c&£,3y;H2<, Draft Environmental Impact Statement |v\/// STOCKPORT Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary T I VOL I Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary in the State of New York _NX\_//. IONA PIERMONT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office Of Coastal Zone Management STATE OF NEW YORK Department of Environmental Conservation ^TOrco, 2 a c 3 & United States Department of Commerce Draft Environmental Impact Statement PROPOSED ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR A HUDSON RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY June 1982 Prepared by: U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 and State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12205 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation < r http://www.archive.org/details/proposedestuariOOnati PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD On this Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary on: July 19, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. - Piermont Village Hall (comments on Piermont and Iona Island) July 20, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. - Red Hook Town Hall (comments on Tivoli ) July 21, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. Stockport Town Hall at Stottville (comments on Stockport) Comments or presentations will be scheduled on a first-come, first-heard basis, and may be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. No verbatim transcript of the hearing will be prepared, but the hearing staff will record and summarize the comments. All comments received at the hearing, or in writing, will be considered in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. DESIGNATION TITLE: ABSTRACT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award to the State of New York for a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary The State of New York has submitted an application for a grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Management to establish an estuarine sanctuary on the Hudson River, New York. For the purposes of research and education, sites representative of the Hudson's estuarine gradient are appropriate. Four natural areas, the Hudson's highest quality tidal wetland complexes, are proposed for inclusion in the Sanctuary: Stockport Flats (1,149 acres), Tivoli Bays (1,481), Iona Island (556 acres), and Piermont Marsh (943 acres), for a total of 4,130 acres of land and water. The acquisition grant request to NOAA for $375,000, matched by an equivalent amount of State funds and services would be used for fee simple acquisition of wetlands, waters and shoreline at Stockport Flats (maximum 264 acres), Tivoli Bays (45 acres), and Piermont Marsh (73 acres), and to develop or renovate facilities at two or more of the four Hudson River sites. These facilities (buildings, roads, parking lots, trails, and boardwalk) will be used to accommodate research activities, educational programs, and visitors. All other land at the four sites is in public ownership. Approval of this grant application would permit the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary representing a subcategory of the Virginian biogeographic region. The proposed sanctuary would be used primarily for research and education purposes, especially to provide information useful for coastal zone management decisionmaking. Multiple use would be encouraged to the extent that it is compatible with the proposed sanctuary's research and educational programs. Research and monitoring in and near the proposed sanctuary would provide baseline information against which the impacts of human activities elsewhere in the Hudson River and the Virginian biogeographic region could be assessed. New York Department of Environmental Conservation U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management Dr. Richard J. Podgorny Sanctuary Projects Manager Office of Coastal -Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 634-4236 Individuals receiving copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will NOT automatically receive copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement unless specifically requested, or unless they submit oral or written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. APPLICANT: LEAD AGENCY: CONTACT: TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SUMMARY i PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 PART II: ALTERNATIVES (Including Proposed Action) 5 A. Preferred Alternative 5 1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands 6 2. Public and Private Access 6 3. Management 13 a. Management Plan 14 b. Management Structure 14 c. Sanctuary Staff 19 d. General and Specific Management Requi rements.20 e. Enforcement of Existing Laws 20 f. Research Program: Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary 21 g. Existing Monitoring 24 h. Education and Public Awareness Program 25 B. Other Alternatives Considered... 26 1. No Action 26 2. Alternative Sites and the Site Selection Process for New York State 27 3. Alternative Boundaries 31 a. Inclusion of Primary Resources 31 b. Adequate Protection and Manageability 31 c. Terrestrial Buffer Zones and Access ...31 4. Alternative Management Scheme 32 5. Fundi ng 32 PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 33 A. Hudson River - General Description 33 1. Natural Environment 40 a . Geol ogy 40 b . Hydrol ogy 43 c. Climate 46 d. Biology 46 e. Estuarine Escosystem 61 2. Current Uses of the Sites 61 a. Commercial and Recreational Fishing 61 b. Fur Trapping 64 c. Hunting 65 d. Forestry 66 e. Agriculture «. 66 SECTION PAGE f . Industry 67 g. Transportation 68 h. Recreation 70 i. Archaeologic Resources 71 j. Plant Resources 72 k. Esthetic Use.... 72 1. Research and Education 72 PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 79 A. General Impacts 79 B. Specific Impacts 80 1. Natural Environment 80 a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat.... 80 b. Soils and Vegetation 80 c. Water Quality 81 2. Human Environment 81 a. Residents of the Towns and Counties 81 b. Scientific and Educational 82 c. State and Federal 82 C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects. 82 D. Relationship Between the Proposed Action on the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 83 E. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 84 F. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, State, Regional and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Areas Concerned 84 1. Federal and Regional Plans 84 2. State Plans 85 3. Local Plans 85 PART V: List of Preparers 87 PART VI: List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons Receivi ng Copies 91 PART VII: Appendi ces 97 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Stockport Flats Area: Approximate Property Ownerships and Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries 7 Figure 2. Tivoli Bays Area: Approximate Property Ownerships and Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries 8 Figure 3. Iona Island Marsh Area: Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries 9 Figure 4. Piermont Marsh Area: Approximate Property Ownerships and Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries 10 Figure 5. Hudson River Estuary 34 Figure 6. Stockport Flats Area 36 Figure 7. Tivoli Bays Area 37 Figure 8. Iona Island Marsh Area 38 Figure 9. Piermont Marsh Area 39 Figure 10. Generalized Energy Pathways 62 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Ownership of Parcels within the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Boundaries 11 Table 2. Parcels Proposed for Acquisition 12 Table 3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee (Tentative Composition) 16 Table 4. Environmental Characteristics of the Four Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Sites 45 Table 5. Plants of the Proposed Sanctuary Sites Listed in Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant Species in New York State 50 Table 6. Animals Recorded at the Proposed Sanctuary Sites Either Currently Listed as Endangered by the State or Federal Government, or Included in the December 1981 "Tentative New York State Species List." 52 Table 7. Some Institutions and Agencies That Have Used the Hudson River for Research and Education 75 Table 8. Some Current Research Projects Involving the Proposed Sanctuary Si tes 78 SUMMARY BACKGROUND Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 19 72 (P.L. 92-583), as amended, established the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, which provides grants on a matching basis to States to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural field laboratories. These areas are to be used primarily for long-term scientific and educational programs that will provide information essential to coastal management dec isionmaking. Uses of estuarine sanctuaries are intended to serve objectives such as the following: -- To gain a more thorough understanding of ecological relationships within the estuarine environment; -- To make baseline ecological measurements; -- To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes and assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem; -- To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine ecosystems, their values and benefits to man and nature, and the problems confronting them; and -- To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes of research and education. To ensure that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program includes sites that adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the program regulations established a biogeographical classification scheme that reflects geographic, hydrographic , and biological characteristics. Eleven (11) biogeographic categories are defined in the program regulations. Subcategories of this basic system are developed and utilized as appropriate to distinguish different subclasses of each category. The total number of sanctuaries that will be needed to provide adequate representation of the various estuarine ecosystems occurring within the United States is currently under study. The proposed sanctuary is representative of the Virginian biogeographic region. The State of New York is committed to maintaining the resource productivity of its coastal zone. The Hudson River Estuary, a part of New York's coastal zone, supports an extremely valuable fishery resource and is a biological and esthetic treasure used and enjoyed by millions of people. In order to effectively protect and manage the Hudson River Estuary ecosystem, an understanding of estuarine ecology is essential. For this reason, establishment of an estuarine sanctuary in New York on the Hudson River would provide a valuable tool for enhancing the management of the Hudson River and associated coastal zone areas. 11 The Estuarine Sanctuary Program regulations, first published in 1974, and amended in 1977, authorize three kinds of 50 percent matching grants: (1) an optional, initial planning grant for such preliminary purposes as assessing the lands to be acquired, preparing an environmental impact statement, and developing management, research and education plans; (2) grants for acquisition of the real property within the sanctuary boundaries and development of interpretive/research facilities; and (3) operations grants for managing the established sanctuary's research and education programs. New York's involvement in the Estuarine Sanctuary Program is not new, but has spanned a period of approximately three years (see summary of site selection process in the Alternatives section). An initial proposal for a sanctuary on Long Island was impracticable, and New York was encouraged by the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management to propose a sanctuary on the Hudson River Estuary, the State's alternate choice. Representatives of involved State agencies met to select sites on the Hudson; the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) took the role of Lead Agency, with cooperation from the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, the Department of State, and the Office of General Services. For the purposes of research and education, sites representative of the Hudson's estuarine gradient are appropriate. Four natural areas, the Hudson's highest quality tidal wetland complexes, are proposed for inclusion in the Sanctuary: Stockport Flats in the Town of Stockport, Columbia County; Ti vol i Bays in the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County; Iona Island Marsh in the Town of Stony Point, Rockland County; and Pier- mont Marsh in the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County. All four of these sites contain extensive high quality tidal marshes with comparable vegetation types, as well as adjoining tidal shallows and forested upland margins. The sites also contain typical plants and animals of tidal river wetlands of the Estuarine Sanctuary System's Virginian Biogeographic Region (Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras), and productive ecological communities that are representative of the region. These areas also have a history of observation and research that provides basic information valuable to the initiation of a research and education program. On behalf of the State, DEC submitted a grant application to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) in May 1981 to gather information and plan the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at the above-named sites. In September 1981 , a pre-acqui sition grant of $50,000 was awarded by NOAA to DEC, to be matched by DEC funds and services. Work on the planning of the sanctuary began in earnest in January 1982 when the Federal money was received. PROPOSED ACTION The acquisition grant request to NOAA for $375,000, matched by an equivalent amount of State funds and services, would be used for establishment of a 4,130 acre sanctuary of which potentially 382 acres of wetlands, waters and shoreline would be purchased and to develop or renovate facilities at two or more of the four Hudson River sites. These facilities (i.e., buildings, 1 11 roads, parking lots, trails, and boardwalk) will be used to accommodate research activities, educational programs, and visitors. The great majority of land within the proposed sanctuary boundaries (see page 11) is already publicly owned or under negotiation for public acquisition under pre-existing programs. The chief importance of establishing the proposed sanctuary would be the development of a coordinated program of research and education that would not be otherwise realized. The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary is as follows (acreages are approximate): Stockport Currently publicly owned Proposed for acquisition Ti vol i Currently publicly owned Under negotiation Iona Island Currently publicly owned Proposed for acquisition Piermont Marsh Total area - 1 ,149 acres 692-804 acres (see Table 2, parcel 6) 152-264 acres (see Table 2, Parcel 6) Total area - 1 ,481 acres 1,436 acres 45 acres Total area - 556 acres 556 acres 0 acres Total area - 934 acres Currently publicly owned Under negotiation 871 acres 73 acres The total area of all four sites is 4,130 acres. Of this, 2,860 acres are wetlands and shallows, comprising 13% of the Hudson River Estuary's total area of wetlands and shallows (less than 6 feet deep at low tide). MANAGEMENT The DEC will administer the proposed sanctuary and will be directly responsible for the content and structure of the sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds, and the formulation and implementation of general program elements (such as research programs and educational programs) A sanctuary Steering Committee comprised of the five State agencies involved in the sanctuary (Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC), the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), the Department of State (DOS), and the Office of General Services (OGS)) has been formed. DEC will chair this Steering Committee. The Committee is advisory to DEC on issues related to the formulation and implementation of the sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds, and formulation and implementation of general program elements. Consistent with the management plan, the State agencies will exercise prerogatives and make decisions regarding use of lands to which they hold title. IV A Memorandum of Agreement, signed by the agencies represented on the Steering Committee, will be appended to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Memorandum of Agreement will outline interagency arrangements for the administration and management of the sanctuary, and express the agencies agreement to carry out the management plan. Three citizens' advisory groups (Columbia, Dutchess, and Rockland Counties), representing local government and sanctuary user groups, will act as a Sanctuary Advisory Committee and make recommendations to the Steering Committee. The Advisory Committee will channel public support and criticism to the Steering Committee. Estuarine sanctuary programs would be closely coordinated with related programs on the Hudson River, particularly the DEC's Hudson River Fisheries Unit and Fisheries Advisory Committee, and the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research. Sanctuary programs would also be coordi- nated with and would serve to enhance existing programs of research and education including those of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater and the Hudson Valley's colleges and universities. RESEARCH Estuarine sanctuary research programs would emphasize ecosystem-level understanding of the Hudson Estuary and especially its wetlands and shallows, as well as applied concerns of coastal management including the management of fish, game and fur resources, vegetation, endangered and rare species, and the reduction and mitigation of human impacts on the coastal zone. Much research has been done on the Hudson River Estuary, but efforts have generally been fragmented and there are many serious gaps in the knowledge needed to effectively manage the Estuary. The proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would help to coordinate and unify Hudson River research and to provide information to coastal managers at all levels of government and the private sector with the goal of wise resource management. EDUCATION The proposed estuarine sanctuary sites contain a variety of fauna and flora and estuarine habitats representative of the Hudson River Estuary, and are located within easy reach of millions of New York State and greater New York City area residents. The proposed sanctuary would provide an opportunity for many to learn more of the estuary's geology, ecology and resources. Estuarine sanctuary funds would be used to develop exhibit space at the Bear Mountain Trailside Museums complex near Iona Island Marsh for Hudson Estuary related exhibits; this complex is visited by over 600,000 people each year. Funds would also be used to set up facilities at or near the Tivoli Bays site for educational exhibits and for research work. Additionally, selected programs such as guided field trips, self-guided trail brochures, and educational media available to public groups and schools on loan could be developed. IMPACTS The overall and major impacts of designation of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary are expected to be positive through better scientific and public understanding of the estuary and its resources. The proposed estuarine sanctuary does not conflict with existing commercial or recreational uses of the Hudson River. Any conflicts that may arise with future uses of the riwer can be reduced through negotiation. Without an estuarine sanctuary, the Hudson River would not have areas dedicated specifically and permanently for research and education. However, with a sanctuary, present uses of the sites including hunting and other recreational uses where currently allowed, would continue. Furthermore, designation of the sanctuary and acquisition of lands, would provide additional public access to the riverfront for recreation and enjoyment. PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION In response to intense pressures on the coastal resources of the United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which was signed into law on October 27, 1972, and amended in 1976 and 1980. The CZMA authorized a Federal grant-in-aid and assistance program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective protection and development of the Nation's coastal zone, and provides financial and technical assistance to coastal States (including those bordering on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes) and U.S. territories to develop and implement State coastal zone management programs. The Act established a variety of grant-in-aid programs to such States for purposes of: -- developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 305); -- implementing and administering coastal management programs that receive Federal approval (Sec. 306); -- avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts resulting from coastal energy activities (Sec. 308); — coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate coastal management activities and programs (Sec. 309); -- conducting research, study, and training programs to provide scien- tific and technical support to State coastal zone management programs (Sec. 310); and -- acquiring land for estuarine sanctuaries and island preservation (Sec. 315). Section 315 of the Act established the Estuarine Sanctuary Program to provide matching grants to States to acquire, develop, and operate natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries, so that scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine the ecological relationships within the areas over time. Section 315 provides a maximum of $3 million in Federal funds, to be matched by an equivalent amount from the State, to acquire and manage lands for each sanctuary. The regulations for implementation of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program are found at 15 CFR Part 921. Amend- ments were proposed on September 9, 1977, 42 Federal Register: 45522-45523 (see Appendix 7). Regulations are presently being prepared for the Island Preservation Program that is also included within Section 315 of the CZMA. Estuarine sanctuaries have the dual purposes of (1) preserving relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative series of natural estuarine systems will always remain available for ecological research and education, and (2) ensuring the availability of natural areas for use as a control against which impacts of human activities in other areas can be assessed. These sanctuaries are to be used primarily for "Song-term scientific and educational purposes, especially to provide information useful to coastal zone management deci sionmaking. Research purposes may include: -- Gaining a more complete understanding of the natural ecological relationships within the various estuarine environments of the United States; -- Making baseline ecological measurements; -- Serving as a natural control against which changes in other estuaries can be measured, and aiding in evaluation of the impacts of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; and -- Providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their benefits to people and nature, and the problems confronting these ecosystems. While the primary purposes of estuarine sanctuaries are scientific and educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries by the general public is encouraged to the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes. Such uses may generally include low-intensity recreation, such as boating, fishing, shellfishing, hunting, and wildlife photography or observation. Commercial fishing and shellfishing may also be compatible uses. The estuarine sanctuary regulations envision that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program will ultimately represent the full variety of regional and ecological differences among the estuaries of the United States. The regulations state that "the purpose of the estuarine sanctuary program. . .shal 1 be accomplished by the establishment of a series of estuarine sanctuaries which will be designated so that at least one representative of each estuarine ecosystem will endure into the future for scientific and educational purposes" [15 CFR 921.3 (a)]. As administered by OCZM, the Estuarine Sanctuary Program defined 11 different biogeographic regions based on geographic, hydrographic , and biological characteristics. Subcategories of this basic system are established as appropriate to distinguish different subclasses of each biogeographic region. The total number of sanctuaries that will be needed to provide minimal representation for the Nation's estuarine ecosystems is currently under study. Since 1974, OCZM has awarded grants to establish twelve national estuarine sanctuaries. These include: Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification South Slough Columbian Coos Bay, Oregon Sapel o Island Carolinian Mcintosh County, Georgia Waimanu Valley Insular Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Rookery Bay West Indian Collier County, Florida Old Woman Creek Great Lakes Erie County, Ohio Apalachicola River/Bay Louisianian Franklin County, Florida Elkhorn Slough Californian Monterey County, California Pad ill a Bay Columbian Skagit County, Washington Narragansett Bay Virginian Newport County, Rhode Island Chesapeake Bay (2 sites) Virginian Anne Arundel and Somerset Counties, Maryland Jobos Bay West Indian Puerto Rico Tijuana River Californian San Diego County, California The proposed action under consideration by OCZM is providing a land acquisition grant to the State of New York to establish a National Estuarine Sanctuary in the Hudson River. This proposed sanctuary would consist of four individual sites representing different estuarine gradient zones in the Hudson River, and would contain approximately 4,130 acres of the Hudson's highest quality tidal wetland complexes. The acquisition grant request to NOAA for $375,000, matched by an equivalent amount of State funds and services, would be used for fee simple acquisition of wetlands, waters and shoreline at Stockport Flats (152-264 acres), Tivoli Bays (45 acres), Piermont Marsh (73 acres), and to develop or renovate facilities at two or more of the four Hudson River sites. These facilities (buildings, roads, parking lots, trails and boardwalk) would be used to accommodate research activities, educational programs, and visitors. All other land at the four sites is in public ownership. Approval of this grant application would permit the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary representing a subcategory of the Virginian biogeographic region. The proposed sanctuary would be used primarily for research and education purposes, especially to provide information useful for coastal zone management decisionmaking. Multiple use would be encouraged to the extent that it is compatible with the proposed sanctuary's research and educational programs. The Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary, if established, would represent a major subcategory within the northern half of the Virginian biogeographic region. This region extends over 1,000 miles of Atlantic coastline from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, featuring lowland streams, marshes, and muddy bottoms and representative plants and animals. New York's proposal follows several years of interest in and concern for the Hudson Estuary by State and local officials, and university and conservation groups. The four sites to be included in the estuarine sanctuary--Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh, and Piermont Marshes--were selected by a New York Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee because they are essentially undisturbed, representative sites, and because publicly owned land and water comprising an estuarine system were available for research, education, and recreation purposes. In September 1981, NOAA awarded New York a $50,000 pre-acquisition grant for the proposed sanctuary, which enabled the State to initiate a real estate appraisal and environmental assessment of the sites, and to prepare management, research, education, and recreation plans. PART II: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR THE ESTUARINE SANCTUARY (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION) The action under consideration by NOAA is a proposal from the State of New York to establish a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary consisting of four sites representing estuarine areas on the Hudson River. The State of New York has applied to NOAA for an acquisition grant of $375,000 to be matched with an equivalent amount of State, local, or private funds, donations of land, and in-kind services (for example, surveys and appraisals) to establish a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary composed of approximately 4,130 acres of water, wetlands, islands and uplands in Columbia, Dutchess and Rockland Counties. Acquisition funds would be spent for acquiring property through easements or fee simple purchases in these counties, as well as for developing facilities for research and education programs at the sanctuary. NOAA would serve as a temporary partner in the funding process for five years, after which the sanctuary would be wholly- State operated. The proposed sanctuary would be named the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary with each site being designated as the "Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at Stockport Flats," "Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at Ti vol i Bays," "Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at Iona Island Marsh," and "Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at Piermont Marsh." Although this project is called the Hudson River Estuarine "Sanctuary," this does not mean that traditional uses will be changed. In fact, a multiple-use policy is clearly practicable. To insure this policy, the agencies presently administering these sites (Department of Environmental Conservation, Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Palisades Interstate Park Commission, and Office of General Services) will continue to make the major management policy decisions for their respective sites, in coordination with the other agencies. This coordination will be achieved through a Memorandum of Agreement. Representatives of these agencies and of the New York State Department of State are expected to confer eyery 3 years to review the status of the program. A. Preferred Alternative for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary The $375,000 acquisition grant would be used for acquisition of lands and development of facilities at the Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh and Piermont Marsh sites to provide the control necessary for the establishment of a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. Most of the lands included within the proposed Sanctuary boundaries are already owned by New York State. The Hudson River Estuary in eastern New York is a long narrow tidal river containing a diversity of near-pristine and high quality natural areas and nationally significant biological features. The area includes bald eagle and osprey feeding areas, a large shortnose sturgeon population, rare estuarine plant species, a flyway for waterfowl and other birds, brackish and freshwater tidal river marshes and swamps, undeveloped forested clay and rock bluffs, and rocky and sandy islands. The proposed sanctuary sites are the major remaining near-pristine areas on the Hudson Estuary and are characterized by relatively unpolluted air and water, moderate to low tidal ranges, large tidal wetlands, heavily forested shores, great diversity of fish, wildlife and plants, and low human populations. The purpose of this proposed sanctuary would be to manage and to maintain the Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh and Piermont Marsh as they are now--healthy, productive, unspoiled estuarine natural systems, to encourage research and public education on these little-studied tidal river wetlands and associated environments, and to continue existing uses of the sites, including hunting, fishing, and trapping where presently permitted. 