euler, A. 1977. Field trip of October 23, 1977. Oakland Lake and Rabine,Queens, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:71-72.

Ewert, B. 1974. First Long Island nesting record of the Kentucky warbler.Proc. Linnf1e4n Soc., New York 72:77-79.

England, M. E. 1985. 1985 Northern Harrier productivity, Long Island NewYork. Rpt. NYDEC. Delmar, NY.

Enyon, A. E. 1941. Hawk migration routes in the New York City region.Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 52-53:113-116.

Erwin, R M. 1979. Coastal waterbird colonies: Cape Elizabeth, Maine toVirginia. FWS/OB5-79/10. USF&VvS, Office of Biological Services,Washington, D. C.

Erwin, R. M. and Korschgen, C. E. 1979.' Coastal waterbird colonies: Maine toVirginia, 1977. FWS/OB5-79/08. USF&WS, Office of BiologicalServices, Washington, D. C.

Erwet, D. 1974. First Long Island nesting record of the Kentucky Warbler.Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 72:77-79.

Fables, D. Jr. 1955. Annotated list of New Jersey birds. Urner OrnithologyClub, Newark, NJ.

Faden, R & Weingartner, M. 1962. The ferns of Staten Island. Bull. TorreyBot. Club 89:333-335.

Ferguson, W. C. 1922. Some interesting plants from Long Island, New York.Torreya 22:43-49.

Ferguson, W. C. 1924. Addenda to contributions to the flora of Long Island.Torreya 24:88..

Ferguson, W. C. 1925. Contributions to the flora of Long Island. Bull. TorreyBot. Club 52:133-136.

Fiorelli, E. & Rossi, J. 1983. The place of bad woods. The Conservationist38:14-21.

Fiske, J. G. 1935. Some poisonous plants in the vicinity if New York.Monthly Bull. Hart. Soc., New York p. 12-16.

Francis, H. R 1914. New York City's trees. Amer. Forests 20:560-566.

Frankel, E. 1975. Ferns along the Broax River Parkway. Fiddlehead Review2:2.

Frankel, E. 1977. The natural history of the Bronx River Valley. Unpubl. rpt.Lehman College, Bronx, New York.

Frankel, E. 1978. A floristic survey of the vascular plants of the Bronx Park inWestchester County, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 105:155.

~ I I

Frankel, E. 1978.· A floristic survey of the vascular plants of the Bronx Park inWestchester County, New York. Supplement, 1977-1978.Bull. TorreyBot. Club 106:46.

Frankel, E. 1989. Distribution of Pueraria lobata in and around New YorkCity. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 116:390-395.

French, P. B. 1982. A study of gypsy moth infestation in the New York Cityarea. New York Qty Dept. of Parks and Rec. Pub!., New York.

Friedman, S. & Steineck. 1963. Warbler migration in Van Cortland Park.The Linnaean News-letter 18(9).

Gager, S. 1907. The absence of undergrowth in the Hemlock Forest. J. NewYork Bot. Garden 8:237-240.

Garber, S.. 1985. Central Park's herpetofauna. The Linnaean News-letter39:24.

Garber, S. 1985. Introducing lizards in the New York area. The LinnaeanNews-letter 39:3-4.

Garber, S. 1986. Diamond-backed terrapins in New York City. The LinnaeanNews-letter 40:2-4.

Garber, S. 1990. The ups and downs of the diamond terrapin. TheConservationist 44:44-47.

Garber, S. 1986. Amphibians of Gateway National Recreation Area. In:Renwick, H. L. (ed.) History of Scientific research ar Gateway NationalRecreational Area, National Park Service Cooperative Research Unit,Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers University,New Brunswick, N.J.

Garber, S. 1986. Reptiles of Gateway National Recreation Area. In: Renwick,H. L (ed.) History of Scientific research ar Gateway NationalRecreational Area, National Park Service Cooperative Research Unit,Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers University,New Brunswick, N.J.

Garber, S. 1987. The Urban Naturalist. J. Wiley & Sons, New York. 242 p.

Gardner, J. M. 1987. Restoring city parks. Oculus 48:2-23.

Gilroy, M. J. 1985. Report of the 1985 Peregrine Falcon Survey in New YorkCity and Adirondack Regions. Peregrine Fund, Ithaca, New York.

•

Giraud, J. P., Jr. 1844. Birds of Long Island. Wiley & Putnam, New York.

Gleason, H. A. 1924. Ecological investigations in the Hemlock Forest. J. Ne".L1

York Bot. Garden 24:313-316.

Gleason, H. A. 1935. Plants in the vicinity of New York. The New York Bot.Garden Publ, New York.

Gleason, H. A. 1962. Plants in the vicinity of New York. Hafner PublishingCo., New York.

Gossueiler, W. A. 1975. European lizards established on Long Island. Copeia1:584-585.

Grady, P. E. 1984. A large-scale application of a physiognomic-ecologicalvegetation classification system. M.S. Thesis, Columbia University,New York.

Graham, H. W. & Henry, L. K 1933. Plant succession at the borders of KettleHole Lake. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 60:301-315.

Gratacap, L P. 1880. The botany of a city square - New York City and vicinityfloras. Amer. Natur. 14:889-892.

Gratacap, L. P. &t Woodward, A. 1884. The freshwater flora and fauna ofCentral Park, preliminary paper with bibliography. The New YorkBotanical Garden, New York. 19 p.

Graves, A. H. 1919. Some diseases of trees in Greater New York. Mycologia11:11-114.

Graves, A. H. 1925. A preliminary list of the native and naturalized woodyplants of Greater New York. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Leaf. XIlI(7-9):12 p.

Graves, A. H. 1927. Trees of greater New York. ]. New York Bot. Garden28:250-251.

Graves, A. H. 1930. Inwood Park, Manhattan. Torreya 30:117-129.

Graves, A. H. 1930. Trees and shrubs of Greater New York. J. New York Bot.Garden 31:177-178.

Graves, A. H. 1931. Important woody plants ,trees, shrubs and woodyclimbers of Greater New York. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Leaf 19:1-7.

"I'I·' ~lMi;hit" I, J, ,illi i ~ ir II

t

Graves, A. H. 1934. Report on winter injury to the woody plants in theBrooklyn Botanical Garden, 1933-1934. Brooklyn. Bot. Garden Red.23:171-209.

Graves, A. H. 1939. Maples of New York and vicinity. Sch..Nat. Leag. Bull.Series 9, no. 9.

Greenlaw, J. S. & Miller, R. F. 1982. Breeding Soras on a Long Island saltmarsh. Kingbird 32:78-84.

Greller, A. M. 1972. Observations on the forests of northern Queens County,Long Island, from colonial times to the present. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club99:202-206.

Greller, A. M. 1973. FIeld trip of May 20, 1973. Alley Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 100:128.

Greller, A. M. 1975. Persisting natural vegetation in northern QueensCounty, New York, with proposals for its conservation. Environ.Conservation 2:61-69.

Greller,.A. M. 1977. A classification of mature forests on Long Island, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:376-382.

Greller, A. M. 1977. A vascular flora of the forested portion of CunnighamPark, Queens County, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:170-176.

Greller, A. M. 1979. A vascular flora of the forested portion of CunnighamPark, Queens County, New York.Corrections and additions. Bull.Torrey Bot. Club 106:45.

Greller, A. M. 1979. Field trip of October 21, 1978.. Alley Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 106:48-49.

Greller, A. M. 1984. Additions to the flora of Gateway National RecreationArea, Floyd Bennett Field Division and recommendations for floralmanagement. N-OOl-1. Gateway Institute for Natural ResourceSciences. Brooklyn, NY.

Greller, A. M. & Wechsler, C. 1972. Field trip of April, 30, 1972. Greenbelt atTodt Hill, Staten Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 99:100-101.

