(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award to the state of New York for a Hudson River estuarine sanctuary"

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 



^ TOrc o, 



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 
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) 692-804 b 

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and 

Historic Preservation (OPRHP) 193 

Private (see Table 2) 152-264 b 

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<inds and water within the proposed 
sanctuary boundaries are compatible with the research and education 
objectives of the proposed sanctuary. These traditional uses include 
fishing, hunting, and trapping (at Tivoli and Stockport), commercial 
shipping and recreational boating, rail and transportation, and recreational 
use of the Erie Pier at Piermont. The Experimental Ecological Reserve Program 
at Tivoli, the DEC Management Plan for the Tivoli Bays State Lands (in 
preparation), the National Natural Landmark status (U.S. National Park 
Service) of Iona Island Marsh, other State Park uses of the proposed sanctuary 
sites, and other established policies of the involved State agencies will 
remain in effect. 

Although some Experimental Ecological Reserves have programs of 
large-scale physical manipulation of habitats for experimental purposes, 
such manipulation would not be consistent with the goals of the proposed 
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. Experiments would be designed to assess, 
evaluate and expand knowledge of natural systems within the proposed sanctuary, 
or larger scale manipulations outside of the proposed sanctuary boundaries 
which would not alter the natural systems within the proposed sanctuary. 
Significant long-term or permanent habitat manipulation is generally 
considered incompatible with estuarine sanctuaries. 

e. Enforcement of Existing Laws 

Enforcement of existing Federal, State and local laws within the 
proposed sanctuary would continue as it has in the past. Establishment of 
an estuarine sanctuary does not bring any new Federal or State regulation 
to the area, but it emphasizes the importance of the area for research and 
education. The following laws, among others, would guarantee the integrity 
of the proposed sanctuary: Federal Clean Waters Act, Section 404; and Rivers 
and Harbors Act Section 10; State Tidal Wetlands Act, Freshwater Wetlands 
Act; and Stream Protection Act; other parts of the State Environmental 
Conservation Law; New York State Parks and Recreation Law; and New York 
State Waterfront Revital ization and Coastal Resources Act. A more detailed 
list of existing laws and jurisdictions is in Appendix 2. 



21 

f . Research Program: Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary 

Estuarine sanctuary research would focus on estuarine studies and 
studies of the interaction of terrestrial and marine ecosystems with the 
estuarine ecosystem. Studies would be carried out in wetlands, shoreline, 
shallows and deepwater habitats with a special emphasis on shoreline and 
wetlands habitats because these habitats of tidal rivers have been least- 
studied, particularly in the Hudson River Estuary. Most research would be 
done by private laboratories, colleges, universities and State agencies. 
The Steering Committee would coordinate research objectives and priorities 
for the proposed sanctuary, and coordinate research activities. 

The State agencies represented on the Steering Committee would stimulate 
new research in the proposed sanctuary. Public interests, especially sanctuary 
user groups, would draw attention to practical problems of ecology and management 
in the Hudson River Estuary. Interaction between New York's Coastal Management 
Program, (NYS Department of State), New York Sea Grant Institute, and the 
Steering Committee members would enable the Sanctuary Research program to 
function partly in an "experiment station" mode to identify and address the 
information needs of coastal management. A significant factor in future 
scientific research on the Hudson is the newly-established not-for-profit 
Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, Inc., with an 
endownment of $12 million provided by Consolidated Edison Company of New 
York, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Central Hudson Gas & Electric 
Corporation, and Orange and Rockland Utilities as a result of the landmark 
negotiated settlement involving the utilities, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, N.Y. State DEC, Scenic Hudson, Inc., Hudson River Fishermen's 
Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

A considerable amount of research has already been done on the Hudson 
River Estuary. The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program can provide the 
coordination needed to make the most efficient use of funds, existing data, 
and research opportunities, while facilitating the availability of information 
resulting from research and avoiding duplication within the proposed sanctuary. 
The goals of the proposed estuarine sanctuary are compatible with those of 
the Hudson River Environmental Society and the Hudson River Research Council 
(groups of scientists and educators formed to coordinate research and 
disseminate research results to the public). There is opportunity for improved 
sharing of equipment, facilities and personnel of the tyupe shown by the two 
Hudson River Field Weeks in April 19 77 and August 19 78. Special opportunities 
also exist for the public (students, sportsmen, naturalists, etc.) to assist 
as volunteers in research projects; this approach was used successfully by 
Boyce Thompson Institute in collecting data on Hudson River Estuary fish, 
invertebrates, and marsh vegetation. This "volunteerism" will link research 
and education efforts in two ways: (1) educational field trips can collect 
samples and make observations useful to scientists, and (2) amateur naturalists 
can do field work under scientific supervision. Fishermen are already 
assisting in tagging projects, and a postcard reporting system is under study 
by the Hudson River Fisheries Advisory Committee to enable sportsmen and 
naturalists to contribute to a scientific data base information on observations 



22 

of unusual events and species that would otherwise be lost. The Fisheries 
Advisory Committee and the DEC Hudson River Fisheries Coordinator will work 
closely with the Steering Committee to stimulate and plan research, and 
exchange assistance and information. 