1 . Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands The proposed sanctuary would include approximately 4,130 acres of waters, wetlands, islands and uplands. The boundaries of the proposed sanctuary are shown in Figures 1-4. Most of the lands within the sanctuary boundaries are al ready owned by New York State. The presently State-owned areas and the areas proposed for acquisition are shown in Figures 1-4 and listed in Table 1. The grant request to NOAA would be matched by New York State, using such sources as Environmental Quality Bond Act and other State agency funds, value of donated land, bargain sales of the parcels to be acquired, donated money from fund raising, the value of easements granted, and the value of land acquisitions within the proposed sanctuary boundaries currently being negotiated Eleven specific parcels of private land are to be acquired as funds permit (not in priority order; see Figures 1 , 2, 4, and Table 2). In addition, the involved State agencies may acquire other parcels adjacent to the sanctuary boundaries in fee simple, or through conservation easements, as available funds permit. Furthermore, cooperative management agreements may be sought with adjoining private owners on a voluntary basis to further protect the areas surrounding the proposed sanctuary. 2. Public and Private Access Acquisition of public access points or protection of existing access points will be sought at Stockport and Tivoli. Access is adequate at Iona and Piermont. All four sites are accessible by small boat from the river using put-in points at both public and private landings within a few miles of the sites. Land access is limited at Stockport and Tivoli and tradi- tionally has been largely along the railroad service roads at these sites, but Consolidated Rail Corporation has indicated that it plans to close off some access points on its land in the near future. Thus, access points within the proposed sanctuary would be even more important to the public. N A West Flats Fig. 1 Stockport Flats Area, approximate property ownerships. The Consolidated Rail Coro. corridor is not shown. ( See Tables 1 and 2 (Adapted from USGS Hudson North, NY. quadrangle. Extent of tidal influence Proposed sanctuary boundary Ownership boundary Tivoli Magdalen Island 8 DEC Cruger Island DEC one mile one km Cruger Development Corp (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. corridor — — — — — Proposed sanctuary boundary Ownership boundary Fig. 2 Tivoli Bays Area. ( See Tables 1 and 2 .) (Adapted from USGS Saugerties, NY. quadrangle.) Trail side t Museums \ / Bear Mtn. Doodletown Bight one mile one km Proposed sanctuary boundary Fig. 3 lona Island Marsh Area ( See Tables 1 and 2 .) (Adapted from USGS Peekskill, N.Y. quadrangle.) Ownership all PIPC 10 N Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory Ownership boundary — — — — Proposed sanctuary boundary x x x x x x Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. easement one km one mile 1 — Fig. 4 Piermont Marsh Area. ( See Tables 1 and 2 .) (Adapted from USGS Nyack, N.Y. — N.J. quadrangle.) 11 Table 1. Ownership of Parcels Within the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Boundaries (see Figures l-4)a (approximate acreages). Stockport Flats: Acres New York State Office of General Services (OGS) 692-804b New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) 193 Private (see Table 2) 152-264b Ti vol i Bays: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 707 New York State Office of General Services (OGS) 729 Private (see Table 2) 45 Iona Island Marsh: Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) 556 Piermont Marsh: Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) 871 Private (including The Nature Conservancy, see Table 2) 73 Stockport Flats approximately 1,149 acres Tivoli Bays approximately 1,481 acres Iona Island Marsh approximately 556 acres Piermont Marsh approximately 944 acres Total approximately 4,130 acres a The following ownerships are adjacent to, but will not be part of, the proposed sanctuary: corridors approximately 75 feet wide passing through or adjacent to Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays and Iona Island Marsh and owned by Consolidated Rail Corporation; a Y-shaped corridor (undeveloped) 200 feet wide crossing part of the Tivoli Bays State lands and owned by Cruger Development Corporation of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation; the Erie Pier properties at the north end of Piermont Marsh owned by the Village of Piermont, Clevepak Corporation, and Federal Paper Board Company. b The ranges of acreage given are due to the incompletely determined size of the private holding on the unnamed island, the rest of which is owned by OGS. 12 Table 2. Parcels Proposed for Acquisition (not in priority order) At Stockport Flats: Parcel 1: An approximately 5-acre sandy islet owned by Joseph Nostrand between Fordham Point and Little Nutten Hook. Parcel 2: An approximately 57-acre area of shallows and shoreline, a water grant known as the "Gay Grant," owned by Irving Domnitch. Parcel 3: An approximately 18-acre area of water, marsh and shoreline, a water grant known as the "Judson Grant," owned by Irving Domnitch. Parcel 4: An approximately 10-acre area of water and marsh, a water grant known as the "Al vord Grant," owned by Robert L. Pierson. Parcel 5: An approximately 1-acre area of made! and adjacent to the rail- road and the mouth of Stockport Creek with an unimproved parking area and landing, owned by Consolidated Rail Corporation. Parcel 6. Portions of the "unnamed island" lying off the mouth of Stockport Creek owned by Porter Fearey, Jr. The extent of Mr. Fearey's ownership is believed to be between 7 and 119 acres, and to this extent the State is negotiating with him. Parcel 7: An approximately 54-acre area of water, marsh and shoreline, a water grant known as the "French Grant," owned by Algis C. Saurusaitis. At Tivol i Bays: Parcel 8: Approximately 45-acres of land including the approximately 9-acre Magdalen Island and additional area of upland at the north end of North Bay, owned by Tivol i Properties, Inc. This acquisition is under negotiation by the State and the exact size of the parcel has not been agreed upon. At Piermont Marsh: Parcel 9: An approximately 65-acre area of water and marsh donated to the Village of Piermont by Continental Group, Inc., together with about 6 acres previously owned by the Village, was transferred to The Nature Conservancy and the entire 71 (plus or minus) acres is being transferred to the New York State DEC. Parcel 10: An approximately 0.04 acre area in the northwest corner of Piermont Marsh, owned by Louis Hurban, Jr. Parcel 11: An approximately 2-acre area in the northwest corner of Piermont Marsh owned by James J. MacMurray. 13 Stockport. Existing access is mostly via the large unimproved parking area and unimproved boat landing on the ConRail property at the railroad crossing of Stockport Creek. Purchase of this access point would ensure its continued availability to the public. The need for an additional access point on tidal Stockport Creek upstream from the proposed sanctuary site would be studied. This point would provide access for researchers, fishermen, and canoeists. Gay's Point and Stockport Middle Ground are accessible by boat. There are three improved public boat launch sites (at Coxsackie, Hudson, and Athens) within approximately two miles of the proposed sanctuary site. Tivol i . Most access now is via the railroad service road from the Cruger Island Road (both northward and southward), from Barrytown (northward), and from Tivol i (southward). The management plan being developed by the DEC for the Ti vol i Bays area will include development of two unimproved boat landings using old roads, one at the south end of North Bay (from Cruger Island Road), and the other on the east side of North Bay at a point just north of Stony Creek. Additionally, an existing trail system around the east side of North Bay connecting Cruger Island Road and Kidd Lane will be renovated for foot access to the site. Three small primitive parking areas will be developed in conjunction with the access points, away from the margin of the wetlands. The proposed access system will provide access for researchers and educational groups as well as fishermen, hunters and outdoor recreationists. There is an unimproved river landing at the Village of Ti vol i north of North Bay. Iona. There is access to the marsh from Rt. 9W and also from the dirt causeway connecti ng 9W to Iona Island. The Palisades Interstate Park Commission will repair the causeway in 1982 or 1983 as soon as PIPC funds are available. The causeway provides access for researchers and certain other users, but generally permits are required from the Park Commission. The Trailside Museums complex north of the site is accessible from the highway and will house the proposed sanctuary educational facility. The Appalachian Trail passes through this complex. Piermont. The Erie Pier, owned by the Village of Piermont, is used for launching boats and has parking space for about 40 vehicles. The Village is planning construction of a launching ramp. The pier is also used by fishermen and birdwatchers. There is foot- path access to the marsh edge as well as to views over the marsh in Tallman Mountain State Park. 3. Management of the Proposed Sanctuary The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is not a new State or Federal regula- tory program. The proposed sanctuary would be managed using existing State laws and programs. The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is a State program; the Federal government is a partner in providing funds and guidance during the establishment phase. The principal goals of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary are to: 14 (1) Manage the area's natural resources in a manner compatible with the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program goals and objectives in order to maintain, protect, and enhance the quality of the area's biological, physical , and cultural resources. (2) Encourage scientific research that focuses on both improving decisionmaking in coastal management and increasing understanding of estuarine ecosystems. (3) Increase national and local awareness of the significance of the estuarine resources within the proposed sanctuary and the Hudson River Estuary in general, and encourage wise use of these resources. (4) Allow traditional resource uses (including hunting, fishing and and trapping) in coordination with National Estuarine Sanctuary Program objectives. a. Management Plan A Management Plan for the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would be formulated within one year after the acquisition grant is received (i.e., approximately Fall 1983). This plan would be prepared under the direction of the Sanctuary Steering Committee in full consultation with the land-owning agencies, the Sanctuary Advisory Committee, and the public. The plan would provide a framework for conducting research and educational programs and for integrating public uses into broader National Estuarine Sanctuary purposes, while ensuring compatibility of the various Federal, State, and local programs already in effect on the Hudson River Estuary. The management plan would incorporate the management prerogatives of the various Sanctuary land-owning agencies. b. Management Structure The DEC will administer the proposed sanctuary and will be directly responsible for the content and structure of the sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds, and the formulation and implementation of general program elements (such as research programs and educational programs). A Sanctuary Steering Committee comprised of the five State agencies involved in the proposed sanctuary has been formed. The Steering Committee consists of representatives from the following State agencies: 1. Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) including Regions 3 and 4 (lead agency, owner of certain sanctuary lands). 2. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) (Saratoga-Capital District State Park and Recreation Commission) (owner of certain sanctuary lands); 3. Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) (owner of certain sanctuary lands); 15 4. Office of General Services (OGS) (owner of certain sanctuary lands); 5. Department of State (DOS) (responsible for N.Y. State's Coastal Management Program). DEC will chair this Steering Committee. The Committee is advisory to DEC on issues related to the formulation and implementation of the proposed sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds, and formulation and implementation of general program elements. Consistent with the management plan, the State agencies will exercise prerogatives and make decisions regarding use of lands to which they hold title. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would serve as an ex-officio representative to the Steering Committee. A Memorandum of Agreement, signed by the agencies represented on the Steering Committee, would be appended to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Memorandum of Agreement would outline interagency arrangements for the administration and management of the proposed sanctuary, and express the agencies' agreement to carry out the management plan. The Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) will represent local government, user groups, conservation organizations, researchers, educators, funding organizations, and adjoining land owners. The purpose of the SAC is to achieve coordination among the public and private groups participating in the sanctuary program, and to assist and advise the Sanctuary Steering Committee. The SAC will help in securing funding from the private sector, organizing volunteer efforts in education and management work, soliciting and channeling public input to the sanctuary planning process, reviewing the proposed sanctuary management plan and any changes in the plan, reviewing proposals for educational and research use and other activities within the proposed sanctuary, enhancing communication and cooperation among all interests involved in the proposed sanctuary. The SAC will function as three local subcommittees for the three local counties containing proposed sanctuary sites (Columbia, Dutchess, and Rockland), with an executive committee that meets to coordinate the work of the three subcommittees. The subcommittees will consist of local representatives as outlined in Table 3. The chairpersons of the three local committees will meet with the Steering Committee. Coordination of the Steering Committee will be assured by the Memorandum of Agreement among the agencies involved that they agree to the objectives and specifications of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Federal Guidelines for the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The purpose of the coordinated management approach is to improve consistency, reduce conflicts, and provide better service to the public. The site-by-site organization of ownership and management responsibility follows. 16 Table 3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee (Tentative Composition) Stockport (Columbia Co.) Town Government County Environmental Advisory Group Sportsmen's Group Commercial Fisherman Conservation Group or Nature Club Adjoining Land Owner Scientific Researcher Educator Business Representative Tivoli (Dutchess Co.) (This subcommittee will be the same as the Tivoli Bays State Lands Advisory Committee.) Town Government Village of Tivoli Representative Town Conservation Council Dutchess County Trappers' Association Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club Adjoining Land Owner Scientific Researcher Bard College Educator Business Representative Local Waterfowl Hunter Piermont and Iona (Rockland Co.) Local Government Municipal Environmental Advisory Group Sportsmen's Representative Commercial Fisherman Conservation Group or Nature Club Adjoining Land Owner Scientific Researcher Educator Business Representative 17 Stockport Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Saratoga Capital District Park and Recreation Commission: owns land at Gay's Point and Stockport Middle Ground and is responsible for any facilities at those areas. There is a management plan for the Gay's Point and Stockport Middle Ground elements of the Hudson River Islands State Park, and picnicing, camping, fishing and hunting are permitted at those areas in accordance with provisions in the management plan. Office of General Services: owns the remainder of the currently State-owned lands at the Stockport site. Fishing, hunting and trapping are permitted on OGS lands, and these uses will continue. OGS has no facilities on its lands at Stockport. Department of Environmental Conservation; Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and Office of General Services together will plan and conduct whatever further acquisition of lands at the Stockport site is desired. Tivol i Department of Environmental Conservation: owns lands at Cruger Island, North Bay, and east of North Bay, and is negotiating further acquisition there. A management plan for the Tivoli Bays State lands is being prepared by DEC under a directive that predated the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. (This acquisition project was initiated in 1980 using on a 50-50 matching basis a Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service grant and New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act funds, and has also been called "Tivoli Bays Nature and Historical Preserve." The area will also serve as a wildlife management area.) Facilities constructed at the Tivoli site for the proposed estuarine sanctuary would be funded (construction and maintenance) with estuarine sanctuary funds and other funds as needed. However, DEC will be responsible for physical management of the site. 18 Office of General Services: owns lands in North Bay, the northern end of South Bay, and around Cruger Island and Magdalen Island which are to be transferred to DEC under an agreement which pre-dated the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. OGS also owns lands in the middle of South Bay and outside South Bay (west) which will remain in OGS ownership, but will be managed by DEC under the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. OGS has no facilities at the Tivoli site. Iona Palisades Interstate Park Commission: owns the Iona Island Marsh and all surrounding areas west of the railroad, as well as the portions of Iona Island and Round Island east of the railroad, the shallows adjacent to the island, and the Bear Mountain State Park Trail side Museums complex. PIPC maintains a portion of the Appalachian Trail which passes within three-tenths of a mile of the marsh (this is the only point where the Appalachian Trail passes through the coastal zone). The United States Department of the Interior holds a reversionary interest in the portions of Iona Island and Round Island east of the railroad. PIPC patrols the entire site, and regulates use of the site in accordance with established PIPC management policies. PIPC will be responsible for the maintenance of all improvements, additions, and exhibits at the Trailside Museums built with estuarine sanctuary funds. PIPC is also responsible for the maintenance of the access road to Iona Island. Hunting, trapping and fishing have not been permitted for more than 65 years at Iona Islands on PIPC lands and permits are generally required for other uses. Piermont Palisades Interstate Park Commission: owns the major (central) portion of Piermont Marsh, and water rights grants adjacent to the eastern edge of the marsh. Hunting and trapping have not been permitted for more than 50 years on the PIPC lands, which are managed according to established PIPC policy. There are no structures on the PIPC lands included in the proposed sanctuary boundaries. Department of Environmental Conservation: is acquiring lands in the north end of Piermont Marsh between Sparkill Creek and the Erie Pier, and will manage the parcels to be acquired and any other parcels acquired in that portion of the marsh under the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. 19 Office of General Services: owns all lands under water east of Piermont Marsh with the exception of water rights granted to PIPC in certain areas. OGS will retain its lands and enter into a management agreement with the proposed estuarine sanctuary. There are no structures on the OGS lands. c. Sanctuary Staff The DEC in consultation with the Sanctuary Steering Committee would direct a staff consisting of at least one person, the Sanctuary Manager. The Manager will be an individual experienced in the environmental sciences and in grant proposal preparation. An alternative arrangement would be two individuals, a scientist and a grants writer. The Manager will occupy an office at a State-owned facility to be selected near the Ti vol i or Iona site or between these two sites. If only one person is appointed, arrange- ments would be made to secure the part-time services of at least one other person, so that one staff member resides near the up-river sites and one resides near the downriver sites. The part-time staff member could be a shared position with another Hudson River Estuary related job in the public or private sector. Additionally, the services of volunteers would be sought wherever possible. The sanctuary staff would be accountable to the DEC and the duties of the staff would be: (1) Coordinating research within or related to the proposed sanctuary, and sharing the research results with the State Coastal Management Program and other State Programs related to the Hudson River Estuary; (2) Coordinating the educational program for the proposed sanc- tuary and establishing a forum for open discussion between environmental and economic interests along the estuary; (3) Preparing grant proposals and managing the finances of the proposed sanctuary; (4) Performing other administrative duties for the proposed sanctuary, including maintenance of complete and detailed scientific and management records of the proposed sanctuary; (5) Working with the Steering Committee and the Sanctuary Advisory Committee; (6) Advising government agencies on issues, questions and projects that have an impact on the proposed sanctuary. 20 d. Genera] and Specific Management Requirements Management policies would be based on the primary objective of main- taining the proposed sanctuary in a natural condition to assure long-term protection of these four areas for research, education, and recreation. Development uses that would significantly alter the ecosystem or that are inconsistent with the purposes and goals of the proposed sanctuary would not be allowed on the proposed sanctuary lands. Existing Federal, State, and local laws would, as in the past, control uses of the land and water areas within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. Changes in management policies and regulations that affect the proposed sanctuary would be reviewed by the Sanctuary Advisory Committee. This Committee may provide advisory comments on policies and programs, but would have no regulatory authority. Major traditional uses of the l O 03 O0 O) 03 +-> 10 LU ■o c OJ E c o c •1— > c (V x: to c_ 03 to +-> -o OO .*: a O -o «•- > > 03 03 oo E ai +-> 00 1 to _*: O U • a> O o o * u A f— ."2 *1 *\ +J 1— "r"* r— r— I—" a« •T- C •i— oj •T" •"I— "O +J Q- •1- +-> 4-> 3 +j 3 +J i— ■!