Greiler, A. M & Garcia, O. L. 1986. Variation in canopy composition of theforest of Alley Park, Queens County, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club113:36-41.

Greller, A. M., Calhoun, R. E., & Mansky, J. M. 1978. Grace Forest, a mixedmesophytic stand on Long Island, New York. Bot. Gaz. 139:482-489.

Greller, A. M., Calhoun, R. E., & Iglich, E. 1979. The upland, oak-dominatedcommunity of Forest Park, Queens County, New York. Bull. TorreyBot. Club 106:135-139.

Greller, A. M., Schweitzer, T., & Kominski, J. 1971. Field trip of May 16, 1971.Terminal moraine, Bellrose, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 98:228.

Grier, W. M. 1925. Unreported plants from Long Island, 1 Pteridophyta andSpermatophyta. Torreya 24:71-76.

Grier, W. M. 1925. Unreported plants from Long Island, n. Cryptogams,exclusive of Pteridophyta. Torreya 25:5-10.

Griffith, R E. 1968. Jamaica Bay waterfowl use survey, 1967-1968. U. S. Dept.of Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife .•

Griscolm, L. 1923. Birds of the New York City region. Amer. Mus. Natur.Hist., Handbook Series 9. 400 p.

Griscom, L. 1929. Changes in the status of certain birds in the New York Cityregion. Auk 46:45-57.

Grout, A. J. 1902. Additions to the recorded flora of Long Island. Torreya2:49-53.

Grout, A. J. 1906. Additions to the bryophyte flora of Long Island. Bryologist9:26-28.

Grout, A. J. 1921. The mosses of a Staten Island house and lot. Bryologist24:64.

Gundersen, A. 1916. Ten common trees of Brooklyn. Brooklyn Bot. GardenLeaf. IV:no. 3.

Gundersen, A. 1916. Some Brooklyn weeds. Brooklyn Bot. Garden l.e!zf·Vll:no.9.

Gundersen, A. 1919. Trees of ProsPect Park and Brooklyn Botanic Garden.Brooklyn Bot. Garden Leaf. 7(7).

Gundersen, A. 1924. Trees of the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and.ProspectPark. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Leaf. 11(8-9):1-8.

I' ~ ,If * II I + j II il· III ,l I j, ,1·1 I' il. II

Hackensack Meadowlands Develpoment Commiission. 1987. Species list oforganisms found in the Hackensack Meadowlands: vascular plantsmammals. Unpubl.

Hackensac1cMeadowlands Environmental Center. 1983. Birds of theHac1censackMeadowlands, New Jersey. Pamphlet. HackensackMeadowlands Env. Center, Lyyndhurst, New Jersey.

Halsey, A. 1823. Synoptical view of the lichens growing in the vicinity ofNew York. Annals Lyceum Natur. Rist. 1:3-21.

Hanks, J. P. 1985. Plant communities and ground water levels in southernNassau County, Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 112:7986.

Harper, R. M. 1908. Suggestions for future work on the higher plants in thevicinity of New York. Torreya 8:153-164.

Harper, R. M. 1914. Proposed work on the cryptogamic flora of New York.Torreya 14:133-135.

Harper, R M. 1917. The native plant population of northern Queens County,Long Island. Torreya 17:131-142.

Harper, R M. 1917. The natural vegetation of western Long Island south ofthe terminal moraine. Bull. Torrey Bot Club 106:135-139. -.-

Harper, R. M. 1918.. Some dynamics studies of Long Island vegetation. PlantWorld 21:38-46.

Hartig, E. K. 1984. Growth of burned Phragmites australis. M.S. Thesis,Columbia University, New York.

Hartig, E. K. &: Rogers, G. F. Phragmites fire ecology. N-014-11. GatewayInstitute for Natural Resource Sciences. Brooklyn, NY.

Haspel, C. &: Calhoon, R. E. 1989. Home ranges of free-ranging cats Felis catusin Brooklyn, New York. Can. J. Zoology 67:178-181. .

Hawkins, E. 1978. Field trip of June 11,1977. Pelham Bay Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 105:72.

Hays, H. &: Risebrough, R. W. 1972. Pollutant concentrations in abnormalyoung terns from Long Island Sound .. Auk 89:19-35..

Hecklau, J. 1982. Central Park wildlife inventory. Unpubl. rpt. Central ParkConservancy, 830 Fifth Ave., N. Y.

Hendricks, A. J. & Behm, H. J. 1976. The Cretaceous Ponds: a unique area onStaten Island, New York. Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci. Publ. 56 p.

Herbert, R A. & Herbert, K. G. S. 1965. Behavior of peregrine falcons in theNew York City region. Auk 82:62-94.

Herbert, R A. & Herbert, K. S. 1969. The extirpation of the Hudson Riverperegrine falcon population. In Hickey, J. J. (ed.) Peregrine FalconPopulations, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Hickey, J. J. 1951. Occurrence of European teal on Long Island. Proc.Linnaean Soc, New York 58-62:-70-71.

Hollick, A. 1885. Peat bogs in the vicinity of Richmond. Proc. Natur. Sci.Assn Staten Island 1:18.

Hollick, A. 1887. The size and probable age of a number of Staten Island trees.Proc. Natur. Sci. Assn. Staten Island 1:47-48.

Hollick, A. 1888. Plants which have been found to grow independent ofcultivation on Staten Island. Proc. Natur. Sci. Assn. Staten Island 1:6869.

Hollick, A. 1901. A recently introduced grass. Proc. Natur. Sci. Assn. StatenIsland 8:16.

Hollick, A. 1907 The chestnut disease on Staten Island. Proc. Staten IslandAssn. Arts & Sci. 2:125.

Hollick, A. 1910. Notes on introduced plants collected near Arlington, StatenIsland. Proc. Staten Island Assn. Arts & Sci. 3:62-65.

Hollick, A. 1911. Recently introduced grasses and sedges. Proc. Staten IslandAssn. Arts & Sci. 2:189.

Hollick, A. 1914. Some botanical and geological features of the Silver LakeBasin. Proc. Staten Island Assn. Arts & Sci. 5:60.

Hollick, A. 1924. The geology of the New York Botanical Garden. ] NewYork Bot. Garden 26(301).

Hollick, A. & Britton, N. L. 1890. List of Staten Island fungi in the collectionof the Association. Proc. Staten Island Assn. Arts & Sci. 2:58.

- -

Hollick, C. A. 1880. Relations between geological formations and thedistribution of plants. Bull. Torrey Bot Club 7:14-15.

""I'"11 ,,," I, I· ;illl I. ~11 i r

Hollick, C. A. 1888. A recent discovery of hybrid oaks on Staten Island. Bull.Torrey Bot Club 13:303-309.

Hollick, C. A. 1893. Plant distribution as a factor in the interpretation ofgeological phenomena, with special reference to Long Island andvicinity. Trans. New York Acad. Sci. 12:188-202.

Holtzoff, M. 1940. New plant immigrants in the New York area. Torreya40:43-44.

Honkala, D. A. &t McAninch. 1980. The New York Botanical GardenHemlock Forest Project. Unpublished report, The New York BotanicalGarden, Cary Arboretum, Millbrook, N.Y.

Honkala, D. A. &t McAninch. 1981. The New York Botanical GardenHemlock Forest Project, Part ll. Unpublished report, The New YorkBotanical Garden, Cary Arboretum, Millbrook, N.Y.

Horenstein, S. 1978. History of the Bronx River. Notes of Natural History.No.6.

Howe, M, Clapp, R. B., &t Weske, J. S. 1978. Marine and Coastal Birds. MESANew York Bight Atlas Monogr. 31. New York Sea Grant Institute,Albany, New York. 87 pp.

Howells, R. G. 1981. An annotated list of the fishes of the Arthur Kill. Proc.Staten Island lnst. Arts & Sci. 29:3.