Tivoli Bays was designated an Experimental Ecological Reserve (EER) 
in 1981 under the Institute of Ecology (Butler University) national system 
of Experimental Ecological Reserves. This is a non-funded system of 
reserves that are selected to serve as sites for long-term ecosystem- 
level studies. Some of the monitoring and research planned for the EER 
would be extended to cover all four estuarine sanctuary sites. The proposed 
sanctuary sites were selected to allow research on a cross-section of 
areas representing similar habitats (shoreline, marshes, shallows) along 
the ecological gradient of the estuary, and these sites are well-suited 
for long-term studies comparing stability and change in vegetation, animals 
and ecosystem function. New York's commitment to maintaining these natural 
areas will permit long-term ecological research not possible elsewhere. 

In connection with the proposed estuarine sanctuary, appropriate 
facilities (existing or new) would be designated to serve as resposi tories 
for published and unpublished reports, data, and voucher specimens of 
plants and animals in different reaches of the Estuary. It is expected 
that the planning of repositories would be coodinated with the Hudson 
River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, Inc. and other 
active groups. 

Estuarine Sanctuary grant funds will not be adequate to support all 
research. Some operations funds may be used for environmental monitoring. 
Therefore, estuarine sanctuary staff would conduct an active fund-raising 
effort to support research, in conjunction with the preparation of grant 
proposals by independent researchers and other institutions. 

The specific research projects to be conducted would be determined 
later and would be carried out within the scope of available funding. In 
general , research would be encouraged that is relevant to effective coastal 
management and the wise use of Hudson Estuary resources. The following 
topics are examples. 

(1) Ecosystem-level studies of the flows of energy and nutrients 
within the wetlands, between the wetlands and the open estuary, and between 
the wetlands and the shores; 

(2) Studies of the role of terrestrial and acquatic plant detritus 
in the nutrition of estuarine organisms in the Hudson's fresh-tidal and 
brackish-tidal areas, and the effects of detritus from different sources 
of these processes; 

(3) Patterns and changes in vegetation of wetlands, shallows and 
shores, and effects on fish and wildlife populations, soils, and 
nutrient cycles; 

(4) Ecology of wildlife food plants such as water-celery, wild-rice 
and cattail ; 



23 

(5) Role of the Hudson River Estuary wetlands and the shallows in 
the spawning, juvenile development (nursery) and feeding of commercial 
and sport fishes; 

(6) Role of the Hudson River in the Atlantic waterfowl and shorebird 
flyway, and the value of the wetlands and shallows as resting, breeding, 
and wintering places for water fowl; 

(7) Marsh bird (rail, gallinule, bittern, wren, blackbird and 
sparrow) populations and their relationship to marsh vegetation, food 
organisms, and other animals; 

(8) Muskrat ecology, populations, relationship to soil, vegetation 
and other wildlife, diseases, environmental contaminants, limiting factors, 
and economic value; 

(9) Invertebrates (benthic and planktonic) and their role as fish and 
wildlife food and in sediment processes and nutrient cycling in the wetlands 
and shal lows; 

(10) The species composition and production of Hudson River marsh 
vegetation compared to fish-tidal and brackish-tidal marshes in other 
East Coast estuaries, and to saline-tidal marshes; 

(11) The ecology, vegetation, wildlife, and resources values of 
freshwater-tidal swamps; 

(12) Ecology of endangered species including shortnose sturteon, bald 
eagle, osprey, heartleaf plantain and Nuttall's micranthemum, and ecology 
of "estuarine endemics" such as cylindrical bulrush; 

(13) Effects of rising sea level on tidal wetlands; 

(14) Geologic character and history of wetland sediments and 
vegetational history of the wetlands; and 

(15) Microbial communities and role in ecosystem processes. 

In addition, the "experiment station" approach could address management 
problems elsewhere on the estuary such as: 

(1) Fish stocking potentials and policies; 

(2) The sources and cycling of toxic substances and the uses of 
plants and animals to monitor toxic substances; 

(3) Effects of introduced plant and animal species on the estuary 
and on native species; 

(4) Mitigation of effects of channel maintenance and dredged material 
disposal ; 

(5) Shoreline erosion and its management; 



24 



(6) The assimilation capacity of natural environments for nutrients 
and other waste materials; 

(7) Manipulative experiments on wetlands outside the proposed sanctuary 
sites, to study effects of management practices such as impoundment, 

water level control, pest control, and wildlife species management, and 
restoration of damaged wetlands; and 

(8) Experiments in mitigation and minimization of development and 
management impacts to include industry, marinas, railroad right-of-way 
management, and shoreline stabilization. 

g. Existing Monitoring 

Several State and Federal Agencies and private institutions conduct 
monitoring of physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the 
Hudson River Estuary. 

Tides and freshwater flow; 

Water qual ity; 

Air quality and weather; 

Fisheries surveys and stock assessments; 

Commercial fishing activity; 

Levels of PCB and metals in fish; 

Distribution and abundance of endangered animals and plants; 

Mid-winter aerial water fowl surveys (see Appendix 5); 

Christmas Bird Counts (several locations): 

New York State Breeding Bird Atlas; 

Breeding birds and vegetation of the railroad right-of-way; and 

Seismic activity. 

The monitoring and research program at the proposed sanctuary would 
be designed for compatibility with similar work at the other existing 
National Estuarine Sanctuaries and coastal Experimental Ecological Reserves. 
It is anticipated that the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary 
would be the site of regular workshops and conferences on ecology and 
management of estuaries and wetlands. A research prospectus would be 
circulated regularly to inform and attract potential researchers. 