_> C i- 03 +J +j 03 •*- 03 3 +J CL 03 (U 03 -M +-> -l-> 03 i— 03 i— OJ *i~ OJ »T— Q. tO Q. to a> C1J c » c o to to •»-•-> to a> to 03 CD (O ■o ,— •r— xj ,— -a C fO c_ <_ OJ **- io <<- t— o _S^ CO o +•> O A3 4-> r~ OO U_ to >> 03 CO O > to £_ ■o 03 c S 03 r— +-> to c t— I o E 03 <_ C a* o •n-» 1— ( Q_ 46 Ice forms first and remains longest on the wetlands, and the constant grinding of ice lifted and lowered by the river's tides is highly erosive. Ice covers the wetlands from one to four months per year, depending on the severity of the winter. The downriver wetlands have less ice cover than upriver areas. Ice a foot or more thick may form on tidal creeks and pools in the wetlands. However, in dense upper intertidal zone vegetation (such as cattail, purple loose-strife, or woody plants) thick dense ice does not normally form, but rather many layers of thin ice are produced. The surface of the main river in the vicinity of Tivoli Bays and Stockport Flats usually freezes solid; but the Coast Guard keeps open the shipping channel. c. CI imate Average annual precipitation along the Hudson River Estuary is about 37-46 inches, tending to be higher southward. Monthly averages for Poughkeepsie (39 inches annually) range from 2.7 inches in February to 4.1 inches in July. Average annual snowfall is about 39-50 inches mid-estuary. January average air temperature is 23-29° F, and July average 71-73° F. Average temperatures are slightly lower northward, higher southward. Growing season is in the range of 150-200 days. The large water mass of the estuary warms more slowly in spring and cools more slowly in the fall than the air. This temperature lag moderates the climate in wetlands and shoreline areas relative to sites off the river. The Hudson River Estuary is to some extent a climatic arm of the coast where coastal weather mixes with inland weather. Prevailing winds are north or northwest in winter, and south or southwest in summer. Average wind speeds are highest in March and lowest in August. Winds are highly variable, and sudden squalls, summer thunderstorms, and occasional hurricanes affect the river. Day-to-day weather is variable and shoreline areas and wetlands are exposed to extremes of sunshine, temperature, freezing and thawing, wind, waves and spray, and other factors. Temperature inversions with night and morning fogs are frequent in summer and fall. d. Biology Vegetation. Lists of plants found in the four proposed sanctuary sites are in Appendix 6. The tidal shallows, from low tide level down to about 6 feet below low tide level (Figures 6-9), and the subtidal creeks and pools in the wetlands, support communities of submerged plants. There are some patches of bare mud. Wetlands of the upper intertidal zone (between average tide level and high tide level) are mostly covered by grass-like plants 1-10 feet tall, often growing in extensive and dense patches of one or a few species. Locally, a few kinds of broadleaved plants are also common, and there are many less common or smaller secondary species of plants that occur scattered or in small patches especially on creek and pool banks and near the high tide shore! ine. 47 Lower intertidal wetlands (average tide level to low tide level) are mostly bare mud in downriver more saline marshes, but in fresher upriver marshes are covered with broad-leaved plants with large heartshaped or arrowhead-shaped leaves 2-3 feet tall and some grass-like plants. Predominant species vary, but the communities in the proposed sites are typical of the Hudson River Estuary in general in the four geol ogic-ecol ogic reaches of the river. Near the high tide level, flooded by the higher high tides, are localized areas of tidal swamp, especially upriver in tidal freshwater. These areas are covered by trees and/or shrubs. Tidal freshwater and low-salinity marshes are similar in the Hudson and other Virginian Region estuaries, with the most abundant species generally including the following: narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), wild-rice (Zizania aquatica) , river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatil is) , spatterdock (Nuphar advena) , pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), tall cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) , swamp rose ma! 1 ow~~[Hi bi scus pal ustri s ) , tidewater-hemp (Amaranthus cannabinus), bur-marigolds (Bfdens spp.), water-millet (Echinochloa walteri), jewel weed (Impatiens bi flora), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), smartweeds (Polygonum spp.) , and common reed (Phragmites communis). Aboveground standing crops reported for Hudson River marshes are similar to those reported for Delaware and Chesapeake Bay estuary marshes. Plant communities of fresh-tidal and low-salinity shallows are also similar in the Hudson River Estuary and other Virginian Region estuaries, with the most abundant species generally water- celery (Vallisneria americana), pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.) and watermilfoil (Myriophyl lum spicatum). Freshwater tidal swamps also occur in other Virginian Region estuaries but have been the subject of virtually no research. Terrestrial vegetation along the Hudson River Estuary in undeveloped areas is generally deciduous forest. On the dry rocky slopes of the Palisades Ridge and Hudson Highlands the most abundant trees are red oak (Quercus boreal is), chestnut oak (Q. prinus), and a few other deciduous species. Mid-Hudson and upper estuary deeper-soil areas, as well as moist ravines down-river, support oaks, sugar maple (Acer saccharum) , tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), black birch (Betula lenta), beech (Fagus grandi folia) white pine (Pinus strobus), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). All four proposed sanctuary sites have yery well developed forested buffer zones on most of the upland frontage and particularly on steeper slopes. These buffer forests range in width (map distance) from 100 yards to well over one-half mile. The railroad rights-of-way, away from the tracks, tend to be thickly grown with herbs, shrubs and sometimes trees. Among the most common larger species are false-indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), sumacs (Rhus glabra, R. typhi na), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) , honeysuckle (Lonicera s"pp77, and brambles (Rubus spp.). Vegetation of the Erie Pier at Piermont is similar with the addition of white mulberry (Morus alba). 48 Stockport Flats. Water-celery is very abundant in the shallows. The intertidal marshes are dominated by narrowleaf cattail, wild-rice, spatter- dock and pickerel weed. The wild-rice stands are very lush and appear to be the most extensive stands of wild-rice anywhere on the Hudson; wild-rice has increased greatly in the last 5 years both in Stockport and elsewhere on the Hudson Estuary and now approximates former (1930s-40s) levels. Tidal swamps and floodplain swamps are dominated by red ash (Fraxinus pennsyl vanica), silver maple (Acer saccharinum) , cottonwood (Populus deltoides), sycamore (Platanus occidental is), wil 1 ows (Salix ssp.) and silky dogwood. Some of the tidal swamps have many large trees (stems 1-3 feet or more in diameter-at-breast-height). The bluffs along the south side of Stockport Creek and east of the main marsh are covered by deciduous forest with oaks and other trees, and localized areas of white pine. The sandy islands and points have abundant cottonwood, black-locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), oaks, staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), etc. Tivoli Bays. Water-celery, watermilfoil , and waterchestnut (Trapna natans) are the most abundant plants in the shallows. The intertidal marshes are dominated by narrowleaf cattail , spatterdock, and purple loosestrife. The tidal swamps are predominantly red maple (Acer rub rum), red ash, black ash (Fraxinus nigra), silky dogwood, willows, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidental is) and smooth alder (Alnus serrulata). The Tivoli tidal swamps cover 45 acres and are very rich in shrub and moss species. The clay bluffs and rocky islands support wel 1 -devel oped forest with sugar maple, hemlock, red oak, white oak, chestnut oak, white ash (Fraxinus americana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), shagbark hickory (£. ovata), white pine and flowering dogwood. A grove of particularly large oaks and hemlocks borders the tidal mouth of Stony Creek. Iona Island Marsh. Water-celery is very abundant in the shallows. The intertidal marshes are dominated by narrowleaf cattail, with small amounts of swamp rose mallow and common reed. A small area of tidal swamp is dominated by crack willow (Sal ix fragil is). The island and mainland slopes are covered with deciduous forest with abundant red oak, chestnut oak, and pignut hickory. Piermont Marsh. Pondweeds are present in the shallows. The intertidal marshes are dominated by narrowleaf cattail and common reed, with lesser amounts of tall cordgrass, saltwater cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), salt- meadow cordgrass (S. patens), saltgrass (Distich"! is spicata) , swamp rose mallow, and purple loosestrife. There is no appreciable area of tidal swamp, 49 The mainland forest at the base of the Palisades Ridge has abundant and large beech, tulip tree, red oak, black birch and flowering dogwood. The cli ff-and-sl iderock has red oak, black birch and other trees. Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants. Several species listed in the New York State Museum's Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant Species in New York State (Mitchell et al . , 1980) have been found in the proposed sanctuary sites and are listed in Table 5. Heartleaf plantain (Plantago cordata), proposed in the Federal Register for Federal Endangered status, is present at the Stockport and Ti vol i sites. Potential for continued survival of the plantain, and for research on it, is excellent at these 1 ocations. Nuttall's micranthemum (Micranthemum micranthemoides ) is known from Ti vol i Bays. This is the only recorded station for this species in New York and one of about 20 localities known in the world (all in East Coast tidal freshwater habitats). Although the micranthemum was last seen in 1936, some botanists think the species may still survive at Ti vol i ; it is a small plant and difficult to identify. Nuttall's micranthemum was proposed in the Federal Register for Federal Threatened status. It has not been found recently at other East Coast locations. Most of the other species listed in Table 5 are restricted to brackish- tidal or fresh-tidal wetlands, and are the subject of concern by botanists because of the general vulnerability of these types of ecosystems on the East Coast. Numerous other species of wetland and terrestrial plants that are not considered threatened or endangered, but are rare in New York and have special interest to scientists are (or may be) found at the proposed sanctuary sites. One example is goldenclub (Orontium aquaticum), a species common in the southeastern United States in inland wetlands, but declining in northeastern estuaries. Goldenclub occurs at Stockport Flats and Ti vol i Bays, and is sought out as an esthetic attraction during its May flowering period. A list of "Plants Concentrated in the Tidal Marshes of the Hudson River" prepared by the late Stanley J. Smith in 1974 includes 21 species of mostly rare (and a few common) plants; many of these 21 have been recorded from the proposed sanctuary sites. Because of the large size and environmental complexity of the proposed sites, thorough botanical studies in the future may discover many more rare plants and unusual plant communities than are now known. Fish and Wildl ife. The deep waters, shallows, wetlands, and shores of the Hudson River Estuary act as a migration and dispersal pathway for many kinds of fish and wildlife. These environments provide suitable corridors for movements of animals northward and southward, and suitable stopover habitats with shelter and food. Many kinds of animals also find habitats on the estuary where they reside seasonally or permanently. Of Hudson River Estuary animals, many do not remain in a single type of habitat, but more back and forth between two or more habitat types in tidal, daily or seasonal cycles. These species require combinations of 50 Table 5. Plants of the Proposed Sanctuary Sites Listed in "Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant Species in New York State" (Mitchell et al . , 1980). Species Site Significance (NY)a Spatulate arrowhead, Sagittaria spatul ata Ovate spikerush El eocharis ovata Cylindrical bulrush, Scirpus cyl indricus Parker's pipewort, Eriocaulon parkeri Sea pink, Sabatia dodecandra Nuttall's micranthemun Micranthemum micranthemoides Heartleaf plantain, PI antago cordata Eaton's bur-marigold, Bidens eatonii Estuary beggar-ticks, Tivoli SRL Bidens hyperborea Stockport HAB Stockport R, SERL Tivoli, lona lona, SPOR Piermont Stockport, R, VULN Tivoli lona EXT?, NRL, SNY Tivoli *EXT?, R, SNYS SPOR, VULN Stockport, *R, DECL, SPOR Tivoli Tivoli R, HAB, END aDECL = Observed to be declining in New York State; _END = Highly restricted range, endemic; EXT? = Possibly extirpated in New York State; HAB = Restricted to habitats rare in the State; _R = Rare throughout its range; SNYS = Single New York station; SPOR = Sporadic: scattered popu- lation sTT!l!iI! = Vulnerable to commercial or private exploitation or imminent land development; SRL, SERL, NRL = Southern, southeastern, or northern range limits or nearing the periphery of their distributions. * Listed in the Federal Register (proposed for Federal Endangered or Threatened listing). 51 habitat types to fulfill their life requirements: for example, the wood duck that nests in a hollow tree in the forest, but raises its brood in the marsh, and the striped bass (Morone saxatil is) that moves from the river channel into the marsh, pools, and creeks to feed. The most important habitat combinations are the marsh-shallows combination, and the marsh-forest combination. These patterns of animal use emphasize the special nature of the shall ows-wetlands-forest complexes at the four proposed sanctuary sites. Some Hudson Estuary habitats support unusual abundance or diversity of animals. Some examples are: abundance and diversity of chironomid midge larvae in submerged vegetation in the Haverstraw Bay - Tappan Zee; abundance and diversity of burrowing animals in sandy soils; abundance of post breeding humming birds in jewel weed in the marshes; abundance of certain breeding birds (least bittern, long-billed marsh wren) in extensive cattail stands (Kiviat, 1979). Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Animals. Species currently on Federal or New York State Endangered Species lists, or on the Tentative New York State Species List (a proposed revision of the existing State list), and which occur at the proposed sanctuary sites, are shown in Table 6. The Tentative State List has three categories (in decreasing order of endanger- ment): Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern. Endangered. The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is listed on both Federal and New York State Endangered Lists, and has a sizeable resident population in the Hudson River Estuary. The primary wintering area is in deep water in the vicinity of the Esopus Meadow - Kingston Flats approximately 2-9 miles south of the Ti vol i Bays. Spawning occurs in spring as the shortnose migrate northward to Troy. Adult shortnose sturgeon in the St. John River Estuary in New Brunswick (Canada) feed on mollusks in beds of submerged vegetation. If Hudson River shortnose sturgeon have similar feeding habits, they may be attracted to shallows near Tivoil and Stockport as well as in other areas of the upper Estuary. The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) has been reported from locations within a few miles of two of the proposed sites (early-mid 1900s) and could occur at the sites, but the nature of the available habitats makes this unlikely. This species is listed as Endangered by New York State. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) records are few, and it is not clear if they occur regularly at any of the proposed sites. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was common on the Hudson River Estuary, especially in winter, in the late 1800s according to naturalists of the period (e.g., Mearns, Burroughs). Bald eagles became rare along the Hudson in the last few decades when there was a nationwide decline in populations. However, birdwatchers who spend a lot of time on the Estuary may see one or more bald eagles yearly, and there are slight indications that numbers have increased in the last two years. There are regular sightings at the proposed sanctuary sites mostly when the waters are partly frozen. Some eagles have been seen during other seasons as well, but there have been no nesting attempts. Bald eagles require open water and 52 Table 6. Animals Recorded at the Proposed Sanctuary Sites either Currently Listed as Endangered by the State or Federal Government, or Included in the December 1981 "Tentative New York State Species List" (Endangered, Threatened Special Concern). Additional species have been recorded near the sites and are discussed in the text. Species Shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirosturm Spotted turtle, Clemmys guttata Common loon, Gavia immer Double-crested cormorant, Phal acrocorax auritus Least bittern, Ixobrychus exil is Cooper's hawk, Accipiter cooperii Red-shouldered hawk, Buteo 1 ineatus Golden eagle, Aquila chrysaetos Bald Eagle, Hal iaeetus leucocephal us Marsh hawk, Circus cyaneus Osprey, Pandion haliaetus Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus Common tern, Sterna hirundo Black tern, Chi idonias niger Site (see text) Tivoli all all all all all all Iona , Piermont Tivoli, Iona, Piermont Tivol i , Piermont Status Endangered (US, NY) Special Concern Special Concern Special Concern Special Concern all Special Concern all Threatened Tivoli, Iona, Piermont Endangered (NY) Endangered (US, NY) Threatened Endangered3 (NY) Endangered (US, NY) Threatened Special Concern 53 Table 6 (Continued) Species Common raven, Corvus corax Grasshopper sparrow, Ammod ramus savannarum Henslow's sparrow, _A. henslowii Vesper sparrow, Pooecetes gramineus aThe osprey is currently on the New York Endangered List, but the "Tentative List" proposes a change to Threatened status. Site Status Ti vol i Special Concern Ti vol i Special Concern Piermont Ti vol i Special Concern Ti vol i , Special Concern Iona 54 dead fish or other carrion for food. Iona Island has the potential to become a regular winter roosting area. Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are commonly seen in small numbers (1-4 at once) along the Hudson in April and May, and occasionally in summer and fall. There are isolated historical records of osprey breeding along the Hudson River Estuary, but it is not clear to what extent ospreys nested successfully here. Possibly the high natural turbidity of Hudson River waters makes it difficult for nesting osprey to catch enough fish to feed their young. The sizeable Long Island Sound osprey population declined severly after World War II due to D'DT contamination of their food, but in the last few years Long Island Sound ospreys have begun a remarkable comeback. Unverified reports of nesting attempts along the Hudson could indicate a spillover from the sound. Osprey occur at all four proposed sanctuary sites where they catch fish in the shallows and marsh pools and and retire to eat in large (often dead) tree. A late -1950s nest was reported at Tivoli Bays, and a possible 1970s nest near Iona Island, but no details are available for verification. Several pairs of peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) nested along the Hudson River Estuary on the Palisades and Hudson Highlands cliffs for many years until the nationwide population decline in the 1950s. None of these nesting sites is active at present. Peregrine falcons are being reintroduced experimentally to former nest sites at other northeastern locations and there is potential for re-establishment at one or more of the Hudson River eyries. The peregrine falcon occurs now as a rare transient along the Hudson. Threatened. The mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum) has been reported from Bear Mountain State Park, but no verification is available. There is a single specimen of this species from Ossining, but mud turtle distribution in the lower Hudson region is a mystery (Craig et al . , 1980). Mud turtles could occur at Iona or Piermont; they have been found in tidal marshes outside of the Hudson Estuary. Red -shouldered hawks (Buteo 1 ineatus) are seen along the Hudson during migration, and nests have been found at a small number of off-river localities in the 1970s. Nesting is possible at the proposed sanctuary sites. The marsh hawk (Circus cyaneus) is seen regularly at Hudson River marshes including the proposed sanctuary sites in late summer and fall, rarely in winter, and occasionally in spring. There is no evidence of nesting although the species formerly nested at inland localities in the Hudson Val ley. The common tern (Sterna hirundo) is seen occasionally as a windblown wanderer at the proposed sanctuary sites, more often downriver. There does not seem to be any breeding potential. Special concern. The Jefferson salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) is found at a few locations inland and could occur near nontidal woodland pools at the proposed sanctuary sites. Spotted turtles (Clemmys guttata) are quite rare in tidal wetlands, but nesting has been verified at least 55 at Tivoli Bays; the species is more common at certain inland locations. Hognose snakes (Heterodon platyrhinos) have not been reported from the sites although found here and there offriver; the hognose could be found wherever toads (their food) are abundant and especially in sandy soils. Common loons (Gavia immer) are seen occasionally as migrants on the estuary, including the proposed sites; there is no breeding potential. Double crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) occur regularly downriver, sporadically upriver; they are quite rare near the two upriver sites. There does not appear to be any breeding potential. The least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) is known from the extensive cattail marshes of the proposed sanctuary sites as a breeding species. It is a rare bird in the Hudson Valley because of the scarcity of large cattail stands. Semiquantitative data suggest a stable breeding population of perhaps a dozen pairs at Tivoli Bays during the period 1973-81. The Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii ) is seen occasionally at the proposed sites, and recent inland breeding records suggest potential breeding in the forests of the proposed sanctuary. The black tern (Chi idonias niger) is a rare spring migrant on the Hudson River Estuary; there are no breeding records, although black terns breed in large inland marshes in central New York. The barn owl (Tyto alba) is rare along the Hudson where availability of nest sites may be a limiting factor. Barn owls could occur, and there is some breeding potential at the proposed sanctuary sites. Short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) could occur in winter at the proposed sites as there are a few regular wintering areas offriver in the Hudson Valley. The common raven (Corvus corax) seems to be increasing in the northeast, but there is only one record from the proposed sanctuary. Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Helslow's sparrow (A. hensl owii ) and vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) formerly bred in fields near Tivoli, and there may be breeding potential at Tivoli and Iona. Blue List Birds. Some other species that are not included in the Tentative New York List, but were in the American Birds "Blue List for 1981" (Tate, 1981) and occur at one or more of the proposed sanctuary sites are: great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) , American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), king rail (Rallus elegans) , screech owl (Otus asio), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), cliff swallow (Petrochel idon pyrrhonota) , purple martin (Progne subis), shortbilled marsh wren (Cistothorus" platensiiT, golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) , eastern meadow! ark (SturnelTa magna), black duck (Anas rubripses), and canvasback (Aythaya val isineria). These are species that seem to be undergoing (or have recently undergone) noncyclical decline in the Northeast. Marine Mammals. Few species penetrate the Hudson River Estuary above the New York Bay complex. Harbor seals (Phoca vitul ina) occasionally appear almost anywhere in the Hudson River Estuary, in recent years as in the 1800s. There were reports of the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the lower estuary in the 1800s. A single wel 1 -documented incursion of common dolphins (Del phinus del phis) up the Hudson Estuary nearly to Albany took place in 1936. There is no evidence that any specific locations or habitats in the Hudson are significant to marine mammal populations. 56 Wetland and Terrestrial Mammals, At least 31 species of wild mammals have been recorded on or close to the proposed sanctuary sites (other than marine mammals). The muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) is the most characteristic mammal of the Hudson River Estuary marshes and is present at all the proposed sanctuary sites in numbers that vary considerably from year to year. The mink (Mustela vison) also occurs at the sites. The river otter (Lutra canadensis) is rare in the Hudson, but transient individuals have been seen at Iona and Tivoli in the marshes. The whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is yery common along the Hudson including at the four proposed sites. Deer frequently enter Iona Island Marsh, probably to feed. Deer have been seen in Piermont Marsh in winter, and occasionally in the marsh at Tivoli North Bay, but they are common upland at these sites and at Stockport. Some other mammals that enter the tidal wetlands are: white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) mostly in winter; eastern cottontail (Syl vilagus floridanus), in tidal swamps in winter; gray squirrel (Sciurus carol inensis) and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), tidal swamps and shoreline; meadow vole (Microtus pennsyl vanicus); shorttail shrew (Blarina brevicauda); raccoon (Procyon lotor); gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus); red fox (Vulpes ful va); and opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Birds. Many species of land, wetland and water birds are found along the Hudson River Estuary. Marine and coastal species penetrate upriver varying distances, becoming less diverse and less abundant upriver. All four proposed sanctuary sites attract rare birds wandering through or settling in the Hudson Valley. Common species also tend to concentrate in the proposed sites. The four sites are well known as excellent birding areas--among the best in the Hudson Valley (Drennan, 1981.) A list of birds recorded at the proposed sanctuary is in Appendix 4. Herons. A dozen great blue herons is not an unusual sight at Tivoli South Bay or Stockport Flats during late summer on a 1 ow tide. Great egrets (Casmerodius alba) are also common in some years. Apart from the bitterns, the only nesting heron at the proposed sanctuary sites is the green heron (Butorides striatus). Waterfowl . The proposed sanctuary sites are concentration areas for waterfowl during migration. Wintering waterfowl occur wherever there is open water, mostly downriver. Numbers of breeders are small, probably because suitable nests sites are scarce on the intertidal marshes. At least 30 species of ducks, geese, and swans have been recorded at the proposed sites. The most abundant migrants are Canada goose (Branta canadensis) , mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), black duck, green-winged teal (A. crecca"), blue-winged teal (A. discorsyT"wood duck (Aix sponsa), and canvasback. Hundreds of canvasbacks feed in the Iona Island shallows, and probably thousands winter in some years in the Haverstraw Bay Tappan Zee. (See Appendix 5 for data on wintering waterfowl.) The most abundant nesting species are black duck, mallard, and wood duck; the Tivoli Bay site supports about a dozen pairs of each of three species each year. 57 Raptors. The shores of the Hudson River, including the proposed sites, are moderately attractive to birds of prey. Migrating hawks cross the Estuary at a number of locations, but there is an area of concentrated crossing especially in fall at Anthony's Nose and Dunderberg Mountain by Iona Island, and concentrated migration along Hook Mountain just north of Piermont Marsh. Regular residents at or near the proposed sanctuary sites include red- tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus"y~and screech owl (Otus asio)T Rough-legged hawks (ButeoTagbpus) frequent the Iona Island fields in winter. (See discussion of Endangered Animals, above.) Marsh Birds. Several species of marsh-nesting birds use the extensive cattail stands and associated vegetation at the proposed sites. Regular breeders are the least bittern (discussed under Endangered Animals) and long billed marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris). Irregular breeders are the American bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus) , clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), king rail (R. elegans), Virginia rail (J*, limicola), sora (Porzana carol inaTT and common gTllinufe (Gall inula chloropus). In the Hudson Vai 1 ey, the least bittern, long-billed marsh wren, common gallinule and king rail are nearly restricted to large (many acres) cattail marshes as breeding habitat, although a few other wetland plant communities are used for nesting elsewhere in United States. The sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammospiza caudacuta) and seaside sparrow (A. maritima) have nested at Piermont Marsh. These species are associated wTth specific saline marsh plant communities and are quite rare away from the immediate coast in New York. In addition to the obligate marsh species, red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), American goldfinch (Carduel is tristis) , swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), and song sparrow (M. melodia) also nest in the tidal marshes. Shorebirds. The Hudson River Estuary marshes and mudflats, including the proposed sanctuary sites, are good habitat for migrating shorebirds. The most commonly seen species are killdeer (Charadrius yociferus), common snipe (Capella gall inago) , spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia), greater yell owl egs (Trmga melanoleuca), lesser yellowlegs (T. flavipes), and least sandpiper (Cal idris minutilla). At least eleven other species are seen at times. The only breeding shorebirds at the proposed sites are American woodcock (Philohela minor), killdeer, and spotted sandpiper. Gull s and Terns. The Hudson River Estuary is good habitat for non- breeding gulls, but attracts few terns due to the inland location. No gulls or terns breed on the Hudson. The herring gull (Larus argentatus) is the most common gull and is a conspicuous feature of the proposed sanctuary sites nearly all year round. Ring-billed gull (L_. delawarensis) and great black-backed gull (L. marinus) are common. Laughing gull (L. atricilla) and Bonaparte's gulT (L. Philadelphia) are uncommon and usually seen only downriver. A few other species of gulls and terns are seen occasionally, mostly downriver. 