Hubbard, J. W. &t Smith, S. 1865, Catalogue of mollusca of Staten Island, NewYork. Annals Lyceum Natur. Rist. New York 8:151-154.

Jackson &: Kihn. 1988. Analysis of existing conditions, Conference HousePark, Staten Island. Consultant's Rpt. Prepared for New York CityDept. of Parks and Recreation.

Jelliffe,S. E. 1890. The plants of Prospect Park. Brooklyn Daily EagleAlmanac, p. 75-76.

Jeffiffe, S. E. 1893. A preliminary list of the plants found in the Ridgewaterwater supply of the City of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. BullTorrey Bot. Club 22:6.

Jeffiffe, S. E. 1899. The flora of Long Island. Thesis, Columbia University,New York. 163p....

Jeffiffe,S. E. 1904. Additions to the flora of Long Island. Torreya 4:94-100.

Jennings, A. B. 1939. Hurricane damage to trees in New York City. J. NewYork Bot. Garden 40:42-43.

Kalbfleisch, A. S. 1898. orchids on Long Island. Plant World 1:177-179.

Kaltman, H. 1970. Field trip of August 8, 1970. The New York BotanicalGarden, Bronx, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 97:305.

Kaltman, H. 1970. Field trip of July 7, 1970. Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 97:306.

Kaltman, H. 1971. Field trip of August 7, 1971. Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge,Broad Channel, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 98:282-283.

Kaltman, H. 1971. Field trip of June 16, 1971. Pelham Bay Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 98:282 .

•

Kaltman, H. 1972. Field trip of July 8, 1972. Pelham Bay Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 99:206-207.

Kaltman, H. 1972. Field trip of August 12, 1972. Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx,New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 99:207.

Kaltman, H. 1973. Field trip of July 14,1973. Pelham Bay Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull Torrey Bot. Club 1~0:240.

Kaltman, H. 1974. Field trip of August 10, 1974. Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge,Broad Channel, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 101:296-297.

Kaltman, H. 1974. Field trip of July 20, 1974. Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 101:296.

Kaltman, H. 1977. Field trip of July 23, 1977. Pelham Bay Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 104:401. .

Kaltman, H. 1977. Field trip of August 20, 1977. Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx,New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:401.

Karnosky, D. F. 1982. Attempts to hybridize American elms and Chineseelms in Central Park. Proc. National" Symposium Dutch Elm Diseaseand its Control, New York City Dept. Parks & Rec. P.35-41.

Kazimiroff T. 1977. Field trip of November 13, 1977. Pelham Bay Park,Bronx, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:72-73.

Kerr, W. C. 1894. The growth of Hypoxis erecta after fire. Proc. Natur. Sci.Assn Staten Island 4:35 ..

'II I'

Kieran, J. 1959A Natural History of New York City. Houghton Mifflin, Co.Boston, MA.

Kiviat, E., Schmidt, R & Zeising. 1985. Bank Swallow and Belted Kingfishernest in dredge spoil on the tidal Hudson River. Kingbird 35:3.

Knechtel, A. 1903. Report on dead and diseased tree in Flushing and PortJefferson, Long Island. 8th Annual Report, Forestry, Fish & GameComm., N.Y. for 1902,p. 67-76, illust.

Kobbe, F. W. 1930. Woodwardia arcolata in the vicinity of New York. Amer.Fern Journal 20:80-83.

Kuerci, J. F. 1927. A detailed report on the bird life of the Greater BronxRegion. (Abst.YProc. Linnaean Sac, New York 37-38:88-111.

Kunstler, D. S. 1987. The breeding birds of New York City. Unpubl. rpt. NewYork Oty Dept. Parks & Rec., Bronx, 15 p.

Kunstler, D. S~ 1989. Environmental literature: Long Island, New York City,Westchester, and Rockland Counties and vicinity. Unpubl. rpt. NewYork Oty Dept. Parks & Rec., Bronx, 22 p.

Kunstler, D. 5:& Feller, M. 1987. Pelham Bay Faunal assemblage. VanCortlandt and Pelham Bay Park Administrators Office, Bronx, N.Y. 24p.

Kunstler, D. S. & Natural Resources Group. 1987. Plant species of PelhamBay Park. Unpubl. Rpt. New York City Dept. of Parks and Rec., Bronx,N.Y.8p.

Kunstler, D. S. & Capainolo. 1988. Huckleberry Island: premier waterbirdcolony of western Long Island SQund. Kingbird 38:178-188.

Latham, R. 1975. Laughing Gulls, Larus atricilla, nesting at Orient, LongIsland. Pitch Pine Naturalist 3:3-4.

Lawrence, G. N. 1866. Catalogue of birds observed on New York, Long Island,Staten Island and adjacent parts of New Jersey. Annual LyceumNatural History New York 8:279-300.

Leek, C. F. 1975. The birds of New Jersey - their habits and habitats. RutgersUniversity Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Leek, C. F. 1984. The status and distribution of New Jersey birds. RutgersUniversity Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Leftkowitz, L. J. & Greller, A. M. 1973. The distribution of tree species on theuplands of Cunningham Park, Queens County, New York. BulI.TorreyBot. Club 100:313-318.

Leggett, W, H. 1874. Revised catalogue of plants natural and naturalizedwithin thirty-three mile of New York, 1870-1874. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club2:17

Leggett, W. H. 1878. A truffle new to the North American Flora. Bull. TOTTe)f'Bot. Club 6:276.

Leng, C. W. 1884. The Carabidae of Staten Island. Proc. Natural Sci. AssnStaten Island 1:16.

Leng, C. W. 1884. Cidnde1idae of Staten Island. Proc. Natural Sci. AssnStaten Island 1:3.

Leng, C. W. 1884. The Coccinellidae of Staten Island. Proc. Natural Sci. AssnStaten Island 1:6.

Leng, C.,W. 1989. The Buprestidae of Staten Island. Proc. Natural Sci. AssnStaten Island 2:5.

Levison, J. J. 1909. Trees and important shrubs of Bedford Park. TheMuseum News, Brooklyn Inst. Arts & Sci. 4:117-122.

Lindenfeld, R. 1972. Field trip of December 17, 1972. High Rock Park, StatenIsland, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 99:317. ~

Loeb, R E. 1982. Reliability of the New City Department of Parks andRecreation forest records. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 109:537-541.

Loeb, R E. 1984. An evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of the pollenrecord in representing regional forest change in the past century. Ph.D.Thesis, New York University, New York.

Loeb, R E. 1986. Plant communities of Inwood Hill Park, New York County,New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 113:46-52.

Loeb, R E. 1987. The tragedy of the commons. J. For. Rist. 85:28-23.

Loeb, R. E. 1989. The history of an urban park. J. For. Rist. 33:134-143.

Loery, W. H. 1957. Insects ~William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge . .Proc. StatenIsland Inst. Arts & Sci. 20:5.

,II'

Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. 1989. Lemon Creek Park: preliminary designinvestigations, final report. Consultant's "Rpt. Prepared for the NewYork City Dept. of Parks and Recreation.

Louis Berger &t Associates, Inc. 1989. High Rock schematic design, StatenIsland, New York. Consultant's Rpt. Pr~pared for the New York CityDept. of Parks and Recreation.

Maclean, D. C. &t Litwin, T. S. (eds.) 1986. Long Island colonial waterbird andpiping plover survey. Seatuck Research Program, Cornell Univ. Lab ofOrnithology in Cooperation with New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation.

MacNamera, E. E. &t Udell, H. F. 1970. Clapper rail investigations on thesouth shore of Long Island. Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 71:120-131.

Maguire Group, Inc. 1989. Final Report Functional Assessment of Wetlandsin New Jersey's Hackensack Meadowlands. Consultant's Rpt. Preparedfor the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II.

Martin, E. P, Taber, D. 5., & Dixon, M. N. 1938.. Shrubs, small trees and woodyvines of Flushing, and where they may be found. Case the Printer,New York.