(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


(6) 


(7) 


(8) 


(9) 


(10) 


(11) 


(12) 



25 

h. Education and Public Awareness Program 

While few people live next to the proposed sanctuary sites themselves, 
approximately 15 million people are located within a 45- minute drive of 
the sites. Each year millions of people visit the shores of the Hudson 
River for recreation and other purposes. The Trailside Museums complex 
adjoining the Iona Island Marsh site has an estimated 600,000 visitors 
annually. At the Trailside Museums and at selected locations on or 
adjacent to the other three proposed sanctuary sites, it would be possible 
to accommodate many people for educational purposes without damage to the 
natural areas or conflicts with other uses. 

The proposed sanctuary staff and Sanctuary Advisory Committee would be 
active in public education. There is a growing body of scientific information 
on the Hudson River Estuary, but relatively little of it has been interpreted 
for the lay public. During the last 5-10 years, Hudson Valley residents 
have evidenced considerable interest in seeing and learning about the estuary 
and its life, and the wetland and shoreline environments represented in the 
proposed sanctuary lend themselves well to this purpose. 

These are examples of possible education programs: 

(1) Improvements to the Bear Mountain Trailside Museums to accommodate 
indoor and outdoor exhibits on the Hudson River Estuary and the Iona Island 
Marsh complex, oriented toward the general public with no prior knowledge of 
the estuary; 

(2) Facilities in a renovated barn at the Ti vol i Bays site for under- 
graduate and graduate student and public class use; 

(3) A boardwalk accessible to the handicapped, through tidal marsh, 
swamp and pool habitats at the margin of the Tivoli Bays wetland, for 
the use by public and by researchers; 

(4) Traveling exhibits about the estuarine sanctuary for sportsmen's 
shows, elementary and secondary schools, nature and civic club meetings, 
county fairs, conferences, and other events; 

(5) Interpretive brochures describing the four proposed sanctuary 
sites and the Hudson River Estuary in general , with trail maps and guides 
to access points and special interest features (e.g., birding "hotspots"); 

(6) A kit for teachers outlining estuary-related classroom activities 
for various age groups, coastal studies curricula, and do-it-yourself field 
trips to the proposed sanctuary sites or other Hudson River Estuary wetlands 
and shoreline locations; 

(7) Slide shows with pre-recorded taped narrations for loan to 
schools and public groups; 

(8) Posters interpreting the estuary and its life and management; 



26 

(9) Videotaped programs for cable television stations, other public 
television, and school use; 

(10) Organized field trips, guided by volunteer experts, at the proposed 
sanctuary sites and other locations, dealing with specific as well as 
general subjects; 

(11) A "speakers' bureau" for all public groups, consisting of persons 
with special knowledge of various Hudson River and general estuarine subjects 
(e.g., wetland ecology, fisheries, birds); and 

(12) A canoeist's guide to the proposed estuarine sanctuary. 

Estuarine sanctuary educational activities would be closely coordinated 
with ongoing programs at the Dutchess Community College Norrie Point Environ- 
mental Center, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Wave Hill Environmental Studies 
Center, and other institutions. The New York State Sea Grant Institute in 
cooperation with the County Extension service has just inaugurated the 
position of Hudson River Sea Grant Cooperative Extension Specialist to 
promote public understanding of and appreciation for the estuarine 
system. 

B. Other Alternatives Considered 

1 . No Action 

Without a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary there would be no estuarine 
area specifically identified and protected within New York, and New York 
would lose the opportunity to participate in the National Estuarine Sanctuary 
Program. New York and the Nation would be unable to derive the benefits 
from the research information and public awareness that would result from 
establishing and this area as an Estuarine Sanctuary. 

Although much of the land within the proposed sanctuary boundaries 
is already State-owned, under the "No Action" alternative New York would 
not be as readily able to acquire the remaining lands to fill in the public 
ownership gaps in the Piermont, Tivoli and Stockport marshes and these areas 
might not be manageable as State reserves. Furthermore, there would be less 
incentive for the several State agencies to work together to develop 
consistent management policies and practices with short-term and long-term 
benefits for natural area conservation, rare and endangered species, 
research, education, and recreation. Without designation of the estuarine 
sanctuary there would be less incentive for donation or bargin sales of 
lands adjacent to present State ownerships. Also, there would be no 
prestigious national program to attract research funds and highly qualified 
scientists from various fields to do long-term research with the confidence 
that their study area would remain protected. 



27 

Without the designation of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary, the 
National Estuarine Sanctuary System would lose the opportunity to study 
the extensive low salinity brackish and fresh-tidal estuarine marshes and 
swamps so little studied to date. Also the opportunity would be lost to 
inform the large urban populations of the New York Metropolitan Area and 
the State Capital District that have had little exposure to information 
about estuarine systems. 

The "No Action" alternative would not specifically prevent any single 
research project or land acquisition project, but the impetus for unification 
of management and coordination of research and education would be lost. The 
sanctuary designation plus the provision of management funds and the planning 
acompanying it, would establish a more comprehensive program as well as 
encourage additional research in the area, while such focus would likely 
not occur without designation. 