58 Other Birds. Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbel! us) are resident in the terrestiral forests, and feed in the tidal swamps in winter. Woodpeckers are common in the tidal swamps and forest, including the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Winter birds of the marshes include downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapill us), winter wren (Trogi odytesTrogl odytes) , tree sparrow (Spizella arborea~77 white- throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) and song sparrow. Mery large flocks of tree swallows (Iridoprocne bicolor), bank swallows (Riparia riparia), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), red-winged blackbirds, and common grackles (Quiscal us quiscula) roost m the marshes, especially in late summer and early fall. Breeding birds of the tidal swamps are many, in- cluding willow flycatcher (Empidonax traill ii ), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) , black-capped chickadee, \/eery (Catharus fusce'scens) , yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). There are many species of small birds in the terrestrial forests. Breeding bird communities are typical of northeastern forests, including warblers, vireos, thrushes and others. The cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) nest here and there and is much sought-after by birdwatchers. Spring and fall warbler migrations also attract birdwatchers to the proposed sites. The railroad right-of-way supports a very interesting breeding bird community (Stapleton and Kiviat, 1979). The most abundant species are gray catbird (Dumetella carol inensis) , yellow warbler, and song sparrow. Population density of all breeding species combined is among the highest reported for any breeding bird communities of the United States. Reptiles and Amphibians. About two dozen species of reptiles and amphibians occur along the Hudson River Estuary and almost all are present at one or more of the proposed sites. Tidal fluctuation and salinity prevent some species from living in the estuary itself. The most important habitats for reptiles and amphibians are the tidal marshes and shallows, woodland pools and ponds, and the terrestrial forests. The snapping turtle (Chel yd ra serpentina) is common in the wetlands and shallows at all four sites. The map turtle (Graptemys geographica) maintain small scattered populations in the estuary and has been found at Stockport and Tivoli. The diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), the ecological equivalent of the map turtle in brackish areas, is rare in the Hudson River Estuary and has been found at Iona and Piermont. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) occurs on land near the Iona Island Marsh, and there are unverified reports of the fence lizard (Sceloporus undul atus) which is better known from the east bank of the estuary in the Hudson Highlands. Several snakes occur at the sites. Those that most often enter the tidal wetlands are water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and garter snake (Thamnophis sirtal is). 59 Amphibians are not abundant in the tidal habitats probably because tidal wetlands are not favorable for amphibian reproduction. The green frog (Rana clamitans) is present at low densities at Tivoli and Iona, and probably Stockport. Bullfrogs (_R. catesbeiana) , pickerel frogs (_R. palustris), American toads (Bufo americanus) , spring peepers (Hyla crucifer), and gray treefrogs (_H. versicolor) enter the wetlands to some extent, but are more common in nearby nontidal wetlands where the woodfrog (Rana syl vatica) also occurs. Few salamanders have been found in Hudson Estuary tidal habitats, but several species occur in the terrestrial forests and tributary streams at the proposed sites. Fishes. About 150 species of fish have been found in the Hudson River Estuary in the last 15 years, and the fish community of the Estuary is probably one of the best-studied estuarine fish communities in the world. Like coastal birds and marine mammals, marine and estuarine fishes penetrate up the Hudson in relation to salinity intrusion and distance from its mouth. Also, many freshwater fish species inhabit the upper estuary. The Hudson is a \/ery important nursery area for many fish species including several very valuable food and game fishes: striped bass (Morone saxatil is), white perch (_M. americana), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), alewife herring (A.pseudoharengus) , blueback herring (A. aestivalis), tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax). Important nursery areas for some migratory fishes in the estuary are in the Haverstraw Bay - Tappan Zee region within a few miles of Nyack (Figure 5), where conditions of salinity, shelter and food availability in the tidal shallows are yery favorable for juvenile fish. Additionally, shad, alewife, blueback herring, and other species use the upper estuary for spawning and as a nursery. Much remains to be learned about the role of the Hudson River wetlands and tributary mouths in the support of the estuary's fishery resources. Many fish species reside in or temporarily enter the wetlands and tidal stream mouths. For example, of 59 species that have been found in the vicinity of the Tivoli Bays complex, 34 have been found in the wetlands and stream mouths. Banded killifish (Fundul us diaphanus) and mummichog (F_. heterocl itus) are yery abundant in the marshes and apparently reside there. American eels of all sizes live in the marshes. Alewife spawn in the upriver shallows, and alewife, rainbow smelt and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni ) spawn in the tributary stream mouths. Striped bass and white perch enter the marshes to feed, and are particularly common at locations around the tidal inlets connecting the marshes and the main river. Juvenile striped bass have been found in tidal creeks in Iona Island Marsh in early fall and are reported to occur in other marshes as well. Among the more unusual records of fishes from the proposed sanctuary sites are blue-spotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus) reported from Iona; American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix) and northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans) from the mouth ot the Saw Kill at Tivoli South Bay; and a population of central mudminnow (Umbra limi ) in ponds on Cruger Island (Tivoli). A list of fishes known from the proposed sanctuary sites is in Appendix 3. 60 Invertebrates, Important groups of larger invertebrate animals in benthic communities of the Hudson River Estuary include polychaete worms, oligochaete worms, chironomid midge larvae, snails and clams, crabs and crayfish, Gammarus and other amphipods, and isopods. Zooplankton communi- ties include rotifers, crustaceans, and other groups. The most economically important invertebrate, the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), moves upriver in summer and fall as salinity increases and may become common as far as the Hudson Highlands (Peekskill to Beacon). The red-jointed fiddler crab (Uca minax) is common in Piermont Marsh. Several species of land and aquatic snails occur at the proposed sites, but most have not been definitively identified. In fact, the invertebrates of the marsh are very poorly known. Estuarine invertebrates are a very important link in food chains between, on the one hand, algae and detritus, and on the other hand, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Invertebrates are particularly important in the nutrition of young and adult fish, including the endangered shortnosed sturgeon and the economically important American shad, striped bass, and other species. Invertebrates occur on and in the sediments, in the water, on plants, and in the air, as well as on land. Invertebrate ecology of the proposed sanctuary is a wery important field for research. The wetlands support many invertebrates on the aerial parts of plants. Some of the most conspicuous or abundant species are a snail (Succinea ovalis); the waterlily leaf beetle (Pyrrhalta nymphaeae) on spatterdock and other plants; the cattail moth (Lymnaecia phragmitella) on cattails; a caterpillar of genus Mompha in purple loosestrife stalks; the weevil Smi i crony x in dodder (Cuscuta gronovii ) ; and scale insect (Chaetococcus phragmitis) on common reed. Monarchs (Danaus plexippus) and other butterfiles, and various bees (including honeybees (Apis mel lifera)' are attracted to blossoms of pickerel weed and other plants. A rare bug (Bellonochilus numenius) has been found on sycamore fruits at Stockport. A newly-described crayfish (Orconectes kinderhookensis) has so far been found only in Kinderhook Creek, a tributary of Stockport Creek. It is not known if it occurs downstream as far as the proposed sanctuary sites. In late spring and early summer, mosquitos can be annoying on the marshes on calm nights, and in moist woods and tidal swamps day or night, but mosquitos do not bite in the marshes by day. Deer flies (Chrysops) may bite for a few weeks in June and July during the day around the edges of the marshes, but rarely fly far out onto the marshes. "Shad flies" (Simuliidae) and punkies (Ceratopogonidae) bite on calm days in April and their numbers vary from year to year; they also do not fly out on the marshes. Scheduling of field activities or use of insect repellents mitigates biting fly nuisances and no problems are anticipated for the proposed sanctuary research and education programs. 61 e. Estuarine Ecosystem Generalized patterns of energy flow (production and feeding) for the proposed sanctuary sites are shown in Figure 10. These diagrams represent many interwoven food chains (for example spatterdock to leaf beetle to songbirds to birds of prey, or vascular plants to detritus to crustaceans to small fish to striped bass), and there are many species that feed on more than one type of food. In general, using energy from the sun, green plants produce matter which is consumed while alive by grazing animals or after death by detritus-feeding animals. These primary consumers in turn are eaten by larger and larger animals, culminating in the highest-level consumers such as striped bass, snapping turtle, herons, hawks, mink and man. The great abundance of plants, small invertebrates and small fish in the Hudson River Estuary provides a rich food base for economically important larger animals such as sport and commercial fishes, waterfowl, blue crab, etc. The major producers in the Hudson are phytoplankton in the waters, and vascular plants in the shallows and wetlands. Turbidity limits phytoplankton populations but these producers are important in the Haverstraw Bay - Tappan Zee region. Zooplankton and benthic invertebrates feed on phytoplankton and on detritus (dead plant particles) from the plants of the marshes and shallows as well as from terrestrial sources. The zooplankton and benthic invertebrates are food for larger invertebrates and small fish, which in turn are eaten by larger fish, birds, and other animals. Estimates of the relative importance of terrestrial and estuarine energy (food) sources vary. Research done in other estuaries suggests that Hudson River wetlands may absorb nutrients from the main river, but it is not clear to what extent these nutrients may be returned to the river with the decomposition of dead plants. The vegetation of the wetlands and shallows is a nutrient- recycling system that channels nutrients into food chains that yield resources for society in the form of fish, crabs, ducks, and furbearers. At the same time this vegetation is improving water quality in the river. 2. Current Uses of the Sites a. Commercial and Recreational Fishing Fishing has been an important activity along the Hudson River Estuary from Indian times to the present day. Catch records were first kept in the late 1880s. From that time, the commercial fin-fishery grew until the late 1930s-early 1940s, then declined. Average annual commercial finfish catch from 1913-1964 was 847,000 lbs., with the largest catch 2.3 million lbs., reported in 1945. Average annual catch from 1965-74 was 170,000 lbs., including 275,000 lbs. in 1974. Shad represented 86% of these catches. Reported catches are minimum and Sheppard (1976) estimated actual 1976 catch at around 600,000 lbs. Sheppard felt that the commercial fisheries of the Hudson River Estuary could be increased to perhaps 1-2 million lbs. per year. In 1978, there were 47 licensed commercial fishermen on the Hudson. 62 Fig. 10 B. Terrestrial pathways Plants Deer, Rodents, Insects, Birds Spiders, Insects, Birds, Amphibians Raptors, Carnivores, Man Vascular Plants, Algae, Mosses Fish, Zooplanton, Muskrat, Turtles, Waterfowl, Songbirds, Insects Fish, Spiders, Birds, Mammals, Insects Fish, Raptors, Turtles, Carnivores, Man Worms, Insects, Mollusks, Zooplankton etc. 63 The Hudson River Estuary contributes to marine fisheries of striped bass, shad, bluefish, butterfish, winter flounder, summer flounder, menhaden, weakfish, tidewater silversides and sea robin (Sheppard, 1976). In 1974, New York marine landings were about 7 million lbs. The average Hudson River contribution to the marine striped bass fishery alone has been estimated at about 700,000 lbs. in the period 1965-74. During the period 19 70-74 between Troy and the Tappan Zee Bridge (Nyack), there were an estimated 165,000 person-days spent in recreational fishing on the Hudson (Sheppard 1976). Sheppard felt that the estuary was capable of supporting perhaps 2 million angler-days of recreational fishing per year. The major recreational species include striped bass, white perch, alewife and blueback herring, brown bullhead, largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, smelt, bluegill, and pumpkinseed sunfish. In 1978, the Hudson River Estuary generated an estimated $150-200,000 from the commercial sector and $1.65 million from the recreational sector, as well as a contribution to the marine fin fishery worth $20 million (com- mercial plus recreational). These figures do not include blue crab fisheries, nor the recreational fin fishery in the Hudson south of the Tappan Zee Bridge. A summer 1980 survey of anglers between Troy and the George Washington Bridge (just north of Manhattan) estimated over 16,000 individual recreational fishermen using the estuary. The creel survey showed that in August 33% of anglers had caught white perch, 23% had caught blue crab, and 9% had caught catfish (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Hudson River Unit, 1980). In 19 76, the Hudson River Estuary was closed to commercial fish- ing of all species except American shad, Atlantic sturgeon, and blue crab, due to PCB residues in some species exceeding the Federal allowable limit for interstate commerce of 5 parts-per-million. In- tensive monitoring of Hudson River fish since then has shown significant declines of PCB levels. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is lifting the bans on commercial fishing for alewife, blueback herring, smelt and tomcod in 1982. It is hoped that the ban on striped bass can be lifted during the next few years. Shad enter the Hudson River in early spring and migrate up-river to spawn in tidal shallows from the Kingston area northward. Commercial (staked and drift gillnets) and recreational fishing for shad takes place almost throughout the estuary. In 1981, the DEC published a leaflet "A Guide to Angling for Hudson River Shad" which has been successful in pro- moting hook-and-1 ine fishing for shad and a concomitant increase in interest in the Hudson River and its management among recreational fishermen. Fishing for blue crab (blue-claw crab) with pots and lines is popular as far up the Hudson River Estuary as Beacon. There is also a small commercial crab fishery. Both blue crab and shad appear to have increased in numbers in the Hudson in the last 15 years, probably due partly to improved water quality. 64 The commercial fishery for Atlantic sturgeon is very small. There is a small commercial seine fishery for baitfish, primarily kill ifish and shiners, in the shallows and marshes. A few commercial shad fishermen operate in the shallows near Pier- mont Marsh. There is a recreational fishery for blue crab and fin fish (including tomcod in winter) off the tip of the Erie Pier, and some recreational fishing by boat near the marsh and in the mouth of Sparkill Creek. There is virtually no commercial fishing near Iona Island. The marsh itself is closed to all fishing. Limited crabbing and recreational fin fishing take place along the railroad. Considerable commercial shad fishing takes place in the Kingston Flats area a few miles south of Ti vol i Bays, but little shad fishing is done close to the bays. One commercial fisherman seines baitfish in the Ti vol i Bays. Recreational fishing is concentrated at the stream mouths (Saw Kill and Stony Creek) and the railroad bridges, with some boat fishing. Species fished at Tivoli are primarily alewife (scap-netted) , striped bass, white perch, yellow perch, largemouth bass, white sucker, catfish and eel. There are approximately 500 person-days per year of recreational fishing in the Tivoli Bays area. Some commercial shad fishing occurs in the areas near Stockport Flats. One commercial fisherman seines bait fish in the wetlands and shallows,. The tidal mouth of Stockport Creek is an excellent recreational fishing area best known for striped bass. Most of the recreational fishing is concentrated at the railroad bridge area and the Route 9 highway bridge, with some fishing by boat. Fishing from small craft also takes place on the river side of Stockport Middle Ground and Gay's Point. The carrying capacity of the Hudson River Estuary for fisheries is far greater than the present harvest. The DEC is prepared to carefully regulate fishing for striped bass when commercial fishing for this species is once again permitted. Hudson River commercial fishing operations are currently licensed and monitored, but there is no license required for recreational fishermen on the estuary. Such a license is under consideration by the DEC. There is no foreseeable conflict between fishing and scientific or educational use of the proposed estuarine sanctuary. Hudson River fish stocks and fisheries are under continued study. b. Fur Trapping Historically, fur trapping was a mainstay of the Hudson Valley's economy. Today trapping is a source of supplementary income for a number of Valley residents. The primary furbearer along the Hudson River Estuary is the muskrat, although raccoon, mink, red fox, and gray fox are also trapped in very small numbers. 65 Muskrat population fluctuate considerably over several -year periods and trapping effort and harvest also vary. In tidal marshes, muskrats make tunnels connecting the tidal creeks and pools to the intercreek areas, and also construct winter lodges (houses) in the intercreek areas. Much trapping is done in the tunnel entrances; a few trappers also use floating trap platforms. Leghold traps and conibear traps are used on the Hudson. The 1980-81 and 1981-82 muskrat trapping season ran November 15 to March 15. As of February 1982, good muskrat pelts were selling for $4-5 each, down markedly from a year before. During the late 1960s - early 1970s, muskrat populations were high in Hudson River marshes, and estimated annual catch at that time was 500-800 muskrats at Tivoli Bays and perhaps a similar number at Stockport Flats. Several trappers are active in each area, but catch has been lower in the last few years. The Palisades Interstate Park areas at Iona and Piermont are closed to trapping. Sharp fluctuations in muskrat numbers are normal in most muskrat habitats in North America, with or without trapping. Muskrats are important in the marsh ecosystem as diggers of tunnels that aerate the sediments, and creators of clearings around their winter lodges that increase \zar\ety in the vegetation. In general, fur trapping is not in conflict with existing or potential scientific and educational uses of the proposed sanctuary sites. c . Hunting Hunting along the Hudson River Estuary is primarily waterfowl hunting and deer hunting. Hunting is not permitted in the Palisades Interstate Park areas at Iona and Piermont, but hunting is permitted on State-owned lands at Tivoli Bays and Stockport Flats. There is limited hunting for Canada geese on the Hudson but most waterfowl hunting is duck hunting. The primary game species are mallard, black duck, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, wood duck and canvasback. Canvasbacks are shot on open waters as this species rarely enters the wetlands; there is little hunting of canvasbacks or other diving ducks at Tivoli and Stockport. Duck hunting season on the Hudson Estuary usually opens in the first half of October and runs (with or without a closed period) until sometime in December or January. Lack of open water and ducks upriver in December and January effectively limits the season to October-November. Duck season usually opens on a Wednesday. The heaviest hunting is on opening day, and hunting may be fairly heavy the Thursday and Friday after opening day and the first 2-3 weekends. Hunting is thus concentrated into the equivalent of about a week's time. Furthermore, there is little shooting between about 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. There are four types of shooting on the wetlands and shallows at Stockport and Tivoli: shooting from blinds, pass shooting on foot on land, shooting on foot in the wetlands, and shooting from boats in the 66 wetland creeks and pools and along the shorelines of the shallows. At Tivoli Bays, almost all shooting is from blinds or boats; at Stockport Flats, most shooting is done on foot. At Tivoli Bays, at opening day dawn of the duck season, Wednesday, 15 October 1981, there were 45 hunters' vehicles parked around the area, indicating a total of about 90 hunters that morning. There were about 40-45 active duck blinds in Tivoli Bays in fall 1981, almost all of them in North Bay where most of the hunting occurs. On opening day, 25 parties of hunters interviewed by DEC bagged 140 ducks, of which 19 were black ducks or mallards and the rest mostly teal . It is estimated that the number of hunters in the Stockport Flats area on opening day 1981 was approximately the same as at Tivoli. There were only 7 blinds in the main marsh at Stockport in fall 1981. Reports of hunters indicate a considerable decline in hunter numbers at Stockport since the 1940s or 1950s, and a continued decline during the last 10 years. Car counts at Tivoli indicate a reduction in the hunter numbers on opening day since the early 1970s when the season opened on weekends instead of Wednesdays. The upper Hudson River Estuary, including Tivoli and Stockport, was restricted to the use of steel shot for waterfowl hunting for the first time in the 1981 season. This rule was based on a finding of ingested lead shot in approximately 10% of ducks bagged on the upper estuary. Steel shot use should reduce the incidence of lead poisoning in ducks from ingesting lead shot pellets while feeding on organisms in the mud. Concentration of duck hunting in early morning and late afternoon during October reduces potential conflicts between hunting and other uses of the marshes. Research field work has been conducted for 11 years at Tivoli North Bay during duck season with relatively few problems. The management plan for Tivoli Bays will include measures to further reduce conflicts or potential conflicts between hunting and other uses of the area. This is important because of the mix of different uses existing and anticipated at Tivoli, and would occur regardless of the sanctuary designation At Stockport Flats, differences in use patterns and the proposed emphasis in the sanctuary program on spring and summer research (as opposed to year-round research and educational activities) insures that major problems with use conflicts will not arise. There is a moderate amount of deer hunting at Stockport and Tivoli on terrestrial areas. Deer populations have been high throughout the 1970s-80s and are very high now (1982). Deer hunting season usually opens in mid-November and runs for 3 weeks. There is a moderate amount of hunting for upland small game (ruffed grouse, pheasant, gray squirrel, eastern cottontail, raccoon, red and gray foxes). The various small game seasons run through much of the fall and winter. There is virtually no hunting of rails, gallinule, snipe or woodcock at Stockport or Tivoli. 67 d. Forestry The Hudson River Valley has had an increasing amount of forest cover over the last century, and now is about half covered by forest. Forest cover is much more than 50% on most slopes immediately adjacent to to the estuary. Shore forests at some locations are selectively harvested for timber and fuel. There is no harvest in the Palisades Interstate Park system, including the Iona Island and Piermont areas. Portions of the State Preserve at Tivoli Bays were selectively logged in 1980 before State acquisition, \lery little was cut within 100 yards of the estuarine habitats and most cutting was well over 200 yards east of the North Bay; there was no cutting on Cruger Island or along the tidal mouth of Stony Creek. The last time the forests close to North Bay had been extensively cut was around 1906. There has been virtually no recent cutting on private forests adjoining the Tivoli Bays. There has been no recent logging at the Stockport Flats area. Some fuel wood has been cut on a few small private areas near the wetlands. e. Agriculture Field corn, grain, hay, apples, peaches, grapes and a few other crops are cultivated atop the bluffs along the Hudson River Estuary, in the middle and upper regions from about Beacon to Albany. Recent years have seen a resurgence of grape culture in the Mid-Hudson region, and continued strength in the apple industry. Stock are grazed on the bluff tops in some areas. Non-agricultural (usually wooded) zones generally exist between agriculture and the shoreline, especially where shore slopes are steep (over 10% slope); rarely is agriculture less than 100 yards from the shore- line and usually the distance is much greater. Crops and stock are raised on farms east of Stockport Flats. Hay, field corn and oats were grown on the fields east of Tivoli North Bay until 1979, and the DEC expects to permit hay cutting again on some of these fields. Thoroughbred horses are raised on the private property north of North Bay, and apples and peaches are grown commercially east of South Bay. In all cases at at Stockport and Tivoli, substantial areas of forested slopes (map distance of 100 yards to one-half mile wide) separate agriculture from the tidal shoreline, There is no agriculture near the Piermont and Iona Island marshes. f . Industry In the 1800s, many industries stood right on the Hudson River Estuary shoreline, among them brickworks, ice houses, and grist, saw, and textile mills. Most of these structures are gone with little trace. Contemporary industry along the Hudson includes cement and aggregate plants, petroleum terminals, manufacturing plants, and electric power stations. However, virtually no heavy industry is visible from the proposed sanctuary sites, with the exception of Piermont. 68 Stockport. The nearest heavy industry to the main marsh is one and one-half miles to the southwest across the river, not visible from the marsh. A locality near the proposed sanctuary site was included on a DEC list of possible sites for a toxic waste treatment facility. It is anticipated that once the estuarine sanctuary is designated and a management plan has been adopted, that use of areas near the sanctuary and within the State Coastal Area Boundary as a hazardous waste treatment facility would be a noncompatible use. The treatment facility proposal is inactive now. Tivoli . The nearest heavy industry is more than two miles to the northwest, at Saugerties, and not visible from the proposed sanctuary site. Iona Island. The portion of the island east of the railroad was a Navy supply depot from about 1900 to 1965, when it was acquired by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC). All, but five of the buildings were removed along with railroad sidings, docks, and roads, and the occupied areas were restored to field. The remaining buildings are used by PIPC for part of its maintenance and storage operations, the rest of which is located on the mainland near Doodletown Bight. This is the only existing industry near the site. The nearest heavy industry is across the river in Peekskill one and one-half miles to the east. The Indian Point nuclear power station is across the river and over two miles southeast (downriver) of Iona Island; the power station is hidden from the proposed sanctuary site by Dunderberg Mountain. Piermont. A paper recycling plant and a carton factory are located at the base of the Erie Pier just north of the proposed sanctuary site and visible from the marsh. Other industry and a railroad siding formerly occupied the rest of the pier, but have been removed. There is no other industry adjacent to Piermont Marsh; the next nearest industry is over one mile east of the marsh across the river. The factories on the Erie Pier are monitored by the State DEC and Department of Health for potential pollution. A former municipal landfill adjacent to the pier has recently been bored and the levels of metals and pesticides found in the pore water were very 1 ow. g. Transportation The Hudson River Estuary has been a primary transportation route throughout historic and prehistoric human occupancy of the northeast. In the 1900s, much transportation shifted to highway routes off the river, but the Hudson is still an important transportation corridor. Shipping. A Federally marked and maintained shipping route extends the length of the Hudson River Estuary. Most of this route has naturally sufficient depths, but the portions of the route between Nyack and Peekskill in Haverstraw Bay, and between Saugerties and Troy, have been deepened and are periodically maintained by dredging. The dredged channel passes close to the Stockport Flats proposed site. None of the proposed sites, however, includes any part of the shipping routes; the proposed site boundaries in all four cases extend downward only to the six foot depth contour below low tide level . 