Matthews, M. J. 1981. Urban wildlife habitat inventory map overlay userinformation. New York State Department of Conservation;"WildlifeCenter, Delmar, New York. 21 p. , maps.

Matthews, M. J. &t Miller, 1980. New York State's urban wildlife inventory.Trans. NE Sec. Wildlife Soc. 37:11-18.

Matthews, M. J. O'Conner, S., & Cole, R S. 1988. Database for the New YorkState Urban wildlife habitat inventory. Landscape & Urban Planning15:23-37.

Mathewson, R F. 1955. Amphibians and reptiles on Staten Island. Proc.Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci. 17:29 ..

Mathewson, R F. 1957. Mammals - William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge. Proc.. Staten Island lnst. Arts & Sci. 20:31.

Mayer, G. F. 1982. Ecological stress and the New York Bight: Science andManagement. Proc. Ecological Effects of Environmental Stress, NewYork, NY, June 10-19, 1979. Estuarine Research Foundation, Columbia,se. 715 p.

Mayerriecks, A J. 1957. Louisiana Heron Breeds in New York City. WilsonBulletin 69:184-185.

McDonald, N. J., Daly, S. &t Gillespie, J. A 1940. Snowy Egret nesting in NewJersey. Auk 57:106.

McDonald, W. H. 1897. Botanical collecting in the vicinity of New York City.Asa Gray Bull. 5:6-7.

McDonnell, M. J. 1988. The challenge of preserving urban natural areas: Aforest for New York. J. Amer. Assn. Botanical Gardens & Arboreta 3:2831.

McDonnell, M. J. &t Roy, E. A~ 1989. Restoration and management ofhardwood-hemlock forest in .New York City. Restoration & Managem.Notes 7:36-37.

Mcfarland, J. H. 1906. The trees of a great dty. Outlook 82:203-213.

McHarg, I. &t Thorp,J. 1988. Schematic design for Blue Heron Park. StatenIsland Natural Resources. Unpubl.

McKeever, C. I<. 1940. The breeding of the herring gull on Long Island in1939. Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 50-51:32-33.

McKeever, C. I<. 1941. Distribution and habitat selection of some local birds.Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 52-53:84-112.

McKeever, C. I<. 1946. Further spread of the prairie homed lark on LongIsland. Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 54-57:52-53.

McKeever, C. I<. 1946. New York City seabird colonies. Proc. Linnaean Soc.,New York 54-57:46-47.

McIntyre, D. 1983. A year round census. Kingbird 33:232-243.

McMullen, T. E. 1947. Nesti~g of Herring Gulls in New Jersey. Auk 64:321.

Metzner, J. 1942. Algae of Inwood Park. The Teaching Biologist 11:120-123.

Meyer, R C. 1952. A study of the grass flora of Staten Island. Proc. StatenIsland Inst. Arts & Sci. 14:12.

Meyer, R C. 1957. Grasses - William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge. Proc. StatenIsland Inst. Arts & Sci. 19:68.

,II I'

Meyer, R C. 1970. Field trip of June 7, 1970. Great I<il1sPark, Staten Island,New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 97:230.

Meyer, R. C. 1981. Field trip of June 28, 1980. Staten Island, New York. Bull.Torrey Bot. Club 108:121.


Meyer, R. C. 1983. Field trip of June 25, 1983. Sailors Snug Harbor, StatenIsland, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 110:386.

Meyer, R. C. 1984. Field trip of July 14, 1984. Staten Island, New York. Bull.Torrey Bot. Club 111:502.


Meyeniecks, A. J. 1957 Louisiana Heron breeds in New York City. WilsonBul,. 69:184-185.

Miller, J. C. 1966. The Great Black-backed Gull nesting in New Jersey andadditional notes on nesting Herring Gulls. Cassinia 49:31.

Minor, W. F. cStMinor, M. L. 1981. Nesting of Red-tailed Hawks and GreatHomed Owls in Central New York suburban areas. Kingbird 31:68-76 ..

Mitchell, R. S. cStSheviak, C. J. 1981. Rare plants of New York State. NewYork State Museum Bull. 445. 96 p.

Mitchell, R. S. 1986. A checklist of New York State plants. New York StateMuseum Bulletin No. ~85. Albany, NY.

Monachino, J. 1940. Weeds of New York. Torreya 40:82-84.

Monachino, J. 1941. Local flora notes. Torreya 41:8-9.

Moore, B. 1923. Investigation of the Hemlock Forest. J. New York Bot.Garden 24:163-165.

Moore, E. B. 1949. Forestry report of the Greenbrook sanctuary. Collectionsof the Palisades Nature Association, Alpine, NJ.

Muenscher, W. C. 1939. Aquatic vegetation of Long Island waters. V. Abiological survey of the fresh waters of Long Island. Suppl. 28thAnnual Report, New York Conservation Dept.

Murrill, W. A. 1906. A new chestnut disease (Diasportre parasitica). Torreya6:186-189.

Murrill, "-tV. A. 1908. Edible fungi in Bronx Park. 1. New York Bot. Garden9:205-213.

National Park Service. 1989. Amphibians and reptiles of Gateway NationalRecreation Area. National Park SerVice,U. S. Dept. of the Interior. 7 p.

National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. 1979. The finalenvironmental statement general plan. U. S. Department of theInterior. 256 p.

National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area. 1988. Generalmanagement plan amendment, development concept plan andinterpretive prospectus: Sandy Hook Unit Gateway NationalRecreation Area,'New York/New Jersey - Draft. U. S. Dept. of theInterior. 40 p.

National Park Service. 1989. Mammals of Gateway National RecreationArea. National Park Service, U. S. Dept. of the Interior. 6 p.

National Wildlife Health Laboratory. 1983. Control of avian botulism atJamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge: Final Report. Gateway Inst. Natur. Res.Sci. Gate-N-01o-n. 14 p., appendices.

New York Association of Biology Teachers. 1935. A check list of local faunaand flora. The Teaching Biologist First Special Supplement, New YorkAssn. of Biology Teachers, Long Island, New York.

New York Oty Department of"City Planning. 1983. The Staten IslandGreenbelt Study, Final Report Phase I: data analysis andrecommendations. NYCDEP 83-03. City of New York, NYC PlanningCommission. 87 p.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1986. Entitation Manual. New York City Department of Parksand Recreation, New York, NY. 39 p.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1987. Pelham Bay Park Natural Areas Management Plan.Unpubl. Rpt. New York City Dept. Parks and Rec., New York, NY.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1988. Alley Pond Park Natural Areas Management Plan. NewYork City Dept. Parks and Rec., New York, NY. 40 p., appendices.

,II I'

New York Oty Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1988. Kissena Park Natural Areas Management Plan. NewYork City Dept. Parks and Rec.,New York, NY. 28 p., appendices.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natur~ ResourcesGroup. 1988. Marine Park Natural Areas Management Plan. NewYork City Dept. Parks and Rec.,New York, NY. 27 p., appendices.

New York Oty Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1988. Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Manual. New York City Dept..Parks and Rec.,New York, NY. 46 p.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1989. ~an Cortlandt Park Natural Areas Management Plan.New York City Dept. Parks and Rec.,New York, NY. 40 p., appendices.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1990. Udall's Cove and Ravine Park Natural AreasManagement Plan. Unpubl. Rpt. New York City Dept. Parks and Rec.,New York, NY.

New York City Department of Parks, and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1990. Forest Park Natural Areas Management Plan. Unpubl.Rpt. New York City Dept. Parks and Rec., New York, NY.

. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1990. Riverdale Park Natural Areas Management Plan.Unpubl. Rpt. New York Oty Dept. Parks and Rec., New York~NY.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural ResourcesGroup. 1990. Cunningham Park Natural Areas Management Plan.Unpubl. Rpt. New York City Dept. Parks and Rec., New York, NY.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation {NYDEC},Nongame Unit. 1985. Checklist of amphibians, reptiles, birds andmammals of New York State. NYDEC;,Delmar, NY.

New Jersey Div. of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries. 1976. An estimate of thewildlife harvest in New Jersey 1974-75. Unpubl. Rpt. Trenton, NJ.

New Jersey Div. of Parks and Forestry. ca. 1986. The birds of Uberty StatePark. Pamphlet. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

New Jersey Div. of Parks and Forestry. ca. 1988. Uberty State Park. Pamphlet.New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. '

New Jersey Div. of Parks and Forestry. 1985. Cheesequake Natural AreaManagement Plan. NJ Div. Parks and Forestry, Office Natural LandsManagement, Trenton, NJ.

New Jersey Div. of Parks and Forestry. 1984. Swimming River Natural AreaManagement Plan. NJ Div. Parks and Forestry, Office Natural LandsManagement, Trenton, NJ.

New Jersey Div. of Parks and Forestry. 1989. Natural Areas System: Directoryof Natural Areas. NJ Div. Parks and Forestry, Office Natural LandsManagement, Trenton, NJ.

Newman, W. S. 1965. Late-Pleistocene paleoenvironments of western LongIsland Sound. Ph.D. Thesis, New York University, New York. 123 p.

Nicholas, J. 1967. Vegetation of Sterling Forest since the last ice age.Sarracenia 11:73-85.

Nicholas, J. 1968. Late-Pleistocene palynology of southeastern New York andnorthern New Jersey. Ph.D. Thesis, New York University, New York.

Nichols, G. E. 1927. Some successional aspects of the local vegetation. J. NewYork Bot. Garden 28:254-255.

Niering, W. A. 1960. Nature in metropolis: Conservation in the tri-stateNew York metropolitan region. Regional Planning Assn., New York,NY. 64p .. ~

Nieter, W. 1978. Urban wildlife, Alley Pond Park. Alley PondEnvironmental Center Natural History Series, V. 1, Douglaston, NY.

Nieter, W. & O'Keefe, B. 1980. Life along the shores of Little Neck Bay. AlleyPond Environmental Center Natural History Series, Queens, NY.

Niklas, K. J. 1976. Field trip of April 10,1976. Pelham Bay Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 103:268-269.

Niklas, K. J. 1917. Field trip of April 9,1977. Pelham Bay Park, Bronx, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:396..

O'Connell, A. 1980. The relationships of mammals to the major vegetationcommunities in Gateway National Recreation Area (Jamaica BayWildlife Refuge, Breezy Point, and Sandy Hook) including a soilanalysis of selected areas. Gate-N-012-11 Gateway Institute for NaturalResources Sciences, NPS.

O'Conner, R. 1937. Preliminary list of the mycetozoa of Staten Is!and. Proc.Staten Island lnst. Arts & Sci. 8:129.

O'Flaherty, E. cSt Buegler, R. 1979. A report on Blue Heron Pond, SpringPond, and the Poillon Avenue Wetlands, Annondale, Staten Island,and New York aty. New York City Park and Recreation, Landscapedesign. 26 p.

Ode, A. 1974. Our native plant communities. Garden 3:2-4.

Pack, C. L 1919. Central Park trees starving to death. Amer. For. 25:1391-1400.

Palomany, C. cSt Sawyer, E.R. 1974. Field trip - Greenwood Cemetery,Brooklyn, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 101:371.

Parisio, S. 1978. Field trip of April 30, 1978. High Rock Conservation Center,Staten Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 105:236.

Parisio, S. 1979. Field trip of April 29, 1979. Blood Root Valley, Staten Island,New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 106:232.

Parisio, S. 1982. Uptake by plants of calcium, magnesium, and nickel on aserpentine soil in Staten Island, New York. Proc. Staten Island Inst.Arts & Sci.31:70.

Parker, D. 1946. Plant succession at Long Pond, Long Island, New York.Butler Univ. Bot Stud. 7:74-88.

Pasquirer, R. 1974. Recent additions to the birds of Central Park. Proc.Linnaean Soc., New York 72:80-81.

Pat, L. H. 1903. Trees and Shrubs of Central Park. The Greenwich Press, NewYork.

Paul, B. H. 1919. Forest conditions on Long Island. Conservationist 2:170-172.

Peters, G. H. 1952. The trees of Long Island. The Long Island HorticultUralSociety, Publ. no. 1.

Peters, G. H. 1973. The trees of Long Island. The Long Island HorticulturalSociety, Publ. no. 3. 96 p.

Peterson, D. M. 1984. A survey of colonial waterbirds on the southeast shoreof Long Island, NY.- 8th Colonial Waterbird Group Mtg. Ithaca, NY.

Peterson, D. M., Litwin, T. S., Maclean, D. C., cSt Lent, R. A. (eds.) 1986. LongIsland colonial waterbird and piping plover survey -1985. Seatuck

Research Program, Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology incooperation with the New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation. 158 p.

Pouyat, R V. & McDonnell, M. J. 1990. The ecology and natural resources ofNew York City: a bibliography. Occasional Publication of the Instituteof Ecosystem Studies No.5. The New York Botanical Gardens, MaryFlagler Cary Arboretum, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY.

Post, P. W. 1961. The American oystercatcher in New York. Kingbird 11:3-6.

Post, P. W. 1962. Glossy ibis breeding in New York. Auk 79:120-121.

Post, P. W. 1964. The occurrence and field identification of small black andwhite shearwaters in in New York. Kingbird 14:133-141.

Post, P. W. & Riepe, D. 1980. Laughing gulls colonize Jamaica Bay. Kingbird30:11-13.

Post, P. W. & Raynor, G. S. 1964. Recent range expansion of the Americanoystercatcher in New York. Wilson Bull. 76:339-346.

Post, P. W. & Enders, F. 1969. Reappearance of the Black Rail on Long Island.Kingbird 189-191.

Post, P. W. & Gochfeld, M. 1979. Recolonization of common terns of BreezyPoint, New York. Proc. 1978 Conf. Colonial Waterbird Group :128-136.

Post, P. W. & Davis, T. H. 1970. The breeding status of the glossy ibis in NewYork. Kingbird 20:3-8.

Potzger, J. E. & Otto, J. H. 1943. Post-glacial forest succession in northern NewJersey as shown by pollen record from five bogs. Amer. J, Bot. 30:83-87.

Prince, C. R 1978. lichens of Westchester County, New York. Bull. TorreyBot. Club 105:67-69.

Profous, G. V. & Loeb, R E. 1984. Vegetation and plant communities of VanCortlandt Park, Bronx, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 111:80-89.

Profous, G. V. & Loeb, R E. 1986. New York City woodlands and the specialnatural area districts. Arboriculture Journal 10:131-150.

Protectors of Pine Oak Woods, Inc. 1979. A report on Blue Heron Pond,Spring Pond, and the Polion Avenue Wetlands, Annadale, StatenIsland, New York City. 27 p. Mimeo.

,~ I I

I jllf ii·. 1I ",II

Raup, H. M. 1937. Recent changes in climate and vegetation in southernNew England and adjacent New York. J. Arnold Arb. 18:19-117.

Rawolle, C. &t Pilat, I. A. 1857. Catalogue of plants gathered in August andSeptember, 1857,in the ground of Central Park: Part 1. The New YorkBotanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 34 p.

Raynor, G. S 1959. Range extension of the veery on Long Island. Kingbird9:68-69.

Rechnagal, A B. 1923. The Forests of New York State. The Maanillan Co.,New York. 167p..

Redjives, C. F. 1957. Birds - W. T. Davis Wildlife Refuge. Proc. Staten. IslandInst. Arts & Sd. 20:20.