2. Alternative Sites and the Site Selection Process for New York State 

The State of New York commenced its site selection process soon after 
receiving a memorandum from the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) 
sent in September 1979, inviting Mid-Atlantic States to nominate a candidate 
site. The Coastal Management Unit staff of the New York Department of 
State forwarded this invitation, along with the Federal Estuarine Sanctuary 
guidelines and case studies of Sanctuaries created in other parts of the 
country, to other State, regional and county agencies which had already 
been assisting in development of the New York Coastal Management Program. 
Representatives from these agencies, as well as from the New York Sea Grant 
Institute and the Marine Sciences Research Center of the State University 
were asked to review the Federal site selection criteria and consider 
possible candidate sites. Virtually all eligible sites had already been 
identified through the State's Coastal Management Program, and many were 
documented as Geographical Areas of Particular Concern or as Significant 
Habitats. New York' landmark Tidal Wetlands and Freshwater Wetlands 
regulatory laws also helped to identify candidates through the mapping 
required by those statutes. Information was also provided by the programs 
of the Department of Environmental Conservation to identify and acquire 
key tidal and freshwater wetlands with funds provided under the State 
Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972. All of these identification and 
registration programs and involved broadbased public input from sportsmen, 
scientists, naturalists, educators, politicians and other interested 
individuals and groups. 

In October 1979, representatives from these agencies met to discuss 
New York's possible involvement in the Program and to identify potential 
candidate sites. At this meeting the Estuarine Sanctuary Steering 
Committee was created (in a slightly different form than at present) to 
guide the Department of State in its selection of the best candidate site. 
The Steering Committee then consisted of the following persons: 



28 

Ms. Frances Dunwel 1 , Center for the Hudson River Valley 

Mr. Francis A. Hyland, Long Island State Park and Recreation 
Commission 

Mr. Joe Ketas, City of New York Department of City Planning 

Mr. Ronald Killian, The Nature Conservancy 

Mr. Erik Kiviat, Bard College 

Dr. Lee E. Koppelman, Long Island Regional Planning Board 

Mr. James W. Morton, NYS Department of State 

Mr. John Muenziger, Westchester County Environmental 
Management Council 

Mr. Steven Resler, Town of Smithtown Planning Department 

Dr. Jerry R. Schubel , State University at Stony Brook 

Dr. Donald F. Squires, New York Sea Grant Institute 

Mr. Anthony Taormina, NYS Department of Environmental 
Conservation 

Mr. Ivan Vamos, New York State Office of Parks and Recreation 

The Steering Committee evaluated a number of candidate sites using 
the selection criteria listed in the Federal Estuarine Sanctuary Program 
Guidelines. The three sites which best met the Federal criteria were: 

(1) The Peconic-Flanders Bays area; 

(2) The Hudson River marshes; and 

(3) The Nissequogue River. 

Short position papers describing each estuarine area were prepared 
and sent to OCZM for preliminary review. The object of this review was to 
determine in any of these sites would be clearly ineligible for the Program. 
OCZM staff deferred expression of preference for any one site in order to 
allow New York to make an independent decision on the State's best candidate. 
OCZM staff prepared a memorandum clarifying the current interpretation of 
the Federal selection criteria. Copies of this memorandum and all three 
position papers were sent to every Steering Committee member for review. 



29 

Early in December 1979 the Steering Committee held public information 
meetings in Hauppauge and New Paltz to publicize its interest in selecting 
a candidate site and to seek public comment on the selected sites. Shortly 
afterwards, members of the Steering Committee and a representative from 
Washington visited each of the three areas, making overflights and holding 
meetings with local public officials and interested groups. 

Later in December, the Steering Committee met to re-evaluate the sites 
in light of the OCZM memorandum on selection criteria, their observations 
during the site visits, and additional information provided at the public 
meetings. Each Steering Committee member had been asked to complete site 
evaluation forms prior to the meeting. Evaluation scores were compiled at 
the beginning of the meeting and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses 
of each candidate followed. After considerable discussion, the Peconic-Flanders 
Bays area was selected as the State's best candidate for nomination in the 
Program, with the Hudson River Marshes as a strong second. 

When the primary nomination had to be withdrawn in early 1980 due to 
programmatic and local political difficulties, the Hudson River proposal 
became the primary candidate, and the pre-appli cation process resumed, with 
a new lead agency (DEC) and a new Steering Committee (see list of preparers). 
The initial Hudson River proposal included five wetland complexes, from north 
to south: Tivoli Bays, Constitution Island Marsh, Iona Island Marsh, Croton 
Marshes, and Piermont Marsh. OCZM and Hudson River ecologists suggested that 
Constitution be dropped from the proposal because of a localized pollution 
problem, and that Croton be dropped because of conflicting land uses. After- 
wards, Stockport Flats was added to the Hudson River proposal to represent 
the narrow and sandy upper reach of the estuary. 

The Federal guidelines require that the sites be representative of the 
estuary, and that the sites do not duplicate each other in character. The 
four Hudson River Estuary sites represent the salinity-vegetation-fauna 
gradient of the Hudson, and one site is located in each of the four differing 
geologic-ecologic segments of the estuary (see Affected Environment). 
The total (high tide) surface area of the Hudson River Estuary from Battery 
Park to Troy is approximately 82,800 acres, and the portion of this total 
which is composed of intertidal wetlands plus subtidal shallows (less than 
6 feet deep at low tide) is 21,200 acres (26%). Thus, the total acreage 
of the wetlands and shallow of the four sites (Stockport, Tivoli, Iona, 
Piermont) is approximately 2,860 acres or about 13% of the Hudson River 
Estuary's wetlands-shallows component, a fraction considered representative 
and adequate for the estuarine sanctuary purposes. 

All four Hudson River Estuary sites are large wetland complexes, among 
the Hudson's largest, and all four have subsystems that lend themselves to 
comparative research along the estuarine salinity gradient: extensive 
cattail stands cut by tidal creeks, associated tidal shallows and mudflats, 
and forested terrestrial zones. All sites include the wetlands-shallows 
and wetlands-uplands habitat combinations that promote wildlife use and 
allow study of ecosystem linkages. 