69 Formerly, some wetlands, islands, and shoreline areas on the upper Hudson Estuary were used for dredged material disposal. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (1981) has published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the next decade of channel maintenance and spoil disposal along the Hudson, in which a commitment is made to upland disposal and to avoidance of sensitive natural areas. Dredged material from the shipping channel is expected to be sandy and low in PCB content (less than one part- per-million) so that toxic substance problems are not anticipated. Analyses will be performed just before dredging any reach, and contingency plans will be available for safe landfilling if high-contaminant material is found. Ship traffic in the narrow and relatively shallow upper estuary produces wakes and swash that have been blamed for shoreline erosion and other problems, The matter is currently under study by the Hudson River Fisheries Advisory Committee to DEC. Most estuaries in the United States that are used for shipping have speed limits; the Hudson is an exception. Commercial ships on the Hudson carry fruit, cement, petroleum, and other products. Small craft are discussed under Recreation, below. The Erie Pier at Piermont is used for infrequent docking of the Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory ocean- going research vessel , but not for other large craft. Railways. Two ConRail railroads parallel the Hudson River Estuary and border the shoreline in places, the Hudson Division line on the east shore and the West Shore line across the river. These railroads were built circa 1850 and 1880, respectively. The east shore railroad carries both freight and passenger service; along the upper estuary about 8 passenger trains and a similar number of freight trains pass daily each way. The west shore railroad carries only freight. The railroads pass through the proposed sanctuary sites at Stockport, Tivoli and Iona, but not at Piermont. The railroad at Stockport is between the major wetlands and the uplands; at Tivoli and Iona, the railroads pass mostly between the wetlands and the main river. The railroad at Tivoli was built on a fill causeway with several small openings for tidal flow; at Iona, the railroad was built partly on pilings and has much larger openings. The railroad at Stockport has a single large opening where it crosses the mouth of Stockport Creek. The openings in the railroads are sufficient to allow complete flooding and draining of water onto and off the wetlands with each tidal cycle, much as occurs in wetlands which are not bordered by the rail roads. Ecologically, the railroad causeways, where they lie between the wetlands and the main river, resemble baymouth bars. The tidal openings (bridges) are much used for feeding by predatory fish, especially striped bass, and are well known recreational fishing spots. Large portions of the causeways (rights-of-way) have dense belts of herbaceous or woody vegetation 25 or more feet wide on both sides of the tracks, and these belts support a diversity of plant species, breeding birds, and small mammals. The vegetation also screens the wetlands from the train disturbance. Even where there is no vegetation, migrating ducks on the shallows do not flush when a train passes unless they are within about 50 yards of the tracks. 70 h. Recreation Hiking, ski-touring, bi rd watching, and related activities are discussed here; hunting, trapping and fishing were discussed in section 3a-c. Birdwatching. The four proposed sanctuary sites are very well known birding areas and received high ratings in Where to Find Birds in New York State; The Top 500 Sites (Drennan, 1981) and other guides. Many birdwatchers regard the proposed sites among the five most productive sites along the Hudson River Estuary for water and wetland birds as well as land birds (the 5th area is Crofton Point). Most birdwatching takes place in spring and fall, with less in summer and little in winter. Almost all birding is done by foot from the shoreline and the railroads (and Erie Pier); a few birders use canoes. Birders generally come from the counties containing the proposed sites, either in organized field trips or individually, but birders also come from other Hudson River counties, as far away as New York City and Albany, and farther. A minimal estimate of the number of person-days spent annually birdwatching at the proposed sites is 200 person-days per year per site on the average (10 organized field trips of 10 people each plus an equal amount of individual or small party use). Thus the amount of bird- watching use at Ti vol i and Stockport is approximately equal to the amount of hunting use. Birdwatching has little impact on the sites. There is occasional disturbance of nesting birds through close observation or the playback of recorded bird calls to locate birds. Other nature recreation occurs at the sites, but is difficult to separate quantitatively from birdwatching, hiking, etc. Some individuals and occasional organized groups come specifically to botanize, and a number of persons visit the areas soley to photograph nature. Hiking. There are existing foot trails at or near the sites at Piermont, Iona, and Tivoli, and trails are planned for the Gay's Point portion of Hudson River Islands State Park at the Stockport site. A network of hiking trails connects Tallman Mountain State Park and Bear Mountain State Park (Webster, 1971), effectively linking the Piermont and Iona Marshes. The hub of this trail system is the Long Path which begins at the George Washington Bridge in New Jersey, passes near Piermont Marsh and west of Bear Mountain, and will eventually extend to the Adi rondacks - nearly the course of the Hudson River itself. The Appalachian Trail, from Georgia to Maine, passes through the Bear Mountain State Park Trailside Museums complex, and crosses the Hudson River on the Bear Mountain Bridge about two miles north of Iona Island. This is the only place where the Appalachian Trail crosses an estuary in its 2,000 mile length. Old trails on the State and Bard College lands at the Tivoli Bays are well -used for walking, cross-country skiing, and some snowshoeing and running. Skiing is also popular on the trails near the Piermont and 71 Iona sites. These activities offer rewarding access to views of the marshes, with little impact. Public transportation allows access to the sites for non-car owners. Buses from New York City stop at Piermont and Bear Mountain; Amtrak trains from New York City and Albany run to Hudson and Rhinecliff, about 8 road-miles from the Stockport and Tivoli sites, respectively. Miscellaneous Recreation. Occasional groups (e.g., scout encampments) use the Iona Island fields during the warm season, under special permits from PIPC. Otherwise the Island is closed to the public. A bicycle trail paralleling the west shore of the estuary passes by the Piermont and Iona Island Marshes, partly on highways and partly on old roads reserved for bicycle and pedestrian use and affording good views of the marshes. The Dunderberg section of the bicycle trail is currently (1982) closed for repairs. Ice boating originated on the Hudson River in the 1860. Ice boats resemble elongated sailboats on sled runners, and are still built and sailed by a few residents in the Mid-Hudson area, particularly near Barrytown and Rhinecliff. Ice boating occurs on the main river during periods of smooth solid ice, often near Tivoli Bays and sometimes on South Bay. Skaters also occasionally use South Bay. Tidal ice can be dangerous, but these activi- ties have no ecological impact. There are no safe swimming beaches, and swimming in the Estuary is not permitted on public lands at the proposed sites. Small Craft. Recreational boating by canoe, kayak, sailboat, and powerboat is popular on the Hudson River Estuary. Improved and unimproved boat landings are available to the public at locations near the proposed sanctuary sites. Primitive landings and a semi-improved landing are adjacent to Piermont Marsh (the Erie Pier). There are no improved landings within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. All boating is prohibited in the Iona Island Marsh, except for research purposes. The ideal way to see the wetlands and shallows is by canoe. Different habitats of the wetlands are accessible, depending on the tide and the season Canoeists can view wildlife and vegetation with minimal disturbance. The Sparkill Creek, the main river near Iona Island, the Tivoli Bays and the Saw Kill, and Stockport Creek and its tributaries are described in Appalachian Water 2: The Hudson River and its Tributaries (Burmeister, 1974) , a canoeing guide. The main river is described in The Illustrated Hudson River Pilot (Wilkie, nd). i . Archaeological Resources The Hudson River Estuary corridor, especially stream mouths, points, and islands, is rich in archaeological sites. Several Native American cultures inhabited the region, and some sites were in use more than 5,000 years ago. Food remains from estuary sites show a considerable 72 use of estuarine productivity, particularly sturgeon, mollusks, and turtles as well as deer and other terrestrial species. The Indians were attracted to the same sites as modern hunters, fishermen, and bi rdwatchers--for the same reasons. Archaeological sites at Iona Island and Tivoli Bays have been scienti- fically excavated and documented, as have several sites across the river from Stockport. Much remains to be learned about these sites, and the archaeological resources need protection from illegal "scavenging" of artifacts. j. Plant Resources There has been no commercial harvest of plant material from the Hudson Estuary. Although wild-rice is abundant at Stockport Flats and a few other upriver marshes, the amount potentially available for harvest is tiny compared to the wild-rice marshes of Great Lakes that sustain commercial harvest. Hudson Estuary wild-rice ripens over several weeks and only a portion of the crop is harvestable at any one time; furthermore, tidal flucuations means that access to these middle-intertidal zone plants is difficult. k. Esthetic Use The Hudson River has a three-century tradition of esthetic apprecia- tion of the natural landscape, and the wetlands and shores are an intimate part of this scenic resource. Artistic interest in the estuary reached a high level in the 1800s with the Hudson River School of landscape painting. Many contemporary artists, including painters, photographers and filmmakers, use the estuary as a source of inspiration and a subject for their works. In an article titled "Some International Values of Wetlands" Jorgensen (1980) said, "Wetlands are important in bringing visitors from many lands together to enjoy a common interest while promoting a better understanding among people." International visitors have shown interest in the Hudson's wetlands and shores throughout the river's history, and there is great potential for increased tourist appreciation of the estuary in keeping with the interest of Hudson Valley communities in tourism as an industry with relatively little environmental impact. Related to this are the burgeoning activities in regional historic preservation and excursion boat operation. 1 . Research and Education Research. Past research on the Hudson River has emphasized sport and commercial fish species; roughly $50-100 million has been spent by the public utilities alone in work on fisheries and related aspects of Hudson River ecology. Other research subjects have been wetlands plants, bottom inverte- brates, plankton, marsh and land birds, reptiles, mammals, sediments, economic geology, hydrology, water quality, and endangered species. A program tilted "The Hudson River Field Weeks" was organized by the Hudson River Research Council in 1977 and 1978, and involved coordination of efforts among a dozen different research institutions in a study of water quality under 73 high-flow and low-flow conditions in the entire estuary. Most of the intensive research to date has focused on the main river and relatively little work has been done in the wetlands. Although there is a hydraulic model of the Hudson Estuary at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, there are no quantitative models of the Hudson River Estuary ecosystem or of marshes and shallows subsystems. References to published work on the proposed Sanctuary sites appear in a bibliography in the Appendices. Available information on the four sites is being synthesized in more detail and will be published later this year as a basic reference for research workers. Institutions currently active in Hudson River Estuary research are listed in Table 7, and current research projects involving the four sites are listed in Table 8. A program for future research in the proposed estuarine sanctuary is outlined in the Alternatives section of this DEIS; the program would emphasize long-term environmental monitoring, ecosystem-level studies, and applied problems of management of resources including such topics as shoreline erosion, sedimentation, waterfowl, fisheries, furbearers, wetlands and aquatic vegetation, rare and endangered species, and the impacts of human activities on estuarine resources. The Estuarine Sanctuary Program would enhance coordination and communication in Hudson River research. A program extending the length of the estuary and setting priorities for certain types of work would encourage fuller and more efficient use of existing facilities, equipment, and collections, perhaps on a time-sharing basis among research institutions. Availability of existing data and its effective use could be enhanced, and a system for indexing and sharing published and unpublished information could be set up. It is expected that planning and conducting research would be closely coordinated with the new Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, Inc. resulting from the settlement between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the public utilities, as well as with older groups set up to coordinate research and communicate research results (Hudson River Environmental Society and Hudson River Research Council). There are ample opportunities for public involvement in certain types of research, e.g., fish tagging by recreational fishermen, and reporting of observations on estuarine animals and plants by sportsmen and naturalists. Education. Schools, nature clubs, conservation organizations and other groups use the Hudson for educational activities. Most colleges in the New York City to Troy region have courses that take field trips to the estuary. Subjects include geology, botany, fish, wildlife and history, and the numbers of class trips vary from one to 25 per college per year. Class trip time is divided about evenly between the main river and the wetlands. Vassar College, Rockland Community College, and the New School for Social Research have offered courses specifically on the Hudson Estuary. A few schools maintain small laboratories on the shoreline: Dutchess Community College, Bard College, and Marist College. A few elementary schools and a number of secondary schools have also used the estuary for field trips. North Rockland High School has for several years had a program of education and data collection focusing on the Grassy Point marsh complex at Haverstraw. 74 Boyce Thompson Institute used teacher and student volunteer groups very successfully for data collection in its multi-year intensive studies of the lower estuary wetlands and shallows. Graduate students from New York University and other schools have written master's and doctoral theses on the estuary. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater has the largest public education program on the estuary. The Sloop, a replica of early commercial vessels, sails up and down the Hudson several months each year, making scheduled stops at many cities and taking groups of children and adults aboard for half-day educational trips. The on-board program involves short lectures, and sampling or water, benthos, or fish. About 20 nature clubs offer their members and the general public field trips and lectures relating to the Hudson Estuary. Some of the most active groups are bird clubs, but clubs with other specific interests (e.g., botany) and general purpose nature clubs also use the estuary. Each club has from one to 10 field trips per year on the Hudson. Several museums and galleries have featured exhibits on Hudson River Estuary biology and history, including the New York State Museum, American Museum of Natural History, Museum of the Hudson Highlands, Hudson River Museum, Wave Hill Environmental Studies Center, and the gallery at Hudson River Sloop Clearwater's Fire House. The last 13 years have seen an extensive popular educational literature on the Hudson River. A major contribution is Robert Boyle's (1969) The Hudson River; a Natural and Unnatural History. This book and the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater have been predominant influences on the burgeoning public interest in the Hudson during the 1970s-80s. 75 Table 7. Some Institutions and Agencies that Have Used the Hudson River for Research and Education. Institution or Agency Type of Use American Museum of Natural History New York, NY New York State Museum Albany, NY Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY Cary Arboretum of the New York Botanical Garden, Mill brook, NY Stonykill Environmental Education Center, Fishkill, NY (DEC) Cornell University Ithaca, NY Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Ithaca, NY Rockefeller University Center for Field Research, Millbrook, NY Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA Museum of the Hudson Highlands Cornwel 1 , NY Wave Hill Environmental Studies Center, Bronx, NY New York University, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York, N.Y, State University of New York Stony Brook, NY Man' st College Poughkeepsie, NY State University College New Paltz, NY Research and Education Research Research Research Education Research (planned) Research Research Research Research and Education Education Research Research Education Education 76 Table 7. (Continued) Institution or Agency Queens College Flushing, NY Manhattan College and College of Mount St, Vincent, Riverdale, NY Bard College, Annandale, NY United States Military Academy West Point, NY Vassar College Poughkeepsie, NY Columbia-Greene Community College Hudson, NY The New School for Social Research New York, NY Dutchess Community College Staatsburg, NY Ulster Community College Stone Ridge, NY New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program Albany, NY New York State Office of Parks Recreation, and Historic Preservation Albany, NY United States Army Corps of Engineers New York, NY Scenic Hudson, Inc. Poughkeepsie, NY The Oceanic Society Stanford, CT Type of Use Research and Education Research and Education Research and Education Education Research and Education Education Education Education Education Research and Management Research and Management Research and Management Research and Management Research and Education Research Table 7. (Continued) 77 Institution or Agency Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Poughkeepsie, NY National Audubon Society New York, NY Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club Poughkeepsie, NY Alan Devoe Bird Club Chatham, NY Rockland Audubon Society New City, NY John Burroughs Natural History Society, Olive Bridge, NY New Jersey Audubon Society Ramapo Research Group Mahwah, NJ Project L.O.S.T. Mountainvil le, NY Type of Use Education Education Education Education Education Education Research Research and Education 78 Tab! e 8. Some current research projects involving the proposed Sanctuary Sites. (Proposed research is outlined in the Alternatives section.) Flora and fauna survey updates Fish surveys of the marshes Rare and endangered plant and animal distribution and abundance Muskrat populations, muskrat ecology Waterfowl nesting Duck blind ecol ogy Vegetation patterns and changes in wetlands Vegetation structure and bird populations Toxic substances in sediments, plants and animals Wetland sediment structure and history of marshes Insects associated with marsh plants 79 PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. General Impacts An acquisition grant from NOAA would enable the State of New York to acquire lands and develop facilities (i.e., buildings, roads, parking lots, trails, boardwalk). These lands and facilities, combined with other lands already owned by the State and existing facilities, would constitute a National Estuarine Sanctuary representative of the Hudson River as a subcategory of the Virginian Biogeographic Region. The proposed action would have a variety of environmental and economic consequences. It is important to understand the overall effect of the estuarine sanctuary designation. The sanctuary designation would not change existing ownerships, uses, or activities at the proposed sites, but would offer significant future benefits. These benefits would include additional protection of the. marshes, and improved and better coordinated research and education opportunities. The most important overall effect would be to better protect areas included within the sanctuary from development pressures and to improve access to wildland and estuarine natural areas for research and educational purposes. The sanctuary would require very little development because most facilities already exist in some form; little change would be caused in the existing natural environment. The sanctuary would not significantly affect current uses or activities in or near the proposed sanctuary sites. The greatest environmental benefit of this sanctuary would be the long-term protection of the natural resources of the tidal wetlands, shallows, shoreline, and islands of Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh and Piermont Marsh. The sanctuary would serve as an area for people to use for esthetic and recreational enjoyment as well as for scientific and educational purposes. Information collected in the sanctuary would increase knowledge of East Coast estuarine ecosystems and provide an important link with existing National Estuarine Sanctuaries and other coastal research and educational reserves. The estuarine sanctuary designation would complement and enhance existing ecological, scenic, and historical management programs. Including a representative of this type of estuary within the Virginian Biogeographic Region would also improve understanding of estuarine species and processes peculiar to tidal river systems along the Atlantic Coast. The establishment of the proposed estuarine sanctuary would have minimal adverse effects on the natural environment. An increased number of visitors to the sites should be anticipated. The sanctuary management 80 plan would describe sanctuary facilities, including trails and access points. The management plan would also describe educational uses in areas of the sites where such use would not damage the environment, disturb adjoining landowners, or interfere with other uses of the sanctuary. Traditional uses vary from one proposed sanctuary site to another. These uses include (in certain areas): waterfowl and upland hunting, sport and commercial fishing, fur trapping, recreational boating, bird watching and other forms of nature recreation. B. Specific Impacts 1 . Natural Environment a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Many species of fish and wildlife, both resident and migratory, use the proposed sanctuary sites for feeding, reproduction, and other purposes. Establishment of this proposed sanctuary would ensure long-term protection of important fish and wildlife habitats including tidal wetlands, shallows, shorelines and islands. This protection of habitats could benefit endangered species including bald eagle, osprey, possibly the shortnose sturgeon, and also the other endangered, threatened, and "special concern" species discussed in the Affected Environment (Part III) section of this DEIS. Additional information on endangered species is being collected to assist in developing the sanctuary management plan. The proposed sanctuary would have a positive impact by protecting high quality ecosystems in the Hudson River Estuary. Increased visitor use of the sanctuary sites for educational , recreational , and research purposes would have a minimal adverse effect on the proposed sanctuary's value as a fish and wildlife habitat. Hiking, cross-country skiing, boating and other recreational activities would not increase greatly over levels anticipated without the establishment of the proposed sanctuary, and fishing, trapping and hunting are expected to remain at present levels in areas where these activities are currently allowed. Existing management policies at Piermont and Iona protect fish and wildlife in those areas. The management plan under development by DEC for Ti vol i Bays takes into account the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. At Stockport, there is no evidence of any threat to habitat from existing recreational uses or from research activities proposed under the proposed sanctuary program. b. Soils and Vegetation Adverse impact on soils within the proposed sanctuary would be minimized by taking appropriate precautions. Trail construction and improvement will be largely confined to locations of former or existing trails or roads, and steep slopes and poorly drained soils will be avoided. A boardwalk may be constructed at Ti vol i North Bay after studies are made to determine the appropriate design and location to avoid degradation of soils, vegetation, or fish and wildlife habitats. A boardwalk would allow visitors and researchers to experience wetland habitats with minimal detrimental effects. The impacts of any construction activities would be assessed and appropriate permits obtained. 81 Vegetation would not be significantly altered by establishing the proposed sanctuary. Parking would occur in existing parking areas or in the case of Tivoli Bays, in small areas which are not wooded or near the shoreline. Sanctuary programs, such as research and education, would provide increased opportunities to monitor human activities which could damage the environment--for example, potential theft of fuelwood. c. Water Quality Establishing the proposed sanctuary would prevent potential impacts from water pollution that might otherwise occur due to further industrial or residential development within the proposed sanctuary sites. Increased recreational boating due to sanctuary establishment would be mostly non-motorized craft, and the use of motorized craft in the proposed sanctuary areas is expected to remain at low impact levels. Vigilance associated with research and educational activities would speed detection and clean-up of any pollution incidents that might occur. 