Reed, G. M. 1917. Phytopathological survey of the trees and shrubs. ofProspect Park and the Brooklyn Botanical Garden. I. Report of the firstseason's work. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Rec. 6:14-20.

Reed, G. M. 1918. Phytopathological survey of the trees and shrubs ofProspect Park and the Brooklyn Botanical Garden. n. Report of thesecond season's work. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Rec. 7:14-23.

Reichling, G. A. 1905. Contributions to the recorded fungus and slime-moldflora of Long Island. Torreya 5:85-87.

Reilly, E. M., Jr. 1964. Birds and geography in New State. Kingbird 14:197-200.

Ricciuti, E. R 1984. The New York City wildlife guide. Nick Lyons Books,Schocken Books, New York. 213 p.

Richards, A. G. 1938. Mosquitos and mosquito control on Long Island, NewYork, with particular reference to the salt marsh problem. New YorkState Museum Bulletin·No. 316.

Riepe, D. 1980. Laughing gulls colonize Jamaica Bay. Kingbird 30:11-13.

Riepe, D. &t Tanaaedi, J. T. 1988. Managing butterflies in urbanenvironments. Park Sci. 8:19.

Robichaud, B. Buell, M. F: 1973. Vegetation of New Jersey: A study ofLandscape Diversity. Rutgers Univ ..Press, New Brunswick.

Rogers, G. F. & Rowntree, R A. 1988. Intensive surveys of structure andchange in urban areas. Landscape & Urban Planning 15:59-78.

Rogers, G. 1982. Vegetation survey of FIyed Bennet Field in GatewayNational Recreational Area, Brooklyn, New York. Gateway Inst.Natur. Res. Sci. Gate-N-001-I. 14 p.

Rodgers, G. F., Brest, C., Solecki, W., & Vint, M. K 1984. Vegetation mappingand repeat photography. Unpubl. rpt. National Park Service, GatewayNational Recreation Area, Brooklyn, New York.

Rodgers, G. F., Robertson, J. M., Solecki, W. D., & Vint, M. K. 1985. Rate ofMyrica pensylvanica (bayberry) expansion in grassland at GatewayNational Recreation Area, New York. "Bull. Torrey Bot Club 112:74-78."

Rossi, J. M. 1984. An investigation of species diversity in the Staten IslandGreenbelt. Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci. 33:55-84.

•

Roze, U. 1975. Field trip of May 17, 1975. Cunningham Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 102:145.

Rudkin, W. H. 1880. Large trees near New York City. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club&:107-108.

Rudnicky, J. L. 1989. The New York Botanical Forest - An urban natural areain the Bronx. The Conservationist 43:46-49.

Rudnicky, J. L. & McDonnell, M:J. 1989. Forty-eight years of canopy changein a hardwood-hemlock forest in New York City. Bull. Torrey Bot.Club 116:52-64.

Rudolph, E. D. 1952. More than a tree grows in Brooklyn. Bull. Torrey Bot.Club 79:32.9-338.

Ruffe, B. J. 1981. Blue heron Pond Park: A vegetation analysis. M.S. Thesis,New York Univ., New York.

Rumph, W. T. 1979. The rediscovery of a plethodontid salamander on StatenIsland. Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci. 30:2.

Rusby, H. H. 1895. The poisonous plants in the vicinity of New York.Alumni J. Col. Pharm. 2:307-325

Rusby, H. H. 1906. A historical sketch-of the development of botany in NewYork City. Torreya 6:101-111,133-145.

Russell, E. W. B. 1980. Vegetational change in northern New Jersey fromprecolonization to the present: A palynological interpretation. BullTorreY Bot. Club 107:432-446.

"~'ll ~ ~Ilil ;+~,II' 1·1 ",II Ii ~,II 111;1,1~liIIHI lld,l! I-I

Russell, E. W. B. 1981. Vegetation of northern New Jersey before Europeansettlement. Amer. Midi. Natur. 105:1-12.

Russell, E. W. B. 1983. Indian-set fires in the forests of the northeastern

United States. Ecology 64:78-88.

Russell, H. R 1969/ City Critters. Meredith Press, N.Y.

Sandy Hook Bird Club. 1974-1989. Sandy Hook March 26 bird count records.Unpubl. (Contact: Mike Fahay, Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory,Highlands, NJ 07732).

Sandy Hook Bird Cub. 1984-1989. Sandy Hook onlies - world series ofbirding days. l1.npubl. (Contact: Mike Fahay, Sandy Hook MarineLaboratory, Highlands, NJ 07732).

Sawyer, E. 1<. 1977. Field Trip of June 26/1977. Greenwood Cemetery,Brooklyn, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:69-70.

Scheibel, M. S. 1982. Survey of Long Island area tern colonies. New YorkState Dept. Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook, NY.

Scheibel, M. S. & Morrow, I. 1979. Survey of Long Island area tern colonies.New York State Dept. Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook, NY.

Schlaugh, F. C. 1978. Geographical ecology of amphibians and reptiles ofLong Island. P.25-41 in Kirkpatrick, C. M., (ed.), Wildlife and People,Proc. John S. Wright Forestry Conference. Purdue, IN ..

Schneider, G. 1977. The Oay Pit Pond Area, Staten Island, New York. StatenIsland Inst. Arts & Sd. N.Y.

Schweitzer, F. & Greller, A. M. 1975. Field Trip of May3, 1975. Terminalmoraine, Queens Village to Bellrose, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club102:144.

Sedwitz, W. 1936. The half hardy birds that Wintered through 1933-1934 inthe New York City region. Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 47:90-97.

Sedwitz, W. 1951. A numerical study of shorebirds on Long Island in 1947.Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 58-62:49-54.

Sedwitz, W. 1958. Six years (1947-1952) nesting of Gadwall (Anas strepera) onJones Beach, Long Island,· NY. Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 66-70:6170.

Sedwitz, W. 1958. Five year count of the Ring-billed Gull (Larusdelawarensis) on western Long Island. Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York66-70:71-76.

Sedwitz, VV.,Alperin,!., & Jacobson, M. 1948. Gadwall breeding on LongIsland, N.Y. Auk 65:610-612.

Sedwitz, W., Alperin, I., & Jacobson, M. 1951. Gadwall nest found onsouthwestern Long Island. Proc. Linnaean Soc., New York 58-62:68-70.

Sefferien, M. L. 1932. Wildflowers of the Spuyten-duyvuil and Riverdalesections of New York City. Torreya 32:119-129.

Serrao, J. 1981. The magnificent Palisades forests. Amer. Forests 87:30-34,5557.

Serrao, J. 1984. The birds of the Greenbrook sanctuary. Palisades Nature,Assn,. Alpine, NJ.

Serrao, J. 1984. The butterflies of Greenbrook sanctuary. Palisades Nature,Assn,. Alpine, NJ.

Serrao, J. 1984. The mammals, reptiles and amphibians of Greenbrooksanctuary. Palisades Nature, Assn,. Alpine, NJ.

Serrao, J. 1984. The trees and shrubs of Greenbrook sanctuary. PalisadesNature, Assn,. Alpine, NJ.

Serrao, J. 1984. The wildflowers of Greenbrook sanctuary. Palisades Nature,Assn,. Alpine, NJ.

Serrao, J. 1986. The Wild Palisades of the Hudson. Lind Publications,Westwood, New Jersey.

Shapiro, A. M. 1970. Butterfly migrations on Staten Island. Proc. StatenIsland Inst. Arts & Sci. 25:66.

Shapiro, A. M. 1971. Notes on some Staten Island weeds. Proc. of the StatenIsland Inst. Arts & Sci. 26:67 ..

Shapiro, A. M. 1972. New York City's last frontier; field trips on StatenIsland. Staten Island Inst. Arts & 5ci., New York. 56 p.