30 

The four Hudson River Estuary sites are among the Hudson's highest 
quality estuarine natural areas, and contain biological features of 
national significance including rare and endangered species. The sites 
are well-buffered by compatible adjoining land uses, ensuring manageability 
and future quality. All areas are conveniently near (for research and 
education) academic facilities, laboratories, and large urban populations, 
but retain their wildland character and offer secluded and pleasing 
environments for research and educational activities. All sites have have 
suitable existing or potential access for the purposes of the Estuarine 
Sanctuary Program. 

The Hudson River Estuary is demographical ly central in New York State. 
A great amount of biological research has been done on the Hudson Estuary, 
in part because of its proximity to New York City and to numerous academic 
and scientific institutions, in part due to environmental analysis carried 
out in connection with land use planning and environmental management, 
and also due to the Hudson's inherent and unique interest to biologists as 
a diverse and productive natural estuarine system. 

For at least 12 years private and public groups have called attention 
to the need for overall coordination of research, education, and management 
efforts on the Hudson. The Hudson River Research Council convened two 
conferences to address this problem in 1976 and 1977, and the Hudson 
River Environmental Society held a Hudson River Marsh Workshop in 1976, 
five Hudson River Ecology Symposia from 1966 to 1980, and a Hudson River 
Fisheries Conference in 1981. 

Because of an excellent State land acquisition program during the last 
several decades, many of the ecologically significant Hudson River Estuary 
wetlands, islands, and shore natural areas are already in State ownership 
as parks, wildlife management areas, and preserves. Therefore, it was 
appropriate to propose the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary involving 
areas already predominantly State-owned and to use the program to fill out 
existing core public lands. 

Several alternatives were considered during the process of selecting 
sites on the Hudson River Estuary. One alternative was a sanctuary 
consisting of the entire Hudson River Estuary from Battery Park to Troy. 
This alternative has many advantages for management, research and education, 
but was rejected as being unworkable in the short-term due to constraints 
of funding and land use conflicts. Individual alternative sites were 
considered, and a number of sites were suggested by individuals and 
private groups. Several recommendations were received in favor of the 
addition of the Grassy Point wetland complex at Haverstraw to the proposal, 
but this seemed inappropriate because of the same standards of environmental 
quality to Constitution Island Marsh and Croton Marshes. Among many 
other areas considered were Con Hook Island and Marsh, Manitou Marsh, 
Moodna Marsh, Vanderburgh Cove, Suckley Cove, Kingston Point Marsh, Rogers 
Island Marshes, the Hudson North and South Bays, Inbocht Bay-Duck Cove, 
West Flats-Vosburgh Swamp, Ramshorn Creek-Livingston Marsh and Papscanee 
Creek Marshes. These areas were all rejected for one or more of the following 
reasons: small size, lack of representative sub-systems, localized environmental 
quality problems, incompatible land and water uses. Special consideration 



31 

was given to selecting a site in the northernmost section of the estuary 
between Troy and Saugerties, before settling on Stockport Flats as the best 
choice. Papscanee Creek Marshes have modified tidal circulation and the 
quality of the cattail stands is not as high; the West Flats-Vosburgh 
Swamp complex is partly diked off from tidal flow and the diversity in the 
remaining tidal portion is low; Hudson North and South Bays have been 
adversely affected by neighboring land uses; and the Rogers Island complex 
does not contain vegetation types comparable to the three southern sites 
although it is a high-quality natural area. Stockport Flats stood out as 
the site with the highest environmental quality and having subsystems 
appropriate to the overall representativeness of the Hudson River Estuary 
selection. 

3. Alternative Boundaries 

Boundaries set for the individual sites represent a mix of these 
considerations: inclusion of the primary resources for research and 
education, adequate protection and manageability, sufficient terrestrial 
buffer zones, access, present ownership, availability of funding for 
acqui sition. 

a. Inclusion of Primary Resources . The extensive main wetland 
areas at all four sites are the focal points of the proposed sanctuary. 

The placement of the lower (river) boundaries of the sites between the 
minus-6 foot contour and the navigation channel includes enough of the 
shallows for management purposes while acknowledging that research work 
can be carried out in the deeper waters where no specific protection is 
requi red. 

b. Adequate Protection and Manageability . The range of size 
of the four sites is within a range considered manageable yet still provides 
for the future integrity and protection of the sites. Inclusion of areas 

on both sides of the river at any one site (e.g., Stockport Flats and West 
Flats) was avoided because of logistical problems. Extension of site 
boundaries across zones with little or no shallow water was also avoided 
because it would have created unnecessary disjunction (e.g., Iona Island 
Marsh and the mouth of Popolopen Creek). 

c. Terrestrial Buffer Zones and Access . Extent of buffer 
zones was set depending upon status of adjoining lands and topography. 
At Iona and Piermont, the amount of terrestrial mainland included in 

the site boundaries was moot because of the stringent protection afforded 
the State Park lands. At Tivoli, a decision was made to include the 
entire State-owned uplands to achieve consistency in the boundaries of 
the State lands, Experimental Ecological Reserve, and proposed estuarine 
sanctuary, while creating a management unit. At Stockport, the primary 
considerations were access and reasonable size of management unit and 
proposed acquisitions, while affording protection for the main marsh and 
for endangered species. All of the terrestrial portions of Iona Island 
are included in the site boundary because of management consistency and 
protection of endangered species. At Piermont, it was decided to include 
the north end of the marsh to avoid management conflicts, to protect 
both sides of the mouth of Sparkill Creek, and to use the Erie Pier as 
an access point. 