2. Human Environment a. Residents of the Towns and Counties There are no residences in the areas proposed for inclusion in the proposed sanctuary, and no displacement of residents would result. The public has limited access to the shoreline and waters of the Hudson River Estuary, and the establishment of the proposed sanctuary would benefit people by protecting existing access points in the proposed sanctuary areas and providing additional access at Tivoli and possibly Stockport. Assessments of properties adjoining the proposed sanctuary would not change as a result of sanctuary establishment. The proposed estuarine sanctuary would help preserve the Hudson River's scenic and historic uniqueness and already great attraction to tourists. Visitors from all over the United States and indeed the world visit the Hudson River for enjoyment of esthetic, historic, and recreational resources. This tourism is part of the Hudson's rich tradition and is an environmentally sound source of income to communities along the estuary. Research and education activities associated with an estuarine sanctuary would contribute to local economies: users of the sanctuary would require transportation, housing, food, and supplies from area merchants. An estuarine sanctuary on the Hudson River would encourage a more thorough examination and understanding of the relationships between human activities and the environment. There would be increasing public knowledge and awareness of natural resources, ecosystems, sensitivities, and conservation needs. The proposed sanctuary would increase the support for and public understanding of coastal management programs and activities. Residents would benefit from long-term protection of sport and commercial fishing, and (at Tivoli and Stockport) fur trapping and hunting, by protection of the estuary. The impacts of these activities would remain unchanged. The integrity of fish and wildlife habitats and populations would be 82 protected by preserving the natural areas of the proposed sanctuary sites from adverse development. Protection of water quality and habitat quality and improvements in the quality of fishing and hunting experiences would go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, increased research resulting from sanctuary establishment would very probably result in better management of fish and wildlife populations and their habitats along the entire Hudson River Estuary. b. Scientific and Educational Existing research and education programs would be enhanced by establishment of an estuarine sanctuary, and new opportunities would be created for research and education both within the proposed sanctuary and elsewhere along the Hudson River. There would be increased coordination and improved effectiveness of the now disparate and often fragmented programs on the estuary, especially research on the wetlands and shallows. Protection of high-quality natural ecosystems and improved access would allow school groups and the general public of all ages easier access to educational and scientific resources. It would be an advantage to scientists and students of science to have areas set aside as an estuarine sanctuary for long-term ecological research and environmental monitoring. c. State and Federal Establishment of a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would protect for New Yorkers and other Americans natural areas to enjoy and use for science and education. The sanctuary designation would especially benefit people from urban areas who have difficulty finding coastal areas for these activities. Establishment and management of the proposed sanctuary would have a relatively slight and short-term financial impact on the Federal Government. Since long-term operation of the proposed sanctuary would be based on retention of its natural features, expenditures would be minimal. All facilities would be designed for minimal maintenance. Volunteer efforts could assist in the upkeep and management of trails and other features of the sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary Advisory Committee's fund-raising activities could provide an appropriate blend of private sector and public sector support for the perpetuation of suitable sanctuary operation. Sanctuary programs would be closely coordinated with other government programs as well as private programs of research, education, and conservation. Sanctuary goals would be compatible with the protection of wetlands, floodplains, shorelines and other estuarine environments in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, the State Coastal Management plan, and other Federal and State laws listed in Appendix 2. C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects Except for the minor problems listed earlier, there are no adverse environmental effects associated with this proposed action. With regard to the alternatives (except for the No Action Alternative), none have 83 significantly different environmental impacts. However, the Preferred Alternative would create an excellent estuarine sanctuary for research and education. If the No Action alternative were chosen, the net benefits presented in the proposal would be foregone. Unavoidable adverse economic effects would include the loss of tax revenue if additional land acquisition takes place. The following figures are approximate, but they are the best available estimates on potential loss of property tax revenues in connection with proposed sanctuary acquisitions on the Hudson River: Stockport Marsh area - Approximately $1 ,141/year Tivoli Bays area - Approximately $ 780/year Iona Island area - No Acquisition proposed Piermont Marsh area - Approximately $1 ,000/year The total potential loss of property tax revenues is estimated at $2,921 per year. Some or all of this lost property tax revenue would be offset by new spending from sanctuary visitors, scientists, and educators. Establishment of this proposed sanctuary could result in minor disturbances to the environment through the construction or improvement of trails and parking areas, and renovation of existing buildings. Any proposed construction in wetland areas would require an environmental assessment. D. Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Sanctuary designation would provide long-term assurance that the natural resources and resulting benefits of the area would be available for future use and enjoyment. Without sanctuary designation, intensive uses such as residential subdivisions or commercial -industri al development might take place in some parts of the proposed sanctuary. However, such uses would result in a loss of ecological benefits due to disruption and degradation of natural resources. Research information collected from the proposed estuarine sanctuary over the long-term would assist Federal, State and local government in making better coastal management decisions. Better management would in turn help resolve use conflicts and mitigate adverse impacts of human activities in the coastal zone, saving both money and resources. Research in the proposed estuarine sanctuary might well allow more efficient and safer use of resources in the coastal zone, and this research might also result in the discovery of previously unknown resources (medical, nutritional, esthetic, recreational) for human use. A public education program would provide a grassroots foundation for wise public use of estuarine resources. 84 E. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Within the proposed sanctuary, there are no resources that will be irreversibly or irretrievably lost. The intent of the proposed action is to protect, enhance, and manage the natural resources for research, education, and recreation. If these resources are protected and managed instead of altered, they would be available for future use. It is also believed that establishment of the proposed sanctuary could insure the future harvest by commercial and sport fishermen and also hunters and trappers through scientific research and proper management of resources, without resulting in loss of other potential benefits such as nonconsumptive enjoyment of the resource. F. Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, State, Regional and Local Land Use Plans, Policies and Controls for the Areas Concerned No conflicts are anticipated between this proposed action and the objectives of Federal , State, regional or local land use plans, policies, and controls for the area concerned. 1 . Federal and Regional Plans The entire Ti vol i Bays site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of a historic district that stretches along the the east bank of the Hudson River from Germantown south to Hyde Park. A special procedure is required before structures existing on the property may be altered. However, none of the several buildings on the upland area away from the wetlands has any great historic value and it is planned by DEC to raze these buildings which are in too poor condition to use, except for the concrete barn. The barn may be renovated and used as a research and education center for the proposed estuarine sanctuary. A private cemetery of less than one-fourth acre in size, dating from approximately the 1930s-40s, is located on the uplands more than 300 yards east of the wetlands. This cemetery will be protected and marked as part of the DEC management of the property. A small (less than 50 feet square) ruins on South Cruger Island was built for ornamental reasons in the mid-1800s and will be left as is. The establishment of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary in and of itself would not interfere with the maintenance or enforcement of the U.S. Coast Guard rules and regulations. The proposed sanctuary would also not interfere with commercial shipping use or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintenance of the Federal Shipping Channel. The proposed sanctuary sites would not be available for disposal of dredged material from the navigation channel. Alternative disposal sites are available upland outside of the proposed sanctuary boundaries. The Corps of Engineers in their DEIS and 10-year management plan for Federal channel maintenance dredging has indicated that spoil disposal in marshes is no longer acceptable. There is a small, long disused silted-in mapped spur channel within the proposed sanctuary boundary at Stockport. The proposed sanctuary would not interfere with existing railroad operations and maintenance. 85 Sanctuary management policies would not interfere with existing regulations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or any other Federal regulatory agency. 2. State Plans The purposes and objectives of the proposed estuarine sanctuary are consistent with the programs of the Department of Environmental Conserva- tion (DEC), the Department of State (DOS), the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), and the Palisades Interstate Park Com- mission (PIPC). All of these agencies, as well as the Office of General Services, are involved in planning the proposed estuarine sanctuary and are represented on the Sanctuary Steering Committee. DEC, DOS, OPRHP and PIPC were all involved in the statewide and the Hudson River site selection processes for the proposed sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary is consistent with the objectives and plans of the developing State Coastal Management Program. The Ti vol i Bays site lies entirely within the DEC-designated Mid- Hudson Historic Shorelands State Scenic Area, which stretches from Germantown to Hyde Park and is approximately conterminous with the National Register of Historic Places historic district. The proposed sanctuary objectives are consistent with the objectives of the Scenic Area, and both programs would be mutually supportive. At Stockport and Ti vol i , portions of State Agricultural Districts approach or adjoin the proposed sanctuary sites. No portion of any Agricultural District is within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. The management of the proposed sanctuary would not interfere with agricultural land uses. Proposed and potential estuarine sanctuary research and education programs are complementary to, and would not interfere with, any research or education programs conducted by State agencies, or within the State educational system, or by private groups or schools. Indeed, sanctuary programs and other research and education programs would be mutually enchancing. 3. Local Plans The proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would not interfere with any known county, town, or village plans, policies, or regulations (see Appendix 2). The proposed sanctuary management plan would take into account all county, town, and village laws and regulations governing portions of the proposed sanctuary that lie within these political divisions. Protection of scenic, recreational, historic, and archaeological resources within the proposed sanctuary is consistent with local plans and policies as well as with State policies. Existing uses of the proposed sanctuary would continue, including hunting, fishing, trapping, recreational boating, bird watching and other recreational uses where permitted. 86 It is not anticipated that the establishment of the proposed sanctuary would interfere with existing or potential industrial or commercial land uses near or adjoining the proposed sites. Such uses include: the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company corridor at Piermont, the Clevepak Corporation and Federal Paper Board Company plants on the Erie Pier at Piermont, the thoroughbred horse breeding farm of Ti vol i Properties, Inc., other agricultural activities at Tivoli and Stockport, the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation corridor at Tivoli, and the railroads. If problems should arise, negotiated agreements would be sought. 87 PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS Dr. Richard J. Podgorny -- U.S. Department of Commerce Dr. Podgorny holds both B.A and Ph.D. degrees in Biology and a M.S. degree in the earth sciences. He is the Project Manager for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary proposal. Also, he is the Regional Sanctuary Projects Manager for the Great Lakes, portions of the East Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico for both of NOAA's National Estuarine and Marine Sanctuary Programs. His background includes serving as Director of Marine Education for the District of Columbia Public School System, Science Professor, and Peace Corps Volunteer in Ethiopia. His responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS included overall direction, organization, and preparation of the report for publication. Dr. Podgorny had assistance from Ms. Gloria Thompson, Program Specialist, Ms. Phylistine Bullock, Program Specialist Trainee, and Ms. Jessie Warren, Clerk/Typist, Sanctuary Programs Office. Mr. Edward Radle -- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Mr. Edward Radle oversaw the preparation of the DEIS. Mr. Radle is the Hudson River Fishery Management Coordinator with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He has a master's degree in fisheries biology and lives in Clifton Park, New York. Mr. Erik Ki viat -- Director, Hudsonia Limited Mr. Erik Kiviat prepared the Affected Environment, Alternatives, and Consequences sections, and edited the appendices. Mr. Kiviat taught natural history at Bard College 1970-78 and was director of the College Field Station; he is now Research Associate in Ecology at Bard, and a director of Hudsonia Limited. He has done research on the Hudson Estuary since 1970. Mr. Kiviat has a master's degree in biology, and lives in Barrytown, New York. Mr. James J. Stapleton -- Director, Hudsonia Limited Mr. James J. Stapleton assisted in the preparation of the entire DEIS. Mr. Stapleton teaches at the New School for Social Research in New York City, is Director of the John Burroughs Sanctuary, and is a director of Hudsonia Limited. He has master's degrees in biology and physics, and lives in West Park, New York. Mr. Robert E. Schmidt -- Director, Hudsonia Limited Mr. Robert E. Schmidt edited the hydrology section and compiled the fish list, as well as assisting with and reviewing the rest of the DEIS. Dr. Schmidt teaches at Upsala College in Sussex, New Jersey, and has taught at Manhattan Community College, New York City; Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, New York; and Fordham University, Bronx, New York. He is a director of Hudsonia Limited and has done research on Hudson River fish populations for several years. Dr. Schmidt has a Ph.D. in ichthyology and lives in Newton, New Jersey. Ms. Suzanne Blatter -- Hudsonia Limited Ms. Suzanne Blatter prepared the illustrations for the DEIS. Ms. Blatter has a bachelor of fine arts degree, and lives in Kingston, New York. She is an affiliate of Hudsonia Limited. Ms. Nancy Zeising -- Hudsonia Limited Ms. Nancy Zeising compiled the plant list and assisted with other portions of the DEIS. Ms. Zeising teaches environmental education in the Hyde Park, New York, school district and is involved in Hudson Estuary research. She is an affiliate of Hudsonia Limited and lives in Clinton Hollow, New York. Mr. Clarence T. O'Brien — New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Mr. Clarence T. O'Brien researched property ownerships at the Stockport Flats site. Mr. O'Brien is Regional Land Surveyor, Region 4, with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He has an Associate Degree in Electric Power Generation and Transmission from Alfred University, SUNY, and lives in Guilderland, New York. The following members of New York's Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee contributed significantly to the preparation of the DEIS and reviewed drafts: J. W. Aldrich (DEC) James Morton (DOS) Harry Earle (OPRHP) Nancy Pierson (OPRHP) Peter D. Gregory (OPRHP) John Renkavinsky (DEC) Paul Keller (DEC) Joseph Steeley (DEC) David McCoy (PIPC) Nancy Tobin (OPRHP) Robert T. McLean (OGS) In addition, valuable information or comments were received from the following State agency administrators or staff members: Nash Castro (PIPC) Eugene McCaffrey (DEC) Glenn Cole (DEC) John Mead (PIPC) Salvatore Cozzolino (DEC) Jack Ryan (DEC) Herbert Doig (DEC) Fred Slater (DEC) Wayne Elliot (DEC) Ronald Sloan (DEC) Patrick Festa (DEC) Anthony Taormina (DEC) Edward Horn (DEC) John Troy (PIPC) Phillip Hulbert (DEC) Ivan Vamos (OPRHP) Alan Mapes (DEC) The following individuals provided information or assistance: Maurice Brignull (Hudson, NY) Frances Dunwel 1 (Scenic Hudson, NY) Richard Griffiths (Bard College) William Hogan (Dutchess County Cooperative Extension) John Holsapple (New York Power Pool) William Kivlen (Columbia County Sportsmen's Federation) Lee LaBuff (Ithaca, NY) Wade Linden (North Chatham, NY) Steve Lopez (New York Sea Grant) William T. Maple (Bard College) Donna Matthews (Tivoli, NY) Grace Meyer (Piermont, NY) Joe Murell (Hudson, NY) Everett Nack (Claverack, NY) 89 Beth Yanuck Piatt (The Nature Conservancy) Ruth Piwonka (Ki nderhook, NY) Michael Rosenthal (Bard College) David Seeley (North Chatham, NY) C. L. Smith (American Museum of Natural History) Roland Vosburgh (Columbia County Department of Planning) Lynn Wayand (DEC) Anne Williams (The Nature Conservancy) 91 PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Park Service Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Housing & Urban Developement Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transportation U.S. Coast Guard Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Interest Groups A.M. E.R.I. C.A.N. AFL-CIO American Association of Port Authorities American Bureau of Shipping American Farm Bureau Federation American Fisheries Society American Gas Association American Industrial Development Council American Institute of Architects American Petroleum Institue American Shore and Beach Preservation Association American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc. American Society of Planning Officials American Waterways Operators Amoco Production Company Atlantic Richfield Company Atomic Industrial Forum Boating Industry Association Bultema Dock and Dredge Company Center for Law and Social Policy Center for Natural Areas Center for Urban Affairs Center for Urban and Regional Resources Chamber for Commerce of the United States Chevron U.S.A. , Inc. Cities Service Company Coast Alliance Conservation Foundation 92 National Interest Groups (Cont'd.) Continental Oil Company Council of State Planning Agencies The Cousteau Society CZM Newsletter Edison Electric Institute El Paso Natural Gas Co. Environmental Policy Center Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Environmental Law Institute EXXON Company, U.S.A. Friends of the Earth Great Lakes Basin Commission Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S. Gulf Oil Company Gulf Refining Company Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America Institute for the Human Environment Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Lake Michigan Federation Marathon Oil Company Marine Technology Society Mobil Oil Corportation Mobil Exploration and Producing, Inc. Murphy Oil Company of of of of Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Nationa Natural Natural Association Association Association Association Conservation Districts Counties Home Builders Realtors Audubon Society Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc Farmers Union Federation of Fisherman Fisheries Institute Forest Products Association Marine Manufacturers Association Ocean Industries Association Parks and Conservation Association Recreation and Park Association Research Council Society of Professional Engineers Waterways Conference Wildlife Federation Resources Defense Council Resources Law Institute The Nature Conservancy Norfolk Dredging Company Outboard Marine Corporation Resources for the Future Rose, Schmidt & Dixon Shell Oil Company Sierra Club 93 National Interest Groups (Cont'd.) Skelly Oil Company Soil Conservation Society of America Sport Fishing Institute Standard Oil Company of Ohio State University Law School State University of New York Sun Company, Inc. Tenneco Oil Company Texaco, Inc. Texas A & M University Union Oil Company of California University of Pittsburgh Urban Research and Development Association, Inc Western Oil and Gas Association Wildlife Management Institute The Wildlife Society Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute State/Cou nty Government New York City 1 Department of City Planning New York State Department of Environmental New York State Office of i General Services New York State Department of State New York State Office of Parks, Recreation Beai " Mountain : State Park New York State Geological Survey New York Department of Pu: blic Service New York State Coastal Coalition Saratoga Spa State Park Pali isade< i Inte rstate Park Commission New York State Department of Transportation New York State Governor's Offfice Conservation and Historic Preservation Department of State Education State Museum and Science Service New York State Conservation Council Taconic State Park and Recreation Commission New York Fish and Wildlife Management Board Tallman Mountain State Park Dutchess Co. Department of Planning Town of Red Hook Conservation Council Town Planning Board of Red Hook Rockland Legislature Rockland County Environmental Management Council Stony Point Town Planning Board Orangetown Planning Board Sparkill Creek Watershed Protection State and Local Interest Groups Red Hook Rotary Club West Branch Conservation Association 94 State and Local Interest Groups (Cont'd.) Piermont Conservation Advisory Commission West Hudson Environmental Association Rockland County Planning Department Rockland County Cooperative Extension Piermont Civic Association Hudson River Conservation Society Hudson River Heritage, Inc. Manitago Hudson River Center American Littorial Society Rockland Audubon Society Central Westchester Audubon Society New Jersey Audubon Society Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club Federation of New York State Bird Clubs The Nature Conservancy Hudson River Environmental Society Hudson River Shorelands Task Force National Audubon Society Putnam Highlands Audubon Society Alan Devoe Bird Club Linnaean Society of New York Sierra Club Torrey Botanical Club Federated Garden Clubs of New York Marshland Conservancy Federated Conservationists of Winchester Co. Commerical Fisherman's Association of New York New York Bass Chapter Federation John Burroughs Natural History Society Dutchess County Garden Clubs Palisades Nature Association Greenbrook Sanctuary The Wildli fe Society Hudson River Fisherman's Association Trout Unlimited Columbia County Sportsmen's Federation, Inc. Federated Sportmen's Club of Ulster County Inc. Federation of Dutchess County Fish and Game Club Hudson River Waterfowlers Upper Catskill Fur Takers New York-New Jersey Trail Conference Dutchess County Landmarks Association Ducks Unlimited Dutches County Trapper's Association Dutchess County Archeological Society Project L.O.S.T. The Georgia Conservancy Tappan Zee Sloop Club Buccaneer Boat Club, Inc. Julius Petersen, Inc. 95 State and Local Interest Groups (Cont'd.) Chelsa Marina Norrie Point Marine Corporation Hudson River Pilots Association Tappan Zee Marina Lighthouse Yacht Center Sail haven Poughkeepsie Yacht Club Beacon Sloop Club Congressional Daniel P. Moynihan Alphonse M. D'Amato Wil liam Carney Thomas J. Downey Gregory W. Carman Norman F. Lent Raymond J. McGrath John LeBoutillier Joseph P. Addabbo Benjamin S. Rosenthal Geraldine Anne Ferraro Mario Biaggi James H. Scheuer Shirley Chisholm Stephen J. Solarz Frederick W. Richmond Leo C. Zeferetti Charles E. Schumer Guy V. Molinari Bill Green Charles B. Rangel Ted Weiss Robert Garcia Jonathan B. Bingham Peter A. Peyser Richard L. Ottinger Hamilton Fish, Jr. Benjamin A Gil man Matthew F. McHugh Samuel S. Stratton Gerald B. Solomon David O'B. Martin Donald J. Mitchell George C. Wortley Gary A. Lee Frank Horton Barber B. Conable, Jr. John J. La Falce Henry J. Nowak Jack Kemp Stanley N. Lundine 96 Indi viduals Kenneth R. Ingenito Lucien H. Conkli n Josephy Colello John Deans Wil liam Gosi vick Philip J. Rotella Kevin Al ger Robert L. Bard Tom Burke David Chiarelli Marcel la Appell Robert Bartholomew Eleanor Bulingham Ed Cocker John Cronin Peter C. Derven Charles A. Galyon Alan Gussow Robert Hodor Sherwood Kreig Richard Leggett Scott Longe John Makoske William G. Medn Everette Nack John Rossi David Seeley J. Herbert Dahm, Jr. Roger Edgley Robert Greig Wesley J. Hennessy Harold Hoffman Lee Labuff Wade Linden Robert Main Bonnie McGiffert Theodore B. Merrill Leif Reichelt Samuel Sage Mike Selender In addition, 350 copies of the DEIS were distributed to identified State and local interest groups and individuals, including property owners, libraries, newspapers, researchers and educators, conservation and sportsmen's groups, industries and user groups. 97 PART VII: APPENDICES Page Appendix 1: Bibliography and Literature Cited 99 Appendix 2: Existing Jurisdiction Involving the Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary 109 Appendix 3: List of Fishes Reported from the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Sites on the Hudson River 113 Appendix 4: Birds Reported In or Close to Proposed Sanctuary Sites 119 Appendix 5: Selected Data From New York Mid-Winter Area Water Fowl Survey 127 Appendix 6: Tidal Vascular Plants of the Proposed Sanctuary Sites 129 Appendix 7: Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977 141 99 APPENDIX I Bibliography and Literature Cited 100 Appendix 1. Bibliography and literature cited. The annotations S (Stockport), T (Tivoli), I (Iona), and P (Piermont) indicate references specifically treating the indicated sites. Aldrich, J. W. 1979. A brief account of Cruger's Island, Magdalen Island, the North Bay, and adjoining uplands. Year Book Dutchess County Historical Society 64:72-86. T Anonymous, nd. Bear Mountain Trailside Museums, Nature Trails & Zoo. Trailside Museums, Bear Mountain NY. 10 p. brochure. I . 1968. The Bear Mountain Trailside Museums and Nature Trails. "Talisades Interstate Park Commission. Trailside Museums, Bear Mountain NY. 10 p. brochure. I . 1975. Hudson River Recreationway : Master Development Plan for Gays Point, Stockport Middle Ground Islands and Middle Ground Flats. New York State Office of Parks and Recreation. 7 p. unpubl . rept. S _. 1977? Bear Mountain Trailside Museums, Nature Trails & Zoo. Palisades Interstate Park Commission. Bear Mountain State Park, NY. 12 p. brochure. I . 1979. 2 river island parksites planned. Hudson Register-Star, 19 July: Al , back page. S . 1980a. The Tivoli Bays. Hudson River Heritage News 5(2):4-5. T . 1980b. Bear Mountain State Park. Iona Island - Program of utilization, few York State Office of Parks and Recreation. 26 p. unpubl. rept. I . 1981. Tidal marsh saved. Land Lines (Lower Hudson Chap. Nature Conservancy), springil.P Arbib, R. S., Jr., O.S. Pettingill, Jr. and S. H. Spofford. 1966. Enjoying birds around New York City. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 171 p. T, I, P Averill, S. P., R. R. Pardi , W. S. Newman and R. J. Dineen. nda. Late Wisconsin - Holocene history of the lower Hudson region: new evidence from the Hackensack and Hudson River valleys. Pp. 160-186 j_n Warren Manspeizer, ed. Field Studies of New Jersey Geology and Guide to Field Trips: 52nd Annual Meeting of the New York State Geological Association. I, P Barlow, M. 1981. Company giving pier to Piermont. Bird's-eye view of Piermont Marsh. West Nyack Journal-News, 4 Jan.:Al, back p. P Beauchamp, W. M. 1900. Aboriginal occupation of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 32, 187 p. S, T, I Boyle, R. H. 1969. The Hudson River; a natural and unnatural history. W. W. Norton, NY. 304 p. S, T, P 101 Brown, D. 1981. Ti vol i Bay to be kept for nature. Albany Times-Union, 2 Aug. T Buckley, E. H. and S. S. Ristich. 1976. Distribution of rooted vegetation in the brackish marshes and shallows of the Hudson River Estuary. Paper 20, 30 p. in Fourth Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. Hudson River Environmental Society, Bronx NY. Burmeister, W. F. 1974. Appalachian waters 2: the Hudson River and its tributaries. Appalachian Books, Oakton VA. 488 p. S, T, I, P Butler, J.R., E. S. Custer, Jr., and W. A. White. 