Shapiro, A. M. & Buegler, R 1872. Field Trip of October 23, 1971. FreshkillsLandfill and Woodrow Barrens, Staten Island, New York. Bull. TorreyBot. Club 99:38-39.

I II ,~ I I

Shultze,E. A. 1887. A descriptive list of Staten'Island diatoms. Bull. TorreyBot. Club 14:69-73.

Siebenheller, N. 1981. Breeding birds of Staten Island, 1881-1981,includingShooter's Island. Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci. 48 p.

Siebenheller, N & Siebenheller, W. 1982. New York, Staten Island: GoethalsBridge Pond. Birding 14:48a-b.

Siebenheller, N & Siebenheller, W. 1982. Some noteworthy breeding recordson Staten Island in 1982. Kingbird 32:258.

Siebenheller, N & Siebenheller, W. 1977. Birds in focus: A seasonal guide tobirding on Staten Island. Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci., 75 StuyvesantPlace, Staten Island, New York. 83 p.

Simon, C. 1979, Brood nof the 17 year cicada on Staten Island: timing anddistribution, Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci. 30:35-47.

Silloway, P. M. Guide to summer birds of the Bear Mountain and HarrimanPark sections of the Palisades Interstate Park, Bulletin of the New YorkState College of Forestry at Syracuse 11:44-71.

Sirkin, L. A. 1965. Late Pleistocene palynology and chronology of westernLong Island-eastern Staten Island, New York. Ph.D. Thesis, ~ew YorkUniversity, New York. -.

Sirkin, L. A. 1965. Late-Pleistocene pollen stratigraphy of western Long Islandand eastern Staten Island, New York. In: Quaternary PaleoecologyInternational Association of Quaternary Research, 7th Congress, NewHaven, CT. P.249-274.

Small, J. K. 1933. Native shrubs of the New York Botanical Garden. J. NewYork Bot. Garden 34:125-134.

Small, J~K. 1933. Native ferns in the New York Botanical Garden. J. NewYork Bot. Garden 39:148-151.

Small, J. K. 1936. Exotic shrubs and trees naturalized in the vicinity of NewYork. J. New York Bot. Garden 37:227-282.

Small, J. I<. 1936. Ferns in the vicinity of New York: descriptions of fernplants growing naturally within a hundred miles of Manhattan Island.Science Press, New York. 285 p. -

Small, J. K. 1936. The jungles of Manhattan Island, I. Shrubs and trees ofFort Washington Park. J. New York Bot. Garden 37:201-107.

Small, J. K. 1937. The jungles of Manhattan Island, n. Shrubs and trees ofInwood Hill Park. J. New York Bot. Garden 37:201-107.

Small, J. K. 1975. Ferns in the vicinity of New York. Dover Pub!., New York.285p.

Smith, S. 1886. The Mollusca of Staten Island. Proc. Natural Sci. Assn. StatenIsland 1:35.

Smith, S, &t Prime, T. 1870. Report on the mulluscan of Long Island, NewYork and of its dependencies. Annals Lyceum Natur. Hist New York9:377-407.

Soyfort, W. G. 1973. A stUdy of the Hempstead Plains, Long Island, NewYork, and its vascular flora. M.S. Thesis, C. W. Post College of LongIsland University, New York.

Speiser, R 1982. Recent observations on breeding birds in the HudsonHighlands. Kingbird 32:97-101.

Spitzer, P. R. &t Poole, A. 1980. Coastal ospreys between New York City andBoston: a decade of reproductive recovery 1969-1979. Amer. Birds34:234-241.

Stalter, R 1980. Field trip of December, 8, 1979. Alley Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot Club 107:86.

Stalter, R 1981. A thirty-nine year history of the arborescent vegetation ofAlley P~nd Park, Queens County, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club108:485-487.

Stalter, R 1981. Field trip of December 6, 1980. Alley Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot~ Club 108:277.

Stalter, R 1982. Field trip of December 5, 1981. Alley Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot..Club 109:227.

Stalter, R 1982. The plant communities of Breezy Point Tip, New York.Gateway Inst. Natur. Res. Sci. Gate-N-D07-I. 14 p.

Stalter, R 1982 The plant communities on four landfill sites, New York City,New York. Gateway Inst. Natur. Res. Sci. Gate-N-OQ6-I.8 p.

Stalter, R 1982. The plant communities of Sandy Hook, New Jersey withemphasis on flex opaca. Gateway Inst. Natur. Res. Sci. Gate-N-008-I. 24p.

,II I'I' r

Stalter, R 1982. Some botanical observations of the Swamp White OakForest, Staten Island Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area. GatewayInst. Natur. Res. Sci. 11 p.

Stalter, R. 1983. Field trip of December 4, 1982. Alley Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 110:96.

Stalter, R 1983. Field trip of December 4, 1983. Alley Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 110:110.

Stalter, R. 1983. The plant communities along the Long Island Railroad,Long Island, New York. Proc. NE Weed Sci. Soc.37:115-119.

Stalter, R 1986. Field trip of December 7, 1985. Alley Park, Queens, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 113:57.

Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences. 1962. Staten Island Walk Book.Staten Island Inst. Arts & Sci, New York.

Stone, F. 1974. The plants of Inwood Hill Park. Unpubl. rpt. Friends ofInwood Hill Park, Bronx, New York.

Stone, G. E. 1916. Some problems in New York tree planting. New York Bot. Garden., New York. 12 p.

Stone, W. 1909. The birds of New Jersey. Annual Report New Jersey StateMuseum for 1908 :11-347.

Svenson, H. K. 1931. Important herbaceous plants of the greater New Yorkregion. Brooklyn Botanical Garden Leaf. 19:4-5.

Svenson, H. K. 1936. The early vegetation of Long Island. Brooklyn Bot.Garden Rec. 25:207-227.

Svenson, H. K. 1938. Aegilops cylindrica and Kyllingin pumila in the TorreyClub range. Torreya 38:72.

Svenson, H. K. 1939. Erichtites megalocorpa on Long Island. Rhodora 41:256.

Svenson, S. K. 1~1. Report of the local flora committee. Torreya41:3-7.

Swayer, E. K 1975. Field trip of August 9, 1975. Greenwood Cemetery,Brooklyn, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 102:209.

Tanner, O. 1975. Urban Wilds. Time-life Book Series, the AmericanWilderness, New York.

Jrlk3'f3

Taylor, N. 1915. Flora of the vicinity of New York: a contribution to plantgeography. Memoirs New York Bot Garden 5.

Taylor, N. 1915. The growth-forms of the flora of New York and vicinity.Amer. J. Bot. 2:23-31.

Taylor, N. 1916. Endemism in the flora of the vicinity of New York. Torreya16:18-27.

Taylor, N. 1916. Effects of the severe winter on the woody plants in thegarden. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Rec. 7:83-87.

Taylor, N. 1918. A quantitative study of Raunkiaer's growth-forms, asillustrated by the 400 commonest species of Long Island. Brooklyn Bot.Garden Mem. 1:486-491 .•

Taylor, N. 1920. Effects of the winter of 1919-1920on the woody plants in thegarden. Brooklyn Bot. Garden Rec. 9:121-123.

Taylor, N. 1921. Plant immigrants and natives: a comparison. Brooklyn Bot.Garden Leaf. 9.

Taylor, N. 1922. The evolution of Long Island. Review in Ecology 3:261.

Taylor, N. 1922 The forests and some of the big trees of Long Island.Brooklyn Bot. Garden Leaf. series 10, no. 10.

Taylor, N. 1923. The vegetation of Long Island. Mem. Brooklyn Bot Garden2.

Taylor, N. 1927. The climate of Long Island: Its relation to forests, crops andman. Cornell Univ. Agricultural Exp. Station, Ithaca, New York.

Taylor, N. 1938. Walking with an object Forty wildflowers worth hunting.Reprinted from Torreya 27, the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx,New York.