32 

The proposed boundaries are the products of extensive Steering Committee 
discussions and meet the needs of all State agencies involved as well as the 
requirements of the Federal Program. The boundaries will permit workable 
administration and ease of management of the proposed sanctuary. 

4. Alternative Management Scheme 

The proposed management scheme (separate State agency ownerships with 
integrated management agreement and management plan) is considered the best 
choice because it respects traditional agency prerogatives and enables the 
pooling of resources and expertise of all agencies and interests involved. 
Consideration was given to alternative schemes, for example, transfer of 
all lands to a single agency or administration of the proposed sanctuary 
by a private group. The other alternatives were rejected because of the 
lack of adequate mechanisms and the desire to retain traditional uses and 
policies as much as possible. The State's Coastal Management Program has 
involved strong cooperation among State agencies and has shown that 
collaborative management of the proposed sanctuary is the best alternative. 

5. Funding 

Several sources of funds have been used in the past for the acquisition 
of natural areas in the Hudson River Estuary; these include Federal Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, State Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972 
funds, and private initiatives including the donation of lands to conservation 
groups. At the present time, no adequate source of funds is available for 
an estuarine sanctuary project (acquisition and operation) other than the 
NOAA National Estuarine Sanctuary Program funds here considered. 

Special advantages of NOAA National Estuarine Sanctuary Program funding 
include: 

(1) The emphasis on research and education programs while retaining 
other traditional uses of the sites; 

(2) The prestige of the National Estuarine Sanctuary System which 
would attract national attention to New York, increase the chances of 
receiving substantial research grants from other public and private sources, 
improve research and education opportunities at the selected sites, and 
strengthen public support for continued pollution abatement and public 
enjoyment of the resource; and 

(3) The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program provides five years of 
matching operations funds which are needed to establish the proper management 
of the proposed sanctuary during its first years after establishment. 

Federal estuarine sanctuary grants are not available for other purposes. 
During the first years of sanctuary operation, plans would be made for funding 
of the proposed sanctuary after Federal funding expires. Sources of post- 
Federal funding may include one or more of the following: State agency funds; 
private donations or grants for sanctuary operations; interest from an 
endownment raised by a not-for-profit corporation; a possible State Legislative 
appropriation; equipment, services, and time donated to the proposed sanctuary 
by the private sector; and voluntary donations by users of the proposed 
sanctuary. 



33 
PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

A. Hudson River - General Description 

The Hudson River flows 315 miles through eastern New York State 
from the Adirondack Mountains southward to New York City. The Hudson is 
a tidal river for 152 miles from Troy to Battery Park at the tip of 
Manhattan Island where it empties into New York Harbor, Lower New York 
Bay, and the New York Bight. Tidal freshwater extends from Troy south 
to Hyde Park (Figure 5). The 0.1 parts-per-thousand salinity "salt front" 
shifts through the Hyde Park to Yonkers reach. 

The Hudson River is entirely in New York State except for 20 miles 
at its mouth where it flows between New York and New Jersey. The Hudson 
River watershed lies in New York State except for small areas in New Jersey, 
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont. In New York, the Hudson Estuary 
flows through or past 14 counties and 41 townships. 

Geologic diversity is great in the Hudson River watershed and along 
the tidal Hudson itself. Sandstone, shale, limestone, gneiss, diabase, 
sand, clay and till are prominent along the tidal shores. Topography is 
also varied, with narrow shallow reaches, narrow deep reaches, and broad 
shallow reaches. River widths are about one-sixth to two-and-one-half 
miles; maximum depths 13-200 feet. The tidal Hudson is a long narrow 
estuary with an extended tidal -freshwater reach. Partial stratification 
occurs at times in the lower estuary where a layer of fresher water may 
flow outward over a layer of more saline water. The mean vertical tide 
range averages 3-4 feet. 

Ecologically, the Hudson River Estuary resembles other East Coast 
estuaries in the Virginian Biogeographic Region (Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras). 
For example, wetlands and shallows vegetation, and communities of fish 
and wildlife resemble those found in the Connecticut River Estuary, the 
Delaware River Estuary, and Chesapeake Bay. 

Numerous habitat types are present in the Hudson Estuary. These 
include open deep water, shallows, marshes, swamps, rocky and sandy 
islands, silt bottom, peat bottom, clay banks, and rock cliffs. Extensive 
areas of the Hudson Estuary shores are forested with oaks, maples, beech, 
birches, hemlock, white pine and other trees. About 150 species of fishes 
occur in the Hudson. 

The four sites proposed for inclusion in the Hudson River Estuarine 
Sanctuary are distributed as shown in Figure 5, and mapped in Figures 6-9. 
These sites are, from north to south, Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona 
Island Marsh and Piermont Marsh. The great majority of lands (both 
estuarine and terrestrial areas) at these sites are already State-owned. 



34 



Hudson River Estuary 



8 Troy 



Hudson River drainage basin 



Extent of tidal influence 




Stockport 



19 mi 
45 min 


Tivoli 




67 mi 
120 min 


49 mi 
75 min 


lona 


84 mi 
160 min 


66 mi 
120 min 


18 mi 
45 min 



Piermont 



Distances (airline miles) and approximate driving times (minutes) between sites. 