1975. Potential geological Natural Landmarks Piedmont Region, eastern United States. Dept. Geology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 240 p. P Cam, W. H. 1940. Birds of Bear Mountain Park; A check-list. Bear Mountain Trailside Museum, 31 p. Cinquemani, L. J., W. S. Newman, J. A. Sperling, L. F. Marcus and R. R. Pardi, In press. Holocene sea level changes and vertical movements along the East Coast of the United States: a preliminary report. (Dept. Earth and Environmental Sciences, Queens College, Flushing, NY.) I Clarke & Rapuano, Inc. 1976. Iona Island Bear Mountain State Park entrance road environmental assessment design feasibility. Palisades Interstate Park Commission. 90 p. + maps. I Coastal Zone Management Study Program. 1977a. Final report on Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPC) recommendations. (Task 7.3). New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Land Resources and Forest Management, Coastal Zone Management Study Program, Albany, NY. S, T, I, P . 1977b. Final report on significant coastal related fish and wildlife habitats of New York State (Task 7.3). New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Land Resources and Forest Management, Coastal Zone Managment Study Program, Albany, NY. S, T, I, P Connor, J. 1978. Osprey trapped by water chestnut. Auk 95:610-611. T Craig, R. J., M. W. Klemens, and S. S. Craig. 1980. The northeastern range limit of the eastern mud turtle Kinosternon s. subrubrum (Lacepede). Journal of Herpetology 14(3) : 295-297. Dalmas, J. 1980. Eye on Iona. Of an isolated island in the Hudson. West Nyack Journal -News, 12 0ct.:3M-4M. I Deed, R. F. 1959. Birds of Rockland County and the Hudson Highlands. 44 p. Rockland Audubon Society, West Nyack, NY. I, P . 1968. Supplement to Birds of Rockland County and the Hudson Highlands. 27 p. Rockland Audubon Society, West Nyack, NY. I, P 102 . 1976. Rockland County's on-again, off-again resting places for shorebi rds. Linnaean News-Letter 29(7): 1-3. I, P _. 1981a. The endless change in a local checklist. Linnaean News-Letter 34(7-8):! -2. I, P . 1981b. The Piermont Pier and marsh. The Observer 34(2) :1 -2. P Drennan, S. R. 1981. Where to find birds in New York State; the top 500 sites. Syracuse University Press, 499 p. S, T, I, P Duch, T. M. 1976. Aspects of the feeding habits of Viviparus georgianus. Nautilus 90(1):7-10. T Dutchess County Environmental Management Council Significant Areas Committee. In press. Significant areas. Jjt_ Natural Resources of Dutchess County, New York. Dutchess County Department of Planning, Poughkeepsie, NY. T Faulds, C. A., ed. 1969. The Piermont study. Rockland Community College (Suffern, NY) and the Hudson River Valley Commission, np. P Ferren, W. R. , Jr., and A. E. Schuyler. 1980. Intertidal vascular plants of river systems near Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 132:86-120. Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. and J. F. Pickett, Sr. 1980. A new crawfish of the genus Orconectes from eastern New York (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 93:373-382. S Foley, D. D. and R. W. Taber. 1951. Lower Hudson waterfowl investigation. Pittman-Robertson Project 47-R. New York State Conservation Department, Albany, NY. 796 p. S, T, I, P Funk, 1967. The Hudson; archeological sites. A report on archeological resources in the Hudson River Valley. State of New York Hudson River Valley Commission, Iona Island, Bear Mountain, NY. 19 p. S, T, I . 1976. Recent contributions to Hudson Valley prehistory. New York State Museum Memoir 2, 325 p. S, T, I Garlinghouse, H. M. 1976. William Seward Teator (1860-1930). Nautilus 90(4):148-149. T Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 196.3. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ. 861 p. Goldhammer, A. 1981. Canoeing the Hudson's marshes. Clearwater Navigator 12(6):4-6. 103 Goldring, W. 1943. Geology of the Coxsackie quadrangle, New York; with a chapter on glacial geology by J. H. Cook. New York State Museum Bulletin 322, 374 p. + maps. S Griscom, L. 1933. The birds of Dutchess County, New York. Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New York 3, 184 p. T Hall, A. J. 1978. The Hudson: "That river's alive". National Geographic 153(1 ):62-89. T, P Hickey, J. J. 1969. Peregrine falcon populations; their biology and decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 596 p. I, P Hudson River Research Council. 1980. Results of Hudson River Field Weeks April 1977 and August 1978. Water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and total suspended solids at spring high flow and summer low flow. HRRC, Bronx, NY. 50 p. S, T, P Jorgenson, S. E. 1980. Some international values of wetlands. Parks 5(3):5-8 Key, M. C. 1981. Fulvous whistling duck. Wings over Dutchess 22(5):8. T Kiviat, E. 1973. Down along the cove. Bard Review, spring:21-23. T . 1974. A fresh-water tidal marsh on the Hudson, Tivoli North Bay. Paper 14, 33 p. i_n Third Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. Hudson River Environmental Society, Bronx, NY. T . 1976a. Goldenclub, a threatened plant in the tidal Hudson River. Paper 21, 13 p. ji_n Fourth Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. Hudson River Environmental Society, Bronx, NY. S, T . 1976b. (Notes on Hudson River Tidal Marsh Workshop, 2 June 1976 at Bard College, sponsored by Hudson River Environmental Society). Currents (HRES) 6(2): 1, (3): 3-4. . 1977. Reptiles and amphibians of the Hudson Estuary. North River Navigator ""{"Hudson River Sloop Clearwater) 8(9):4-5. . 1978. Hudson River east bank natural areas, Clermont to Norrie. Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA 115 p. T _. 1979a. Hudson Estuary shore zone: ecology and management. Master's thesis (unpubl.), State University College at New Paltz, NY. 159 p. T, I, P _. 1979b. Cattail marshes, birds, good water, and people. Dutchess Life 8:13. T _. 1980a. A Hudson River tidemarsh snapping turtle population. Transactions of the Northeast section, Wildlife Society 37:158-158. T . 1980b. Low tides and turtle trails. Hudson Valley 9(5):27-29.T 104 _. 1981a. Hudson River Estuary shore zone annotated natural history bibliography with index. Scenic Hudson, Poughkeepsie, NY. 76 p. S, T, I, P _. 1981b. Profile of the Hudson. Hudson Valley 9(9):24-28. T, I, P . 1981c. Profile of the Hudson: the air. Hudson Valley 9(12): 39-41 . T _. 1 981 d. A Hudson River fresh - tidal marsh: management planning. Restoration and Management Notes 1(1): 14-15. T . 1982. Eastern bluebird remote natural nest sites. Kingbird 32(1): 6-8.1 . and F. Dunwell. 1981. The marshes stand watch. Hudson Valley 10(5): 33-37. S, T, I, P Lehr, J. H. 1967a. The plants of Iona Island; a field report. Sarracenia (New York Botanical Garden) 11:35-38. I . 1967b. The marshes at Piermont, New York; a field report. Sarracenia TNew York Botanical Garden) 11:31-34. P Mckeon, W. Ca. 1974. An appraisal of the current status of marshes or wetland areas along the Hudson River. Hudson River Environmental Society, Bronx, NY. 7 p. unpubl . ms. T, I, P McVaugh, R. 1958. Flora of the Columbia County area, New York. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletins 360-360A. 433 p. S, T Merrill, T. B. 1981. Piermont double donation "worth a celebration". Clearwater Navigator (Hudson River Sloop Clearwater), Apri 1:3. P Meyer, G. 1980. The ecological perspective. Piermont Newsletter 14(1 ):7. P Mitchell, R. S., C. J. Sheviak and J. K. Dean. 1980. Rare and endangered vascular plant species in New York State. New York State Museum, Albany. 38 p. T, I Muenscher, W. C. 1935. Aquatic vegetation of the Mohawk watershed. Supplement, 24th Annual Report of the New York State Conservation Department, Biological Survey 9 (Mohawk-Hudson Watershed): 228-249. S . 1937. Aquatic vegetation of the lower Hudson area. Supplement, 26th Annual Report of the New York State Conservation Department, Biological Survey 11 (Lower Hudson Watershed):231 -248. S, T, I, P Muenscher, W. C. 1944. Aquatic plants of the United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 374 p. T Mylod, J. 1969. Biography of a river; the people and legends of the Hudson Valley. Bonanza Books, New York. 244 p. I 105 Newman, W. S. 1973. Iona Island - the last fifteen millenia. Communicator (Journal of the New York State Outdoor Education Association) 5(1 ) : 28- 30. I , D. H. Thurber, H. S. Zeiss, A. Rokach and L. Musich. 1969. Late Quaternary geology of the Hudson River estuary: a preliminary report. Transactions of the New York Academy of Science, Series 2, 31 ( 5) : 548- 570. I New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Hudson River fish and wildlife report; Hudson River Level B Study. NYS DEC, Albany NY. Nicholas, G. L. 1900. The swallow-tailed kite at Piermont, New York. Auk 17:386. P Nordstrom, C. 1973. Frontier elements in a Hudson River village. Kennikat Press, Port Washington, NY. P Oceanic Society. 1980. Hudson River Fishery Management Program Study. A Report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (Orth, J. C.) (Ca. 1965.) Vertebrates of Iona Island and vicinity. Bear Mountain State Park Trail side Museums. 17 p. I Pink, E. and 0. Waterman. 1967. Birds of Dutchess County 1933-1964. Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club, Dutchess County, NY. 124 p. T and . 1980. Birds of Dutchess County 1964-1979. Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club, Dutchess County, NY. 93 p. T Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc., and A. Gussow. 1979. Hudson River Valley Study. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New Paltz, NY. 180 p. T, I, P Ritchie, W. A. 1958. An introduction to Hudson Valley prehistory. New York State Museum Science Service Bulletin 367, 112 p. T Rockland County Planning Board. 1974. Piermont community development goals and Erie Pier assessment. Piermont Planning Commission, Village Hall, Piermont NY. 22 p. P Romero, A. B., et al . 1977. Where to bird in Dutchess County. Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club, Moores Mills, Pleasant Valley, NY. T Rosenthal, M. 1977. Monitoring prevents creek deterioration. New York State Association of Conservation Councils 3(4):4-5. T . 1977-present. The Sawkill Newsletter. Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY. Monthly. Rubinstein, L. C. 1969. Historic resources of the Hudson: a preliminary inventory January 1969. Hudson River Valley Commission. 96 p. I 106 Saratoga Capital District State Park and Recreation Commission, nd. Hudson River Islands State Park. Master Plan. Gays Point. Stockport Middle Ground. Middle Ground Flats. Unpubl . rept. Schuyler, A. E. 1975. Scirpus cylindricus: an ecologically restricted eastern North American tuberous bulrush. Bartonia (43 ) : 29-37 . I, P Sheppard, J. D. 1976. Valuation of the Hudson River Fishery Resources: Past, Present and Future. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 51 p. Smith, D. G. 1981. A note on the morphological variability of Orconectes kinderhookensis (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the Hudson River system in New York. Journal of Crustacean Biology 1(3): 389-391 .S Smith, S. J., J. A. Wilcox, and E. M. Reilly, Jr. (1967?). The Hudson; biological resources. A report on areas of biological significance in the Hudson River Valley. State of New York Hudson River Valley Commission, Iona Island, Bear Mountain, NY. 43 p. S, T, I, P Stapleton, J. and E. Kiviat. 1979. Rights of birds and rights of way; vegetation management on a railroad causeway and its effects on breeding birds. American Birds 33(1 ) : 7-1 0. T Stone, W. B., E. Kiviat and S. Butkas. 1980. Toxicants in snapping turtles. New York Fish and Game Journal 27 ( 1 ) : 39-50. T, I, P Svenson, H. K. 1935. Plants from the estuary of the Hudson River. Torreya 35(5) :1 1 7-1 25. T Tate, J., Jr. 1981. The Blue List for 1981. American Birds 35(1): 3-10 in the Hudson Basin region. 16-18 June 1976 at Bard College. Report of the Bard conference: Proceedings of a Conference on the enhancement of environmental research in the Hudson Basin region. State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany NY. 63 p. Tauber, G., ed. 1976? Conference on the enhancement of environmental research Teator, W. S. 1890. Collecting land shells in eastern New York. Nautilus 3(1 0) :1 09-1 1 0; (11 ) : 1 29-1 32. T Torrey, R. H. 1931. Trip of August 2. Torreya 31:153-154. I (plants) . 1932. Lichen observations on winter walks of the Club. Torreya 32:45- *7. I Webster, W., ed. 1971. New York walk book. 4th ed. With an introduction to the geology of the region by C. J. Schuberth. New York - New Jersey Trail Conference and American Geographical Society. Doubleday /Natural History Press, Garden City, NY. 326 p. + 23 maps. I, P Weinstein, L. H., ed. 1977. An atlas of the biologic resources of the Hudson Estuary. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Yonkers (now Ithaca), NY. 105 p. I, P 107 Wilkie, R. W. The illustrated Hudson River Pilot; being a smallcraft sailor's pictorial guide to the tidewater Hudson Albany to New York. Three City Press, Albany, NY. 183 p. S, T, I, P Williams, S. C, H. J. Simpson, C. R. Olsen and R. F. Bopp. 1978. Sources of heavy metals in sediments of the Hudson River. Marine Chemistry 6(1978): 195-213. P Worley, I. A. 1974. Natural landmark belief. Iona Island Marsh, Rockland County, New York, unpubl . rept. 109 APPENDIX 2 Existing Jurisdiction Involving the Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary 110 Appendix 2. Existing Jurisdiction Involving the Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary AGENCY Federal JURISDICTION LEGISLATION (if any) Army Corps of Engineers dredging, filling, dumping, hazards to navigation, wetlands in river and larger tributaries Sec. 404 of Clean Water Act, Rivers & Harbors Act, as amended Dept. of Commerce Office of Coastal Zone Management oversight of National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended Sea Grant Program research, education, and conservation in the coastal zone Public Law 94461 Dept. of the Interior: Fish & Wildlife Service migratory birds, endan- gered species, marine mammals, interstate commerce of organisms Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Conservation Act, Lacey Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, all as amended National Park Service Natl . Register of His- toric Places, Natl . Natural Landmarks, Natl Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Act, as amended Dept. of Transportation: Coast Guard maintenance of navigable 14 USC 89 waters, shipping, small craft, aids to navigation, search and rescue Environmental Protection Agency ai r and water quality guidelines, solid waste and toxic materials guidelines, spills noise pollution, PCB reclamation demonstration, environmental review of projects Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, TOSCA, RCRA, FIFRA, Superfund, NEPA, all as amended Ill AGENCY Federal (cont. ): Nuclear Regulatory Commission ConRail Corporation JURISDICTION oversight over operation Indian Point power plants right-of-way improvement and maintenance LEGISLATION Energy Reorgani zation Act State: Department of Environ- mental Conservation lead agency in Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary Program, landowner at Tivoli Bays & Piermont, fish & game, pro- tected animals, collecting and marki ng licenses, freshwater and tidal wet- lands, water and air quality solid water & toxic substances pesticides, mining, scenic areas, project review. The Heritage Task Force for the Hudson River Valley, Inc. Envi ronmental Conservation Law and regulations promul gated thereunder (as amended) includi ng the Fish & Wildlife Law, Water Resources Law, Freshwater Wetlands Act, Tidal Wetlands Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River System, State Envi ronmental Quality Act Department of Commerce tourism developement Tourist Promotion Act Department of Health Department of State food quality (e.g., fish) cooperating agency in Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary Program, coastal management Public Health Law Waterfront Revitil ization & Coastal Re- sources Act Department of Transportation navigation channel , spoil disposal , roads, bridges Transportation Law 112 AGENCY JURISDICTION LEGISLATION County (cont. ) : Planning Departments Town: Planning, Zoning, and Conservation Boards & Commissions review of federal spending (A-95), planning recommen- dations and coordination of planni ng activities planning, zoning, advice to town boards on environ- mental issues, natural resource inventories, conformance to existing laws (as above) (as above) also town ordinances including zoning ordinances* Highway Departments maintenance of town roads and town landfil Is Vi llage: Piermont owner of pier, portion of marsh within its jurisdiction See under Town Ti vol i small portion of Ti vol i Bay within its juri sdicition See under Town *Zoning classifications for the four Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary areas: Piermont - Village of Piermont - - - Use by special permit from Village Town of Orangetown - - - Residential, 2 acre minimum Iona - wholly within the Palisades Interstate Park Ti vol i - Town of Red Hook - - - Agricultural (uplands), Land Conservation (wetlands and Cruger Island) Vil lage of Ti voli Stockport - no zoning ordinances 113 APPENDIX 3 List of Fishes Reported From the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary on the Hudson River, New York 114 Appendix 3. List of fishes reported from the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary sites on the Hudson River, New York. Letters in the Ecological Classification column refer to the relationship of the fish to the estuary following McHugh (10): A=Freshwater fishes that enter brackish water, B=Truly estuarine species, C=Anadromous/ catadromous species, D=Seasonal adult marine species, E=Estuarine nursery species, and F=Adventitious marine species. Numbers listed under the proposed sanctuary areas indicate presence of the species in that area and the source of the data; only one source is listed although several sources may have reported that species. Scientific name Sites Common name Ecological Classification (EC) S T I P PETROMYZONTIDAE American brook Lamprey Sea Lamprey Lampetra appendix Petromyzon mannus A C ANGUILLIDAE American eel Angui 1 la rostrata 8 12 5 CLUPEIDAE Blueback herring Alewife American shad Menhaden Alosa aestivalis C A. pseudoharengus C A. sapidissima C Brevoortia tyrannus E 1 2 4 9 1 9 2 7 7 ENGRAULIDAE Bay anchovy SALMON I DAE Anchoa mitchilli Rai nbow trout Brown trout Brook trout Sal mo gai rdneri A S. trutta A Salvelinus fontinalis A 1 9 1 1 OSMERIDAE Rainbow smelt UMBRIDAE Osmerus mordax 9 1 Central mudminnow Eastern mudminnow Umbra 1 i mi U. pygmaea A A ESOCIDAE Redf i n pickerel Northern pike Chain pickerel Esox americanus ^. 1 ucius E. niger A A A 3 12 6 9 1 115 Common Scientific EC S T I P name name CYPRINIDAE Goldfish Carassius auratus A 4 1 2 Carp Cyprinus carpio A 8 1 2 Cutl ips minnow Exoglossum maxil lingua A 1 Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius A 3 1 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas A 3 1 2 7 Satinfin shiner Notropis analostanus A 1 Bridle shiner N. bifrenatus A 3 1 Common shiner N. cornutus A 3 1 Spottail shiner N. hudsonius A 1 8 7 Spotfin shiner N. spilopterus A 3 Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus A 1 5 Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus A 1 Fallfish S. corporalis A 3 1 CATOSTOMIDAE White sucker Creek chubsucker Northern hogsucker ICTALURIDAE White catfish Yellow bul lhead Brown bullhead Catostomus commersoni Erimyzon oblongus Hypentelium nigricans Ictalurus catus I. natal i s nebulosus A A A A A A 4 12 5 6 3 1 4 1 4 1 2 GAD I DAE Atlantic tomcod Microgadus tomcod B 2 7 FUNDULIDAE Banded kil lifish Mummichog Fundulus diaphanus F. hetercolitus A B 8 8 8 1 1 8 7 8 ATHERINIDEA Tidewater silversides Waxen si vers ides Menidia beryl! ina E M. menidia E GASTEROSTEIDAE Fourspine stickleback Threespine stickleback SYNGNATHIDEA Northern pipefish Apeltes quadracus B Gasterosteus aculeatus B Syngnathus fuscus 1 7 2 116 Common name Scientific name EC S T I P PERCICHTHYIDAE White perch Striped bass CENTRARCHIDAE Rock bass Bl uespotted sunfish Redbreast sunfish Pumpki nseed Warmouth Bluegill Smal lmouth bass Largemouth bass Black crappie PERCIDAE Tessel lated darter Yellow perch POMATOMIDAE Bluef ish SCIAENIDAE Weakfish Morone americana M. saxatilis Ambloplites rupestris Enneacanthus gloriosus Lepomis auritus U gibbosus J_. gulosus L. macrochirus Micropterus dolomieui M. salmoides Pomoxis nigromaculatus Etheostoma olmstedi Perca flavescens Pomotomus saltatrix Cynoscion regal is A A 9 18 8 4 18 7 A 1 A 2 A 3 1 8 A 3 1 2 A 1 A 9 1 A 9 1 A 4 1 2 A 1 3 12 5 3 1 SOURCES 1. Kiviat, E. In press. Natural history of the fish fauna of Tivoli Bays, Hudson River Fisheries Symposium, Hudson River Environmental Society. (Includes a few species found in nontidal waters close to the proposed site). 2. Orth, J. D. ca. 1965. Vertebrates of Iona Island and vicinity. Bear Mountain State Park Trailside Museums. 17 p. 3. Greeley, J. R. 1937. Fishes of the area with annotated list, pp. 45-85. In. Anonymous. A biological survey of the lower Hudson watershed. Supplement to 26th Annual Report, New York Conservation Department, Part II. 4. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1971 Stream Survey. 117 5. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Sparkill Creek Stream Surveys. 6. Bailey, R. M. 1936. Stream survey records. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 7. Smith, C. L. Stream survey records, American Museum of Natural History, 8. Hudsonia Limited. Miscellaneous collections, 1981 9. Observations by Everett Nack (Claverack, New York), Salvatore Cozzolino (Department of Environmental Conservation), or Louis Gerrain (DEC). 10. McHugh, J. L. 1967. Estuarine Nekton, pp 581-620. In. G. H. Lauff (Ed.) Estuaries. AAAS Publ . No. 83, Washington, D.C. 119 APPENDIX 4 Birds Reported In or Close to Proposed Sanctuary Sites 120 Appendix 4. Birds reported in or close to proposed sanctuary sites • Sources of data are listed at end of this append IX. Common Scientific name Sites name S T I P Common loon Gavia immer S T I P Red-throated loon G. stellata s T I P Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena S T I Horned grebe P. auritus S T I P Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps s T I P Gannet Morus bassanus T Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo P Double-crested cormorant P. auritus s T I P Great blue heron Ardea herodias S T I P Green heron Butorides striatus s T I P Little blue heron Florida caerulea T I P Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis Great egret Casmerodius albus s T I P Snowy egret Egretta thula T I P Louisiana heron Hydranassa tricolor P Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax s T I P Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea P Least bittern Ixobrychus exi lis T I P American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus S T I P Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus T P Mute swan Cygnus olor S I P Whistling swan Olor columbianus T Canada goose Branta canadensis S T I P Brant B. bernicla s T I P White-fronted goose Anser albifrons P Snow goose Chen caerulescens S T I P Fulvous whistling duck Dendrocygna bicolor T Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S T I P Black duck A. rubripes s T I P Gadwal 1 A. strepera s T I P Pintail A. acuta s T I P Green-winged teal A. crecca crecca s American green-winged teal A. crecca carolinensis s T I P Bl ue-wi nged teal A. di scors s T I P European wi geon A. penelope T American wigeon A. americana s T I P Northern shoveler A. clypeata s T Wood duck Ai x sponsa s T I Redhead Aythya americana s T I Ring-necked duck A. collaris s T I P Canvasback A. valisineria s T I P Greater scaup A. marila s T I P Lesser scaup A. affinis s T I P Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula S T I P Bufflehead B. albeola s T I P Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis s T I P White-winged scoter Melanitta deglandi s T I P 121 Common name Scientific name S T I P Surf scoter Black scoter Ruddy duck Hooded merganser Common merganser Red-breasted merganser Turkey vulture Goshawk Sharp-shinned hawk Cooper's hawk Red-tailed hawk Red-shouldered hawk Broad-wi nged hawk Rough-legged hawk Golden eagle Bald eagle Marsh hawk Osprey Gyrfalcon Peregrine falcon Merlin American kestrel Ruffed grouse Ring-necked pheasant Gray partridge King rail Clapper rail Virginia rail Sora Common gal li nule American coot Semipalmated plover Kill deer American golden plover Black-bel lied plover Ruddy turnstone American woodcock Common snipe Upland sandpiper Spotted sandpiper Solitary sandpiper Willet * Greater yel lowlegs Lesser yel lowlegs Red knot Pectoral sandpiper White-rumped sandpiper Least sandpiper M. perspicillata s T I P M. nigra s T I Oxyura jamaicensis T I P Lophodytes cucullatus S T I P Mergus merganser S T I P M. serrator s T I P Cathartes aura S T I P Accipiter genti 1 is S T I P A. striatus s T I P A. cooperii S T I P Buteo jamaicensis S T I P B. lineatus S T I P B. platypterus s T I P B. lagopus s T I P Aquila chrysaetos T I P Haliaeetus leucocephalus S T I P Circus cyaneus S T I P Pandion haliaetus S T I P Falco rusticolus T F. peregrinus T I P F. columbarius T I P F. sparverius S T I P Bonasa umbel 1 us S T I Phasianus colchicus s T I P Perdix perdix T Rallus elegans s T I P R. longirostris P R. limicola s T I P Porzana Carolina s T I P Gallinula chloropus s T I P Fulica americana s T I P Charadrius semipalmatus T P C. vociferus S T I P Pluvialis dominica T P. squatarola T P Arenaria interpres T P Philohela minor S T I P Capella gallinago s T I P Bartramia longicauda I P Actitis macularia S T I P Tringa solitaria s T P Catoptrophorus semipalmatus P Tringa melanoleuca S T I P T. flavipes S T I P Calidris canutus P C. melanotos S T P C. fuscicollis P C. minutilla s T P 122 Common Scientific name name S T I P Dunli n C. alpina S T P Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus T P Long-billed dowitcher L. scolopaceus P Semiplamated sandpiper Calidris pusillus T P Western sandpiper C. mauri P Sanderling C. alba T P Northern phalarope Lobipes lobatus I P Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus s I P Iceland gull L. ^laucoides s I Great black-backed gull L. marinus S T I P Herri ng gul 1 L. argentatus S T I P Ri ng-bil led gul 1 L. delawarensis S T I P Laughing gull L. atri cilia T I P Bonaparte's gull L. Philadelphia s T I P Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla T For.ster's tern Sterna forsteri P Common tern S. hirundo s T I P Roseate tern S. dougallii P Sooty tern S. fuscata I P Least tern S. albifrons P Royal tern S. maximus S P Sandwich tern S. sandvicensis P Caspian tern S. caspia T P Black tern Chlidonias niger s T I P Rock dove Columbia livia S T I P Mourning dove Zenaida macroura S T I P Monk parakeet Myiopsitta monachus P Yel low-bil led cuckoo Coccyzus americanus s T I P Black-billed cuckoo C. erythrophthalmus s T I P Barn owl Tyto alba s T Screech owl Otus asio s T I P Great horned owl Bubo virginianus S T I Snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca P Barred owl Strix varia T I Long-eared owl Asio otus T P Short-eared owl A. flammeus s P Saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus s T Whip-poor-wil 1 Caprimulgus vociferus s T I P Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor s T I P Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica S T I P Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris s T I P Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon S T I P Common flicker Colaptes auratus S T I P Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus s T I P Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus s T P Red-headed woodpecker M. erythrocephalus T Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius T I P Hai ry woodpecker Picoides villosus s T I P 123 Common name Scientific name S T I P Downy woodpecker Black-backed three- toed woodpecker Eastern ki ngbi rd Western ki ngbi rd Great crested flycatcher Eastern phoebe Yellow-bellied flycatcher Acadian flycatcher Willow flycatcher Alder flycatcher Least flycatcher Eastern wood pewee Olive-sided flycatcher Horned lark Tree swallow Bank swallow Rough-winged swallow Barn swallow Cliff swallow Purple martin Blue jay Common raven Common crow Fish crow Black-capped chickadee Boreal chickadee Tufted titmouse White-breasted nuthatch Red-breasted nuthatch Brown creeper House wren Winter wren Carolina wren Long-billed marsh wren Mocki ngbi rd Gray catbi rd Brown thrasher American robin Wood thrush Hermit thrush Swainson's thrush Gray-cheeked thrush Veery Eastern bluebi rd Blue-gray gnatcatcher Golden-crowned kinglet Ruby-crowned kinglet Water pipit Cedar waxwi nq P. pubescens S T I P P. arcticus T Tyrannus tyrannus S T I P T. verticalis T Myiarchus crinitus s T I P Sayornis phoebe S T I P Empidonax flaviventris T I E. virescens T E. trail lii s T I P E. alnorum P E. minimus s T I P Contopus vi rens s T I P Nuttallornis