Taylor, N. 1938. A preliminary report on the salt marsh vegetation of LongIsland, New York. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 316, Sept.

Taylor, N. 1939. Salt tolerance of Long Island salt marsh plants. New YorkState Museum Circular 23, Nov.

Thomas, B & Thomas, P. 1983. Natural New York. Holt,Rinehart andWinston, New York, 227.p.

I'

Torrey, J. 1812. Calendarium flora for the vicinity of New York. The NewYork Botanical Garden Rarebook Collection, Bronx, New York.

Torrey, J. 1819. Catalogue of plants growing spontaneously within 30 miles ofNew York City. Lyceum Natur. Hist. Museum New York, Webster &skinner, Albany.

Torrey, R. H. 1930. Unusual plant occurrences around New York. J. NewYork Bot. Garden 31:267-271.

Torrey, R. H. 1931. Plant life around New York as studied by the TorreyBotanical Club. J. New York Bot. Garden 32:141-145.

Torrey, R. H. 1934. A.zolia Caroliniana survives in a Queens Kettle holepond. Torreya 34:11-12.

Torrey, R. H. & E. L. Dickinson. 1934. New York Walk Book - second edition.Dodd, Mead & Co., New York.

Torrey, R. H., Place, F & E. L. Dickinson. 1934. New York Walk BookAmerican Geography Society.

Trimble, B. & Post, P. W. 1968. Photographs of New York State rarities -15:Boat-tailed Grackle. Kingbird 18:182-183.

Trust for Public Land. 1990. The Harbor Herons Report A strategy forpreserving a unique urban wildlife habitat and wetland resource innorthwestern Staten Island. The Trust for Public Land in conj. withthe New York City Audubon Society. 56 p.

Trust for Public Land. 1987. A survey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected openshoreline and uplands. The Trust for Public Land in conj. with theNew York City Audubon Society. 34 p.

Trust for Public Land, Jackson, & Kihn. 1986. Clay Pits Pond State ParkPreserve, management plan, Staten Is~and, NY.

Trust for Public Land & New York City Audubon Society. 1987. Buffer thebay: a survey of Jamaica Bay's unprotected open shore and uplands.

Trust for Public Land & New York City Audubon Society. 1990. The harborherons report: a strategy for preserving a unique urban wildlife habitatand wetland resource in northwestern Staten Island, New York. 56 p.

Wander, W. i976. Breeding birds of Sandy Hook. Occasional Paper No. 139.NJ Audubon 3(5&6):83-90.

Ward, C. 1915. The tree situation in New York. Bull. NY State For. Assn. 2:813.

Warren, S. J. & Olson, L. 1986. Ecological resources of Hunter's Island. YaleSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT 70 p.

Wearing, G. G. 1939. Guide to lichens of the New York area, I. Torreya 39:2937.

Weidert, T. & Ahern, J. (s.n.) Ring-necked pheasant population studies atthe Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway National Park. Gateway Inst. Nat.Res. Sci. Gate-N-On-n. 23 p.

Weingartner, M. P. 1957.· Ferns - William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge. Proc.Staten Island Inst. Arts & So. 19:65..

Weingartner, M. P. 1957. Mollusks - William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge. Proc.Staten Island Inst. Arts & So. 20:16.

Weingartner, M: P. 1970. Field trip of July 5, 1970. Greenbelt, Staten Island,. New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 97:231.

Weingartner, M. P. 1970. Field trip of September 28, 1969. Staten Island, NewYork. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 97:74.

Weingartner, M. P. 1970. Field trip of September 26, 1970. William T. DavisWildlife Refuge, Staten Island, New York. Bull. Torrey BoL.-t:lub97:388.

Weingartner, M. P. 1971. Field trip of September 19, 1971. Great Kills Park,Staten Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 98:238.

Weingartner, M. P. 1971. Field trip of June 6, 1971. Ward's Point, StatenIsland, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 98:228.

Weingartner, M. P. 1972. Field trip of July 23, 1972. High Rock Park, StatenIsland, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 99:207.

Weingartner, M. P. 1972. Field trip of June 3, 1972. Jamaica Bay, New York.Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 99:206.

Weingartner, M. P. 1973. Field trip of June 2, 1973. Jamaica Bay WildlifeRefuge, Brooklyn, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 100:184.

Weingartner, M. P. 1974. Field trip of June 2, 1974. Jamaica Bay WildlifeRefuge, Brooklyn, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 101:215.

I j.1 , ' ,..~"'! I

Weingartner, M. P. 1978. Field trip of August 5, 1978. Ward's Point, StatenIsland, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 105:235-236.

Weingartner, M. P. 1978. Field trip of Apri115, 1978. William T. DavisWildlife Refuge, Staten Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club105:235-236.

Weingartner, M. P. 1979. Field trip of June 3,1979. Snug Harbor, StatenIsland, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 106:351-352.

Weingartner, M. P. 1980. Field trip of September 16, 1980. Gateway NationalRecreation Area, Staten Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club107:84.

Weingartner, M. P. 1981. Field trip of October 19, 1980. High Rock Park,Staten Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 108:122.

Weingartner, M. P. 1982 Field trip of May 31, 1982. William T. DavisWildlife Refuge, Staten Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club109:401.

Weistein, G. 1982. Central Park's Dutch Elm disease control program. In:Proc. of the Nat. Sym. Dutch Elm Disease and Its Control, N. Y. CityDept. Parks and Rec., March 16,1982,New York. P.1-3.

Wells, N. M. 1938. Trees and Shrubs in New York City and some -.observations on their growth. J. N. Y. Bot. Garden 39:193-200.White

Whitehead, J. L. 1953. Conservation in an urban environment. Proc. StatenIsland Inst. Arts & Sci. 15:49.

Wilcox, L. 1938. ~ flight of red phalaropes (Phalarapus fulicarius) on LongIsland, New York. Proc. Unnaean Soc., New York 49:60-63.

Wilcox. L. 1944. Great Black-backed Gull breeding in New York. Auk 61:653-654.

Wilcox, L. 1959. Large flights of red phalaropes. Kingbird 9:24-25.

Willis, O. R 1880. Flora of Westchester. Roper and and Burdge, New York.

Wilmott, G. B. 1931. The salamanders of Staten Island. Proc. Staten Island1nst. Arts & Sci.6:161.

Wilmott, G. B. 1933. Salamanders of Staten Island. Amer. Field-Naturalist1:5.

Wood, G. S. 1905. Additions to the lichen flora of Long Island. Bryologist8:51.

Woodruff, L. B. &: Paine, A. G., Jr. 1886. Birds of Central Park, New York.For. & Stream 26:386-387.

Yeaton, S. C., Jr. The amphibia of Long Island. Sanctuary 1:2-19.

Zaremba, R. 1985. Ecological significance: New York City? TNC Notes, N. Y.City 1(3).

Zaremba, R. 1986. In New York City: the search continues. TNC Notes, N. Y.City 2(1)•.

Zardusky, J. D. 1980. Town of Hempstead colonial bird nesting survey, 1980.Town of Hempstead Dept. of Conservation and Waterways, PointLookout, NY.

Zardusky, J. D. 1981. Forster's Terns breeding on Long Island. Kingbird31:212-213.

Zardusky, J. D. 1985a. Breeding status of the American Oystercatcher in theTown of Hempstead. Kingbird 35:105-113.

Zardusky, J. D. 1985b. Town of Hempstead colonial waterbird nesting survey,1985. Town of Hempstead Dept. of Conservation and Waterways, PointLookout, NY.

Zardusky, J. D. & Miller, R. 1983. Nesting Boat-tailed Grackles on Pearsall'sHassock. Kingbird 33:2-5.

Zito, J. 1977. Field trip of April 7, 1977. Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York.Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104:396-397.

II !I

j. - hudson river...this report is a part of the new york/new jersey harbor estuary program, whose...

Documents