Fig. 5 



35 

Stockport Flats . The northernmost site is in the Town of Stockport 
in Columbia County, near Col umbiaville, 4 miles north of the city of Hudson 
and 22 miles south of Albany (Figures 5-6). The Stockport site comprises 
the mouth of a tributary stream (Stockport Creek) and a four-mile long 
series of peninsulas, islands, marshes and shallows along the east 
shore of the Hudson. Parts of the site are (or have been) known as 
Col umbiaville Creek, Stockport Marsh, East Flats, Priming Hook, Unnamed 
Island, Stockport Middle Ground, Gay's Point, and Fordham Point. Stock- 
port Middle Ground and Gay's Point are part of Hudson River Islands State 
Park. Stockport Flats was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson: 
Biological Resources (Smith et al . nd) for rare plants, bird migration 
stopover, landscape and educational values; Geographic Areas of Particular 
Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish & Wild- 
life Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program, 1977b). 

Ti vol i Bays . The next site to the south is in the Town of Red Hook, 
Dutchess County, and stretches for two miles between Tivoli and Barrytown; 
it is 7 miles north of Rhinebeck and 19 miles north of Poughkeepsie (Figures 
5, and 7). A small portion at the north end of the proposed site is within the 
jurisdiction of the Village of Tivoli. Tivoli Bays comprises two large coves 
on the east shore of the Hudson River, North Bay and South Bay, and includes 
Cruger Island and Magdalen Island and associated tidal shallows, as well as 
the mouths of two tributary streams, Stony Creek and Saw Kill. Parts of 
the site are (or have been) known as Tivoli Bay, North Tivoli Bay or Tivoli 
North Bay, South Tivoli Bay or Tivoli South Bay, North Cove, South Cove, 
DeKoven's Cove or Bay, the Vly or Fly, Goat Island, Slipsteen Island, South 
Curger Island, White Clay Kill and Stony Kill. North Bay and most of South 
Bay, Cruger Island, and a mainland area east of North Bay make up the 
Tivoli Bays State lands. (This acquisition project was initiated in 1980 
using, on a 50/50 basis, matching funds from the U.S. Heritage Conservation 
and Recreation Service and New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act.) 
The area has also been called "Tivoli Bays Nature and Historical Preserve". 
The Preserve has been designated an Experimental Ecological Reserve by the 
Institute of Ecology at Butler University. The entire Tivoli Bays site is 
listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is included in the Mid- 
Hudson Historic Shore! ands State Scenic Area which extends from Clermont to 
Hyde Park. Tivoli Bays was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson: 
Biological Resources (Smith et al . nd) for rare plants, bird migration 
stopover, landscape and educational values; Geographic Areas of Particular 
Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish & 
Wildlife Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program, 1977b); Hudson River 
Valley Study Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, 1979); Hudson 
River East Bank Natural Areas, Clermont to Norrie (Kiviat, 1978). 

Iona Island Marsh . The next site is in the Town of Stony Point, 
Rockland County, 6 miles south of West Point and 4 miles northwest of Peek- 
skill (Figures 5 and 8). The Iona Island marshes occupy a mile-long area 
between Iona Island and the west shore of the Hudson. Parts of the Iona 
Island site are (or have been) known as Salisbury Meadow, Ring Meadow, 
Doodletown Bight, Doodletown Brook, Round Island, Manahawagh, Salisbury 
Island, Weint's Island, and Beveridge's Island. The Iona Island site is 
part of Bear Mountain State Park, an element in the Palisades Interstate 
Park system. The Iona Marsh has been designated a National Natural Landmark 



Little Nutten Hook 



Fig. 6 Stockport Flats Area. 

(Adapted from USGS Hudson North, N.Y. quadrangle 




Extent of 
tida! influence 



tidal wetlands 
tidal shallows 
deep water 



37 




deep water 



Fig. 7 Tivoli Bays Area. 

(Adapted from USGS Saugerties, N.Y. quadrangle.) 



38 



Trailside 
Museums 



Bear Mtn 



Doodletown 
Bight 




Dunderberg Mtn 



one m 



one km 



land 



tidal wetlands 



V, 



tidal shallows 




deep water 



Fig. 8 lona Island Marsh Area 

(Adapted from USGS Peekskill, N.Y. quadrangle.) 



39 




U 
J 



one mile 



one km 



T 



Fig. 9 Piermont Marsh Area. 

(Adapted from USGS Nyack, N.Y.- N.J. quadrangle.) 
(Areas shown as 'tidal wetlands' and 'tidal shallows'are 
both considered tidal wetlands under the State 
Tidal Wetlands Act.) 



40 

by the United States National Park Service. Iona Island Marsh was listed in 
the following surveys: The Hudson: Biological Research (Smith et al . nd) for 
rare ecological niches, rare plants, bird migration stopover, and educational 
value; Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a); 
Significant Coastal Related Fish & Wildlife Habitats of New York (CZM Study 
Program, 1977b); Hudson River Valley Study Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine 
and Weiner, 19 79). 

Piermont Marsh . The southermost site is in the Town of Orangetown, 
Rockland County, 4 miles south of Nyack (Figures 5, and 9). A portion at the 
north end of the proposed site is within the jurisdiction of the Village 
of Piermont. Piermont Marsh is one-and-one-half miles long, between 
Piermont and Sneden's Landing; it includes the mouth of a tributary stream 
(Sparkill Creek) and is surrounded by very extensive tidal shallows. Parts 
of the site are (or have been) known as Sparkill Marsh, and Taulman Landing 
or Point. The Piermont Marsh site is largely a part of Tallman Mountain 
State Park, an element of the Palisades Interstate Park system. Piermont Marsh 
was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson: Biological Resources (Smith 
et al . nd) for rare ecological niches, rare plants, bird migration stopover, 
landscape and educational values; Geographic Areas of Particular Concern 
(CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish and Wildlife 
Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program, 1977b); Hudson River Valley Study 
Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, 1979). 