boreal is T I Eremophila alpestris s T I P Iridoprocne bicolor S T I P Riparia riparia S T I Stelgidopteryx ruficollis s T I P Hirundo rustica S T I P Petrochel idon pyrrhonota s T I P Progne subis s T I P Cyanocitta cristata S T I P Corvus corax T I C. brachyrhynchos > T I P C. ossifragus s T I P Parus atricapillus S T I P P. hudsonicus T P P. bicolor S T I P Sitta carolinensis s T I P S. canadensis s T I P Certhia familiaris S T I P Troglodytes aedon s T I P T. troglodytes S T I P Throyothorus ludovicianus s T P Cistothorus palustris S T I P Mimus polygl ottos s T I P Dumetella carolinensis S T I P Toxostoma rufum s T I P Turdus migratorius S T I P Catharus mustelina s T I P C. guttata s T I P C. ustulata s T I P C. minima T I C. fuscescens s T I P Sialia sialis T I P Polioptila caerulea S T I P Regulus satrapa s T I P R. calendula s T I P Anthus spinoletta s T I P Bombvcilla cedrorum s T I P 124 Common Scientific name name S T I P Northern shrike Lanius excubitor T P Loggerhead shrike L. ludovicianus T P Starli ng Sturnus vulgari S T I P White-eyed vi reo Vi reo griseus T I Yellow-throated vireo V. flavifrons s T I P Solitary vireo V. solitarius s T I P Red-eyed vireo V. olivaceus s T I P Philadelphia vireo V. philadelphicus T P Warbling vireo V. gilvus s T P Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia s T I P Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea T P Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus T I P Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera T I Blue-winged warbler V. pinus T I P Tennessee warbler V. peregrina T I P Orange-crowned warbler V. celata T P Nashvil le warbler V. ruficapilla T I P Northern parula Parula americana T I P Yel low warbler Dendroica petechia s T I P Magnolia warbler D. magnolia s T I P Cape May warbler D. tigrina s T I Black-throated blue warbler D. caerulesces s T I P Yel low-rumped warbler D. coronata s T I P Black-throated green warbler D. virens s T I P Cerulean warbler D. cerulea s T I Blackburnian warbler D. fusca s T I P Yellow-throated warbler D. dominica T Chestnut-sided warbler D. pensylvanica s T I P Bay-breasted warbler D. castanea s T I P Blackpoll warbler D. striata s T I P Pi ne warbler D. pinus s T I Prai rie warbler D. discolor s T I P Ovenbi rd Seiurus aurocapillus s T I P Northern waterthrush S. noveboracensis s T I P Louisiana waterthrush S. motacilla s T I P Kentucky warbler Oporonis formosus T P Connecticut warbler 0. agilis T Mourning warbler 0. Philadelphia T Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas S T I P Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens T I P Hooded warbler Wilsonia citrina T I P Wilson's warbler W. pusilla s T I P Canada warbler W. canadensis s T I P American redstart Setophaga ruticilla s T I P House sparrow Passer domesticus s T I P Boboli nk Dolichonyx oryziviorus s T I P Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna s T I P Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus T 125 Common name Scientific name S T I P Red-winged blackbird Orchard oriole Northern oriole Rusty blackbi rd Common grackle Brown-headed cowbi rd Scarlet tanager Summer tanager Cardinal Rose-breasted grosbeak Blue grosbeak Indigo bunting Evening grosbeak Purple finch House finch Pine grosbeak Hoary redpoll Common redpoll Pine siskin American goldfinch Red crossbill White-winged crossbill Rofous-sided towhee Savannah sparrow Grasshopper sparrow Henslow's sparrow Sharp-tailed sparrow Seaside sparrow Vesper sparrow Lark sparrow Dark-eyed junco Tree sparrow Chipping sparrow Field sparrow White-crowned sparrow White-throated sparrow Fox sparrow Lincoln's sparrow Swamp sparrow Song sparrow Lapland longspur Chestnut-col lard longspur Snow bunting Agelaius phoeniceus Icterus spurius I. galbula Euphagus Carolina Qui seal us quiscuTa Molothrus" aler Piranga olivacea P_ . rubra Cardinal is cardinalis Pheucticus ludovicianus Gui raca caerulea Passerina cyanea Hesperiphona vespertina Carpodacus purpureus C^ mexicanus Pinicola enucleator Acanthi's hornemanni A. flammea Carduel is pinus £. tristis Loxia curvi rostra _L. leucoptera Pi pi 1 o erythrophthalmus Passerculus sandwichensis Ammodramus savannarum A. henslowii Ammospiza caudacuta A. maritima Pooecetes gramineus Chondestes grammacus Junco hyemalis Spizella arborea S. passerina S. pusilla Tonotrichia leucophrys Z. albicollis Passerella iliaca Melospiza lincolnii M. georgiana M. melodia Calcarius lapponicus C. ornatus Plectrophenax nivalis S T I P s T P S T I P s T I P S T I P S T I P s T T I P S T I P s T T I P s T I P s T I P S T I P S T P T I P T s T I P s T I P S T T I P T I S T I P s T I P T P T T P P T I P P S T I P S T I P s T I P s T I P s T I P s T I P s T I P s T I P S T I P S T T T I P S T I P 126 a) Sources of data: Stockport: Richard Guthrie, William Cook and Erik Kiviat. S (upper case) indicates sight record of the site; s (lower case) indicates species likely to occur based on records from nearby areas. Ti vol i : from Kiviat (1978); (includes a few species recorded from areas near, but not within, the proposed sanctuary boundaries); and Richard Gunthrie. Iona: from Orth (1965). Piermont: Robert Deed, includes species of land birds observed within about 50 yards of the landward edge of the marsh (landward boundary of the proposed sanctuary site); all sight records. 127 APPENDIX 5 Selected Data From New York Mid-Winter Aerial Waterfowl Survey 128 Appendix 5. Selected Data from New York Mid-Winter Aerial Waterfowl Survey (Hudson Estuary only).3 Common Scientific 1978-1982 Counts name name Average (Range) Mute swan Cygnus olor 42(0-77) Canada goose Branta canadensis 251(150-401) Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 464(0-896) Black duck A. rubripes 829(25-2172) Canvasback Aythya valisineria 886(0-3585) Scaups Aythya 7(0-15) Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 19(0-85) Mergansers Mergus 230(84-550) Unidentified 12(0-60) Total (all species) 2740(259-7841) a*] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation data. 129 APPENDIX 6 Tidal Wetlands and Shallows Vascular Plants of the Sites 130 Appendix 6. Tidal wetlands and shallows vascular plants of the sites. Sources of data are listed at end of this appendix. Family Common name Scientific name Sites S T I P ACERACEAE Boxel der Red maple Sil ver maple ALISMATACEAE Water-plantai n Water-plantain Arrowhead Broadleaf arrowhead Stiff arrowhead Arrowhead Subulate arrowhead AMARANTHACEAE Tidewater-hemp ANACARDICEAE Smoke tree Poison ivy Poison sumac AQUIFOLIACEAE Winterberry ARACEAE Sweet flag Jack-in-the-pulpit Goldenclub Arrow arum Skunk cabbage Swamp milkweed BALSAMINACEAE Jewel weed Acer negundo jA. rubrum A. saccharinum Alisma sp. _A. subcordatum Sagittaria eatoni 5. lati to! ia S_. ri gi da S. spatulata S. subulata Amaranthus cannabinus Continus coggygria Rhus radicans Rhus verni x Ilex veticillata Acorus calamus Arisaema triphyllum Orontium aquaticum Peltandra virginica Symplocarpus foetidus Asclepias incarnata Impatiens bif lora S T T I S T T I T I T T T I S T I P T T T I S T T S T S T I S T I T I T I P 131 Family Common name Scientific name Sites S T I P BETULACEAE Speckled alder Smooth alder Yel low bi rch Gray birch American hornbeam Hazel Hop hornbeam BORAGINACEAE Forget-me-not CAESALPINIACEAE Wild senna CALLITRICHACEAE Water starwort CAPRIFOLIACEAE Bell 's honeysuckle Elderberry Arrow-wood Nanny berry CARYOPHYLLACEAE Water chickweed CELASTRACEAE Bittersweet CERATOPHYLLACEAE Coontail CLETHRACEAE Sweet pepperbush COMMELINACEAE Dayf lower Alnus rugosa A. serrulata Betula lutea &_. popul ifol ia Carpi nus carol ini ana Corylus sp. Ostrya vi rginiana Myosotis sp. Cassia hebecarpa Callitriche verna Lonicera x. bella Sambucus canadensis Viburnum dentatum V. lenta'go Stellaria aquatica Celastrus scandens Ceratophyl lum demersum Clethra alnifolia Commelina communis I T I T T T T T S T S T I T I T S T I 132 Family Scientific name Sites Common name S T I P CHENOPODIACEAE Spearscale Atriplex patula P COMPOSITAE Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida T Aster Aster puniceus T Aster A. subulatus P Beggar-ticks Bidens bidenoides S T I Bur-marigold B. cernua s T Eaton's bur-marigold B. eatoni T Beggar-ticks B. frondosa T Estuary beggar-ticks Bidens hyperborea T Beggar-ticks B. laevis T Fi reweed Erechtites hieracifolia P Fleabane Erigeron phi ladelphicus T Joe Pye-weed Eupatorium maculatum T Boneset E. perfoliatum s T Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale s T Marsh elder Iva frutescens P Climbi ng hempweed Mikania scandens T I Marsh fleabane Pluchea purpurascens I P Greenheas conef lower Rudbeckia laciniata T Groundsel Senecio aureus T Gol denrod Solidago sp. s Goldenrod S. sempervirens P Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium s CONVOLVULACEAE Bindweed Dodder Dodder CORNACEAE Convol vul vus sepium Cuscuta cephalanthi C. gronovi i Silky dogwood Gray dogwood Red-osier dogwood CRASSULACEAE Ditch stonecrop Cornus amomum £. racemosa C. stolonifera Penthorum sedoides S T I T T 133 Family Common name Scientific name Sites S t I CRUCIFERAE Garlic-mustard Wintercress Bittercress Cuckoo flower Dame's rocket Marshcress CUCURBITACEAE Balsam-apple Bur-cucumber CUPRESSACEAE Arborvitae CYPERACEAE Sedge Sedge Tussock sedge Gali ngale Gali ngale Three-way sedge Spikerush Spikerush Spikerush Spikerush Bui rush Threesquare Bui rush Cylindrical bulrush River bulrush Bui rush Threesquare Salt marsh bul rush Bluntscale bulrush Bul rush DIOSCOREACEAE Wild yam ELATINACEAE Waterwort Alliaria officinalis Barbarea vulgaris" Cardamme pensyTvanica C^. pratense He s pen's matronal is Rorippa islandica Echinocystis lobata Sicyos angulatus Thuja occidentialis Dioscorea villosa Elatine americana S S T T T T T T Carex gravii T C. stipata T C. stricta T Cyperus rivularis T C. strigosus T Dulichium arundinaceum T Eleocharis acicularis S E. ovata S T E. diandra S T I E. palustris S T Scirpus acutus S S. americanus S T I P S. atrovierens T S. cylindricus I P S. fluviatilis S T P S. maritimus P S. olneyi I P S. robustus I P S. smithii S T I S. validus S T I P S T 134 Family Common name Scientific name Sites S T I P EQUISETACEAE Field horsetail Horsetail ERICACEAE Highbush blueberry ERIOCAULACEAE Pipewort FABACEAE False-indigo Hog-peanut Groundnut Wild pea FAGACEAE Swamp white oak GENTIANACEAE Closed gentian Equisetum arvense Equisetum fluviatile Vaccinium corymbosum Eriocaulon parkeri Amorpha fruticosa Amphicarpa bracteata Apios americana Lathyrus palustris Quercus bicolor Gentiana andrewsii T T T T T T Floating heart Nymphoides cordata T .MINEAE Redtop Agrostis alba T P Wood-reed Cinna arundinacea Saltgrass Distichlis spicata P Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli T Water-millet E. walteri T 1 ; p Wild-rye Elymus virginicus T Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides T White grass L. virginica S T Panic grass Panicum capillare S Panic grass P. dichotomiflorum s T Panic grass P. virgatum p Common reed Phragmites communis s T I p Saltwater cordgrass Spartina alterniflora p Tall cordgrass S. cynosuroides Saltmeadow cordgrass S. patens p 135 Family Common name Scientific name Sites S T I P Freshwater cordgrass Wild-rice HALORAGACEAE Watermilfoil Watermilfoil Eurasian watermilfoil HYDROCARYACEAE Water-chestnut Waterweed Waterweed Water-celery IRIDACEAE Yel low i ris Blue flag ISOETACEAE Quillwort JUNCACEAE Rush Black-grass Path rush LABIATAE Stoneroot Bugleweed Bugleweed Field mint Skullcap Skullcap Hedge-nettle Wood sage S. pectinata Zizania aquatica Myriophyllum sp M. humile M. spicatum Trapa natans Elodea~canadensis E. nuttallii Vallisneria americana Iris pseudacorus I. versicolor Isoetes riparia Juncus brachycephalus *K gerardi J. tenuis Collinsonia canadensis Lycopus americanus L. europaeus Mentha arvensis Scutellaria galericulata _S. lateriflora Stachys palustris Teucri urn canadense ST P S T I P S I T S T I S T I S T I S T I S T I T I T I T T T T T T 136 Family Common name Scientific name Sites S T I P LAURACEAE Spicebush LEMNACEAE Common duckweed Great duckweed LENTIBULARIACEAE Bladderwort LILIACEAE Day-lily Canada lily Greenbrier Greenbrier LOBELIACEAE Cardinal flower Great blue lobelia LYTHRACEAE Purple loosestrife MALVACEAE Swamp rose mal low Lindera benzoin Lemna minor Spirodela polyrhiza Utricularia vulgaris Hemerocallis fulva Li 1 urn canadense Smilax herbacea S. hispida Lobelia cardinalis L. siphilitica Lythrum salicaria Hibiscus palustris S T S T I P S T S I T T T T T I T S T I P S T I P Hops Humulus lupulus T NAJADACEAE Naiad Najas flexilis S T I Naiad N. guadalupensis S Naiad N. minor S T Muenscher 's nai ad N. muenscheri S T I Curlyleaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus T I Pondweed P. epihydrus S T Leafy pom Jweed P. foliosus S T I 137 Family Scientific name Sit es Common name S t I P Long-leaved pondweed Sago pondweed Pondweed Pondweed Pondweed Flat-stemmed pondweed Horned pondweed P. nodosus P. pectinatus P. perfoliatus P. pusillus P. richardsonii P. zosteriformis Zannichellia palustris S S S S S s S T T T T T I I I I P P NYMPHAEACEAE Spatterdock White water-lily Nuphar advena Nymphaea sp. s T T I OLEACEAE Ash Black ash Red ash Fraxinum sp. F. nigra F. pennsylvanica s? s T T I ONAGRACEAE Wil low herb Water-purslane Eveni ng-primrose ORCHIDACEAE Hel leborine OSMUNDACEAE Cinnamon fern Interrupted fern Royal fern PINACEAE White pine PLANTAGINACEAE Heartleaf plantain PLATANACEAE Sycamore Epilobium glandulosum Ludwigia palustris Oenothera sp. Epipactis helleborine Osmunda cinnamomea £. claytoniana 0. regal is Pinus strobus Plantago cordata Platanus occidentals S T S I I T I S T 138 Family Common name Scientific name Sites S~T I P POLYGONACEAE Tearthumb Smartweed Japanese knotweed Seabeach knotweed Water-pepper Swamp smartweed Dotted smartweed Tearthumb Jumpseed Dock Water dock POLYPODIACEAE Ostrich fern Sensitive fern Marsh fern PONTEDERIACEAE Mud-plantai n Pickerel -weed Water star-grass PORTULACACEAE Spring beauty PRIMULACEAE Fringed loosestrife Moneywort Water pimpernel RANUNCULACEAE Marsh-marigold Vi rgin's bower Crowfoot Cursed crowfoot Buttercup Tall meadow-rue Polygonum arifolium P_. caespitosum P_. cuspidatum P_. glaucum _P. hydropiper P_. hydropiperoides P_. punctatum P_. sagittatum P_ . vi rginianum Rumex mexicanus R. verticillatus Matteuccia struthiopteri s Onoclea sensibil is Thelpteris palustri s Heteranthera reniformis Pontederia cordata Zosterella dubia Claytonia virginica Lysimachia ci liata T I T T I T I T I T I T S T I I S T S T I S T I T L. nummularia T Samolus parviflorus Caltha palustris S T Clematis virginiana s T Ranunculus abortivus T R. sceleratus T R. septentrionalis s T Thalictrum polygamum s T I P 139 Family Common name Scientific name Sites S T I P RHAMNACEAE Buckthorn ROSACEAE Ni nebark Swamp-rose Meadowsweet Hardhack RUBIACEAE Buttonbush Bedstraw Bedstraw SALICACEAE Cottonwood Quaking aspen Wil low Crack willow Black wil low Basket wil low Heart-leaved wi 1 low SCROPHULARIACEAE Turtlehead Mudwort Fal se-pimpernel Nuttall's micranthemum Monkeyf lower SOLANACEAE Climbing nightshade SPARGANIACEAE Burreed Big burreed Rhamnus cathartica Physocarpus opulifolius Rosa palustris Spi raea latifolia S. tomentosa Cephalanthus occidental is Gal ium trifidum G. palustre Populus deltoides P_. tremuloides Salix sp. S\ tragi lis S^. nigra S_. purpurea S. rigida Che! one glabra Limosella subulata Lindernia dubia Micranthemum micranthemoides Mimulus ringens Solanum dulcamara Sparganium americanum S. eurycarpum T T I I T I T T T T T T T I P I I I I T S T 140 s T I P s T I P s T I Family Sites Common name Scientific name S T I P TILLIACEAE Narrowleaf cattail Typha angusti folia Broadleaf cattail T. latifolia Hybrid cattail J_. x. glauca TYPHACEAE Basswood Ti lia americana S T ULMACEAE Elm Ulmus sp. I American elm IL americana S UMBELLIFERAE Angelica Angelica atropurpurea T Bulb-bearing water-hemlock Cicuta bulbifera T I Water-hemlock £. maculata T Lilaeopsis Lilaeopsis chinensis P Mock bi shop weed Pti limnium capi 1 laceum P Water-parsnip Si urn suave S T I P URTICACEAE False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica T I Wood nettle Loportea canadensis S T Clearweed Pi lea fontana I Clearweed P_. pumila T VIOLACEAE Blue violet Viola sp. T VITACEAE Virginia-creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia S T Sources of information: Buckley & Ristich (1976), Foley & Taber (1951), Kiviat (1978) and unpublished data, Lehr (1967a, b), McVaugh (1958), Muenscher (1935, 1937), John C. Orth (unpubliched data at Bear Mountain State Park Trailside Museums), Schuyler: 1975 and Torrey (1931). These records span approximately the last 50 years. Nomenclature has been adjusted to conform with Gleason & Cronquist (1963) where practicable. 141 APPENDIX 7 Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977 142 S I E < JC a. © E 0. e • x MI 3 IS si ^=5 5§6 « s c e g 3 c 1 C as v c * C r- «j a E- o o> J5 «N OJ > u a) oj Q J3 E oj > - o 6-84 per *j T3 •*; s * «* C M *» oj r = c ** 3- to a OJ si 0> OJ J=X3 M to C a £ cd ; ? ° =. v OJ fa. O Cd JS *> Jj 3 OJ «g 0) jc o a Sag S d — ■D 3 t. M o c cd aJ r c b. ce >£ 3 — "2 a> — agSi *M C 3 © cd S 3 £ J2 XI 3 Sis E c 05 O •2 3- 3 «* a! — u *JS us cd O ey a X *» 06 CO CJ Oh « JC 5S a 3 S3 u •a «s fill S 5P § jse-ss be ■a c jC o 1? cd >> E a! 2» a> o to to qj "3 <— «j ° So 01 *D JC O = 3 — .£ oj — ~ a C a) oj — "> *3 « K a) «j ej »- « >,£■ eS oj 3i ** oj •DC JC Ptls c >» I? O £ oj S £ 3 *» OJ jc E cfe -2«« £3 S tg v- OJ ■o S 4J CO — OJ SJ o * OJ 5 w cet ^ s- E o o 5 OJ CO c w c • O OJ "JC ■o- OJ OJ a) oj ?*" JC 6 oo JC ^ 0,cl oj co ft S a o o * s si OJ oj 5 : co E * c 5s 3 w OJ «-> cc OJ « 93 C OJ o = ° a! u cs oj — ■a * _ to z: 3 3 ai w :oj • a oj 5 £ C S3 :Ej? to cd oj a° oi c ed~£ S £oj 5 w £ -5iS£ E ■o 7 — jc c cs & OJ OJ JC w .H £ m "• JC s o •» *-■ o ej ° >»2 c oj g s cs a ei > i: cd ° cs •» rs *• = -2c3 3 u oj O 3 id OJ © o c Z ' bo g = C 5J > — 3 to O V OJ 10 (0 JC £ 3 E w u 3 C lis ^ c ca ♦> oC o c 3 c £ « oj «» > t" JC O o JC jz J2 c |g JC 3 0) >> 3 C.J3^J= OJ tt t £ c & c —j OJ OJ 3 w <- cd o c o £ = «j u SJ 3 OJ -o €* S "O — c cd E cj OJ — be u E c ts o c o • g E I •_L CJ OJ 22 t| J 53 I t < •E a-QOfm: •"• CS CO ^j ^ O M cm n e* cc DSaooi e> e S © i r 0 «J 4> « c jS « ■0 e S3 £ 9 •a e c _• 3 w ' fi c b u CJ t> 3 p > © — CJ — — -o c c5J3| w Mil 4) UK C a o - a c -5 a Q. « 4) O. j! C 3 fi Sr»^"g "1 « "! "! M J III • ej a 5 «■& «A By u e e 0 1 I O £2 §j= i c o CO t « a a Z u e. a; 3 J 3 J3 •2 g£ © — cs n w M © © I CJ CJ 9 1 C~ • a >-» o ^ I 9 o a C es cj « , °* ftj 3Z •= "Cti s£ = E 2E2.S "ft*-.? E S w 2 5 J 2 O U >>^ O «£) S e e w O ». o e e a a < r o .a 9 O 8j « > — J3 eS S*-5 s O o * 7-2 s| •8 8 5*3 .2 o _ CJ cU *= 32 - a 4> oj e h — O S 3 C « 01 W C - « > OT a M .*£ 3 A c c •* 2 U- o 3 g ;«- 4> E O* O 3 = = ° « y d CO sll 2 § ■S 0 "3 as . •J 3 •0 jg F--3 jo*, i **■ c # a) O as -2 6 § g o «« 8 O 4) ft) jD 03 — ; O CO Hi 52* 3 tai Co - fj ft) — "3 — 85 « O ed *- >> a P. 4J 4) JD 3 Si* — si >. •O * a 4) . "3 con M ft) __ * ."D J= — 1- * CZ E i co c c a c T3 o o £_ 3 CJ & •C ' a C 2 -j sv J5 x: 3 a * £ C/O 05 3-S — - a -5 £ «-• — ' 11 r o ™ s * s S£3 ej a tu j= a-° c— o i-> ** c .i2 c C X g on" 5 >> cv in "D 3 — ' u a ?!. > c c 5 > - o a w u 4, — . aS °3 d3 ££ E„ 5 e» • > J=^ -S|| ^g a .j£ 315- c a S a *■ e uuc 3 A 8 •» °0» c > £ 3 «_» a a "- a c Is O "7 c — a = M JO C^ J= > u (V O 3 5 c 3 s Eg »i )>i£j,:vi «■> si © t» D oj C • ?fi C a-° £a^ &© w a c g 5 ° « £ |h S a n |Sa§ £ « ti- 0 4-5&: i» ■£ e *s o >> — £ *- *• oj»<3? O 1 C K 5 = o u rt f 3 or ' 0 0 >, c b— "*< - 3*0.2 S e — t> r; a "2 k- 3 S< a a J, • V) u a£S° *■ o 4> -C E* o- 41 . £ c >. « is (0 3 o*i- 8 2 "3 « 4. o = •» js r: « 4) -* * s i ^3 S ■o »• U a c 3 o c a g Cs£u !c a^ £ § a? 2 a,,° 3 5 « H-. sEll c *« — es o axi !iEl a^ r a ■2- S » 60 CJ 3 J3> 2 £ oss oic = y a* a S 4>-3 "> . DC 41 w o °03* E e « 6.2 t\ e « ii 5 ° •* JS £a a w es a — &> a a 4> 2S C4» a j= » *» s ^ •J u to at 4> E 41 0> -cc h- ^> «j SB o *• •» o B S ej e 3- C ~X3 £« cfcl-jiS c ej-a "J a oj — H|| P, o.V. ao ** 4>"0 2 41 — x: § be 4> u g ax: a g a /-v <-> -m cS«p ErSS 0 S-c^ c 2 o 0*1. — ""■" a •a . 41 4i 3 •a a 41 2 £ -»» c > 2P «. cj a i"°S 4) - c 60 J = 2x: « CNN 2« n a o . «j «J — 4) i |3 u Eco "8=>*S ■•5 ° !II a £ £ ■ *> a u i: "° = 4,-§ x) c 3 S •ogfeg ci g a ^3?C o 2d a g oj-ga tS *-x: ^ a ** — — OJ w 2 ESa* h o •■ 2 5 a -t X* 4) -J - 2 W S •» 41 sc£ ^a ■O « 3 a "S wal sk 3 a — •~1 u a" s 0 & «x:o a E -3 3 O E55 03 i"i OJ ft) tu £ a, tu ± > ej x; J= ft) 4) 66 .w «-' 4) C 41 JS ™ "3 a ff - oi 5 "S- e* s 2 B- E 5-5 f* «J 4) O ™ 60 a 5 ti — O >** « 3 a-o|| 2 c o S «* i^a£2 £« "^ axs cj C *0 O) «ccg" £2 * « g 4) "aj C 60~ c c oj 0 a o & c te 3 n -2? c a«) A A a t" O T* S2g 3 « 5 O C 4, p §^2 5 w « a a «> a a a g j- a3S- ^Jj£ o Xl -J C^ = i 261-S 4> fc. k_ > bo ft) O J b. a£?i2 •gS-rf J. a oj 4) ej *j ft) -J a "Pa £ o CJ 3 g 5 cog •oN£ a _ gS-g ■Sail'5 aCJ * *. . o 2a« = 11 •0 oj a ejx; 03 * u " o°^ Si 4, - ^ ft) w.*** ■3 41 J=5*i •• «ffiN" a wj 3-r'4ix:fti*5*,t.a 3! 4) £Z a r* 4) CS h u o 2 « a" S5£ S 3 03 4) — fc. 03 «-» aj . C3 is 3 « c 8*0 g ft, ft) ± > u 2 « 3* •3 03 r -J ft) o u ^j "o a a g * t, 83 X) £ J 4) ►J ft) u £a-5 °^2 *> 60 ft, u 8 £ o c • *» 3 l~l o 03 4) 5» 3 a a > _« 0 ft' tu CO x; ft) oJ 03 ej •j o a w «i o ™ ~ ft) o •» w 2 w 2 a 3 3 3 o a f* o e e ik ■o' e D • E E e u X {= g 1 = ^ T W SO b> flj a% X ft, w 3 •» > 4) *> . 3 = 2^fc = o« i: c » a S o gxj a u g- 3 x^ o 2 a-3 > I ■*• 2 e V e w .5 £ 144 i <3 o m ■~> 1 T3 TJ i_* 3 « cd d "• oj w 4» S. Crll S sri *>*.■-> •J J; r 2 >• — >. - 7 =~ g eS Be .3 _ u © o-° © l_ fO o w W JS 2 *> "S S C M -2 ° a1? « c 2 <- p. O «->©>> ■" J3 jjj •o s c > 3 ■"» © -h &C g« C © £ « S 6° C J jj -i © >Q d u . = Q 2 axi £ a c D es PS be 6c «J • e w «s u xr-2 3 -3 X! XJ = In w to j3 ■a a; o ©jO © "fig "2 © 3 « g o ftj o "*"• > j: ft) ft) d 2 e § — « S c u d ft) — — 2 >» 3 a r I~«J s JS ^"w l~g2 C J. oc j» •2 5 "3 ~ 2 a 5 a - *-'- a*- «-« £. a) O o © 3 2 *3 c ft1 c XJ — 4) ft) eS © __ San? £ in oj > -•J* . o «■= Ji J g — > a -j ce 5- 3 d as 0) u 3° p- ac to C « Tj Ti- to 0) © - 3 3 a M c xj — C w rt=J Si f c •* ft) ft) — k. o ESP a Sfrt >> 3 © k. XJ — So M . 4) S >» 111 1|| aag k" S&.-ri D — u ac u ft> o o a xj & JC S 2 as o J ft) ft) E iH £ ft) eS <•* JS ft) 13 CO i a) n e* c ft) c c c 0 C 1 0 es 8 a a! 8=) ft) Im £ " © 2 a 1 «9 ft) Im a a < a M5 c © ■ri © ^ O © u ■V a i es c 1 6fi "O c ft) *- ft) "O &) ■a 2 ft) ft) ft) in ft) s > u ft) e ■o «=j £ •J ft) H «3 BB E . C "O 0 ft) a s C 3 U9 ft) s o ft) u ■a © a; u eS ft) ft) ft) eS ft) "O = c a es is c 2 £ a C _© > it. JC eS * E 6e C 3 ■3 O t_ -J -J 6) W i_"0 = ||£ a, £ c eS "■': ©^ §11 - - a 4; C es 1*5 ** O ^ w ft) v3£ (0 — > O u a s) — * ri 8 >»^ ft) C es J= ft) A ft) a to es "* c eS &• o = ft) o eS O e ^ A ftj eS "" S O — O c 2 c 03 2 o at eS »> s » C u ft) es a' 00 D "U _ •; m *" cj T^ e; S C — 3 C B « — S W* m* a| es C li ft) — oo •_ O O 5 "• M to f 5 g s ft) |— — eS c t; 2«| 3 *J O OS "es C^i o l_ ° 2 ci2 2 «1 a >> "I* M 5? d MOW es ft> a) M7 «! ft> <" e? - o i • oj *Z C JS ft) £ 2£ CO ft) «o > 6) V c ft) Oj cj 3- CO a = •o a ° 3 as 3 eS es ..^ ft) cc c~ 3»» — » to "> g E=? w2 < 3 "3 2-a gg ft) ~ —•3 O «0 4) O -3 ■n be CJ C 3 2 a 3 o a be cj to «j a a.3 c O to ft) - ^5 CO C mt ~ a es _. o 37§ =0 c s N U _0 C "O O ft) ae u 4) TJ k. — a -1 ° «S 5 ° O IS <- eS 3! C CD 3 o eS aj k. 3 to < s g IS- C' 6o-gS Ok fJ o -si _ 3 ft) w fc. ft) *■ >> oE u-° i?le07 53 ^ 'O •2-2 es 5> = E wH)6t i_ XI JS O oj «o •— •3-= M2 c ft) J2 3 3 ~ bO w « 5 £ be ft) S 0 c 3 e — 0 Z ft> 3 > 09 i- ^ 3 to 3 C — ft) s, x ft! SS & § *i c — eS u n * c ft) -*1 — r OH ei g a . w.j o E to'3 ° £ ' w«3 3 >, k. — es to bO ? CO ej C k- eS < u ac »^ «N 5 7^fe| js *— -2 Saio *2^ft) w«) k£ to oJ oj w -2 2r- •^ cs ** o e rt eS « 5 -j OT i; * 3 be c js ft) g 5 t) JS a o J3 eS ft) gf ac ■" eS "to 3 es 2 3 S eS E ft> lE iso 2 ^« *o O 3 w .0 2 3 ciu c ief = gs t) £ 3 afe S -*» 2 Is c» 4) "e a e *J> c ft) 4) k" be k_ xi o M PS u ^^ QQ feS ft) ft) A ft)"- JS . S-3 >» e8 _ u 2 >2 S ft) o o c o fc g ft) O4 aj 3 m »j '•O ^w. ft) O ft) o o bc*J. o _ _ c be 4) • es j*£ = £«4>2 3ft>i O o ft) ^r a O to JS o — © © -j O C es © eJ *p» — m> k. j- c be ej w o 3 a >»"C ft) "3 O k. S» C o Sis-is « w 3 rt 2 2 >>J= c 2 C co co B tr I* W^ ft> . JS to •» £ -a j2 3 ©d a^' CO ft) *j 3 S O* OJ ft) E- oj ft> gW £1 eS XJ 10 v *o •S 3 S o c © ft) 2 — "it j=0 2o . © -j S js « co o E "— Sj ft) v 2X3 « 5 •> 3 2 *■ 3 a ej » to > 5 © c u o g © 3 C-oN © c — ef«5 g ft) o O 3 ft) © © i_ St to 0* = si* 3 3 >~ 5 © XJ-? OJ ft) BJXJ&, O ft) 5* 3 ft> £ >•= ao- ■3 >»5 © S — 3 'es a to k. ** © J2- c u — 0— . °es ■° E eS © s5 a" k. -a ft) oj a ao O es . O k. OJ U 3 JS _ o£ js © -^ ft> 3 ei 3 ft) Oj co «— to . cj3 v=;i j3 w"<~ 3 O 10 c X) 3 ej C O -J eS 3 X ±2£ « T3 3 £©E >> 10 rt 2 j2 E-2" *" ft! CC to c 3 eS eS 3 U CO ao— to 2^3 -Si C 3 o o-je ft) X3 «— CO O O "7C ej eS O ^3 = cs cs 3 >> !r eS k. © S eS XI £2§ 'i- es©^ !r es es £ 3-n 0-3 E _e a) ei 2 ° co* > >, X5 O — 3 b "5 as a £ ~* OJ ft! -3 X! XI flj & 3 ^^ § § L O 3 c -V 3 E es O •» _ u es a Vm ft) . "" ft) oj -* c o *5 © 2 "io © T ft) co © so J3 O © oj JS © u u 2 I ■3 * — 4, a j2z i --b ; s> CJ C8 S> Z !5 ft1 . S2 4) E S-; 5 55 « ±js f- < 3 — cj cn .£ •0 e as s ■S3 3 s c — e>c en 2 ©"g d £ 3 5 © d o — . co 3 a •ft ev xj a 2i o 3°5 -r= ©< »-° « >» ft) i2 d o "3 d 3 S*J3 3 £ d O to >, ■**»—£" ft> 2 d © -2 •* © > ej d s>> ft> 2 a © **■ 3 a XT ,S > d *" 3 £ k^ o © "3 e s -? *i © •v c e • b> ® E I © i > a n a •B d g fti 3 si « c .si n»: = o _ 3 JD © a X) 5 la — to 5 o ~ W © 7 3 3 o o _> 22 2a 3 o o JS XI to z d 7j= ■mJ ^ B-5 3 d JO «■> X; to n « ■3 C 9k* d £ c c o co -3 -2 g o >> " =: S3 «» ~ d -J 3 3 -j ft) co O a a bo d c 3" "5 £2 §2 •m C © «5 XI 3 to ~J d° © "5 kl=-l d m. £ 2-3^-^ «c«JS C d «*" C w «»2 £ © B_ XJ 3 © "O d ■5 c © k. E -j u d a d T3 3 O « 3 co 1 X) ~ © > C c O d . E = Hi2 ej _Tj 3 to r= 3 C C XI «— y o 2 c ft) d - ft) Sk. XJ ., _? tO ftl £ d^* «- E • "S >. 3 c © ** <_> d © *~ 3 ft) © _. 3 JS JS — O -> - o— o _ -J u «j © S £ d k> a £s^- © © J3 C k. 3J d i2 to •B* 3 3 3 — © o TS 2 s * i ft) CD »wt t> ten J3-3 -j r ft) d © "3 S X3 t5 3 — S lllkw to rt ft) 2 _2~ - d ja 5 to d %'C ^ ft) o © u tt; o2x<£ UK -5=2 2 k_ — 5 O Ti to be d — 3 3 ft) 3 ■5223 i?2^k! 3 ©2 3 " co ft) XJ — I! a- c ti © c To 3 — JS Q— O d _* > d d 3 "3 5 ~ Q- b" tr ss © a 35 — j -j d X! O 1! co d < a 3 ft) S3 E g tJ 2 2 d ft) es 3" > . d OJ "C > 13 © d "2 2 8I • oj3_; a S ft> ** e^JS"1 £-- £ 3 JS *_ -1 rs be 3 S 2^ -2xj eS ft) OJ CO 3 ft) ft) = © 3 d cj a 2js cj a 3 d d «- to ae 1 U do es a2a -"I 2d a 5=» 2 £ bc'T 0 . 2 00 s3 a o7£ 3 3 C * O 2 « £ a2 •- jS axi s £ 5 at -j d u © w J. 3 d — Q> 2^ js « »i 3 — |c 3 d O k_ 3° . 2 S3 JO d es TT" e ■2^ I k- 00 ■Z a "3 • ^ £ £2 u ft) r 3: d "O aj3 , 3 »™ .. 3 I o « 9 a- 3 2 £ f ! d ft) JS CO — J ■»* JS »S o £ d k, O k. d T3 ft) 2 d > £i3 ° k. c ft) -, d JS S be-' l»- ifl "" d ft) XI ft) to O a o rf a 3 o tS 3 5 O d 3 co g, 2 t: — cj s 6*2 ?ag 3 oj © 3 d SPSS €2i 2 c be cli js axi 3 19 3^Tj 2 c 3 3 ^ -3 to' S&*» £ 3 60 ft) rt 3 d 6B 5 •k- n J- 1 flj » 3 C t3 as g 72 « 3 _- oj rt==c be 3 d S 3 k> «J ft) © 3 « d *> 3 to Oj2 2 COXJS- 10 © "SE2 ft) 3 o „_ o Sxj d = i3 c 2 4: — * 3 •j d ©| E-3 5- £ © |iS 3 u © d "B js £ l:~ e rt 3 3 — to ft) f!I Ill 5- es u 3 «J — (^J •** V*f — •* HJ« .3a! cv SeQ d ^ E oj *j 3 *• •3 3 J3 XJ ^JrjS 3 3 a« |as5 E d at, c = 3 O d c "3 k. « a o k. u to & to CO _. Q-k. d — 2 3 © 0 3 •p d C 3 a o © 2 d d _ to ft) « "kT. £-3 k. ft) •3°£ © XJ o js 5 3 J2 B 3 3: B ft) jO to © X! to ■ 5 © 0 8 81 < g — 1 to U 33 K e O _ d 5 © 3 «j d ft> 3 „ d ft) 3 = or o- k. -> — ; ^ d ^ Ti 3 bo d a = 3^3 JS © 3 : ao o -o 3 122 d£ _1 to © -2 "53 S k. «* bxJ u d c 5? 3 3 *;i XJ 3 3 © d O 3 k. 3 © k. las 3 "5 3 3&2 2xj co X" 3 3 2 « £ ©2 M to 3 — © d -3 2*8 0.2 d X) rt k- k. -1 3 22 5 3* 10 2 k. © 2 o 2 _to >> to k. >» ^XJ 3 « •j 3 o d 3 „. rt2 X! © - to J; O k. a a o 0 k. k. a a d £ d if a © d © t? © to © © a S3 3 1§ Is II 3 d O oj 0; ky _; — 3 k. -J l _» « C k. © ^ 3 145 S SB E < e c o Z a. e a "9 c o E E o U ■O 4J >. J, 13 — o c M s ->•—«£• •= C .. el 9 2~" >> .2 — ^ *• 4> TS =3251 2 & • = = c u « «e — • S w O « jo 4J w E 3 =■ "3 ft S 9 -■§!£§! 13 C 2 3 £ s cs CO 1 1 a a I 1 2 S x O c a £ w O U. i -• S — « = = 8- ■50- n a «. 2 • u £ 3 c o c s o o S £t > I I c c « m fii 5 £ E < 3 0 i< = Ii I o !«- .5 * ss o 5 £<£ «! c c c « I- -. = >* - .3 2 C «J ;0£2 5 J N « o 5 o » 5.3 c *• c « ill wft.3 e * c -j 4> 2 « > S 43* £ n P 3 XJTJ 82! e t Z 9 £ - - OS » M h5 -' ft 3 515 * * ft a 5 E .. eu ce c 2-l a e =c - * - «j* u Is fe 05 « £. C ft ss ft 2 n = 5 -© ~ — < ftC Ss o c 2 c £ ** © 4) W 4) 3 — & o c S"5 5 = 1 = c o gjg • c o* i " = 2 go lr. 2 ft c 5 « o c"1fi d e* 5 4> £ c ■ si U CD W w S3 CI S 06 O SJ -ft S3?. §315 > « o «, 4J — c c s?e3 ftS£- O MS! — » 4) O "J — — u © 09 — ft ft i I* *> a! G< sC J- C -- « i: s £ t; >— u 2*3 2 « S S « o £ * 4» C COW C C «S — — 4J as 3 u c <— ft o fi w3 3 g o 2 o 60— > «A 2 -5 s © E'J8 w cj !>: x 4J >. > ft w-5 = ■£ v o g w ft— > o c C ^ 4) "SEE g > © is' 5 «2 J3^ft M 5 S £ ») & 2 — £ 3 > -» 3 ed •* £1 ■> — • u ft > >> t> 3 4) * « C w U O M g 03 g V ■=4,i=5 3 flj£ g © « 6 E £ «, » 2* &-s •z ft t-i i: 2 "iaSo2aHsc eo)c«uiSa:£l_Si X .ft 4) U (• — ft! 4) 4< "3 — £ ft 2- c m w ft* t*; ^3 X DA w ft 41 ft 3 v!e| ft «* a) 4> aJ "3 «£J» 5Sg "3 l> 2 £ O 3 r:— « « w — < o -> 7 «J "~ 4) £ a,©