1. Natural Environment 

a. Geol ogy 

The Hudson River watershed is one of the most geologically complex 
regions in the United States, and the shores of the Estuary show great 
variety of bedrock, landforms and soils. After several geologic episodes 
of uplift, folding and faulting, alternating with periods of erosion, the 
Hudson Valley was overridden by the continental ice sheets. Glaciers 
gouged out the broad U-shaped valley of the Estuary, and left bare rock 
exposed in some locations and other areas covered with glacial and post- 
glacial deposits of till, sand and clay. The bed of the Estuary itself is 
filled with glacial deposits beneath recent estuarine sediments. Because 
of predominantly steep shores, the Hudson's floodplain is very limited in 
extent. 

The Hudson River Estuary may be divided in four geol ogic-ecol ogic 
reaches (Kiviat, 1979): 

1. Troy south to Saugerties, narrow and shallow with many islands and 
wetlands, bordered by low bluffs of sand, clay and shale; 

2. Saugerties to Beacon, deep, of medium width, with scattered 
islands and wetlands, bordered by bluffs of clay or sedimentary rock 
(sandstone, shale, some limestone); 

3. Beacon to Peekskill , the Hudson Highlands, narrow, twisting 
and deep, bordered by steep high hills of gneiss and granite; 



41 

4. Peekskill to New York City, at first broad and shallow, then 
narrow and deep, bordered on the west by a diabase ridge (the Palisades 
Ridge) and on the east by low hills and bluffs of various metamorphic 
rocks. 

The four proposed sanctuary sites, Stockport, Tivoli, Iona and 
Piermont, respectively, lie one in each of the geol ogic-ecol ogic 
reaches listed above. 

Generalized soil types along the Hudson River Estuary are: limy 
soils on clay and silt deposits from postglacial lakes; usually acid 
soils on sands from terraces and deltas; acid (occasionally limy) soils 
on glacial tills (unsorted deposits containing clay, silt, sand, gravel 
and larger stones); soils on alluvium (stream-deposited material); and 
tidal wetland sediments. 

Stockport Flats . The bluff north of the mouth of Stockport Creek 
is Cambrian shale with thin layers of interbedded quartzite, and there 
are clay deposits farther inland. The bluff south of the creek is clay. 
Slate, conglomerate, and limestone are also present near the site. These 
steep bluffs rise to an elevation of 100 feet above the river, and then 
the land levels off. Small tidal coves are scalloped into the bluffs at 
several locations along the shore. There is evidence of a clay slide 
in at least one location on the south bank of Stockport Creek. 

Tidal influence in Stockport Creek extends inland to the Route 9 
highway bridge, almost one mile. The mouth of the creek is dotted with 
islands of floodplain and tidal swamp at elevations of about 0-3 feet 
above high tide level, and these islands are interspersed with areas of 
tidal marsh, subsidiary stream channels, and the main channel of the 
creek. The wetlands and islands both inside and outside of the creek 
mouth comprise the tidal delta deposits of the creek. 

The main marsh (East Flats) lies just south of the mouth of Stock- 
port Creek in the river proper, between the unnamed island (north) and 
the point of Priming Hook (south). A sandy bar extends southward along 
much of the western margin of the main marsh, broken by one large and 
one small passage between the marsh and the main river. A few tidal 
creeks cut through the marsh. The marsh bottoms vary from fine sand to 
shallow or deep soft muck. 

A large island, Stockport Middle Ground, and a large peninsula, 
Gay's Point - Fordham Point, lie northwest and north of the creek mouth. 
Stockport Middle Ground, Gay's Point, Fordham Point, Priming Hook and the 
Unnamed Island are sandy and composed partly of old dredged material , and 
they have maximum elevations of about 5-20 feet above high tide level. 
Extensive shallows lie between Gay's Point - Fordham Point and the mainland, 
and there are small channels around Stockport Middle Ground. The dredged 
shipping channel west of the Stockport Flats site is 32 feet deep. Terres- 
trial soils of the site are derived from clay, sand and till. 



42 

Ti vol i Bays . Bedrock at this site is Ordovician gray sandstone and 
shale. The more resistant sandstone outcrops are on the islands, the 
points projecting into the bays, and in the waterfalls of the creeks. 
Bluffs east of the bays are composed largely of clay with small areas of 
sand; the bluffs rise steeply to an elevation of 100 feet above the river 
and then level off inland. The clays were deposited as thin alternating 
winter and summer layers of clay and silt in a postglacial lake. Gradual 
slumping is common on the clay bluffs. "Clay dogs," small ring-shaped 
concretions of limestone and clay that formed around the stems of marsh 
plants, occur in the clays. 

Cruger Island is one-half mile long, with a maximum elevation of 
forty feet above high tide level. Magdalen Island is smaller and lower. 
North Bay is predominantly intertidal marsh, with a well-developed network 
of tidal creeks and pools. The deepest creeks and pools are about five 
feet deep at low tide. A similar network of creeks and pools is beginning 
to form in South Bay, which is predominantly shallows and mudflats near 
low tide level. A few deep spots in South Bay are also about five feet 
at low tide. The bottom in the bays is largely soft muck, as much as 25 
feet deep. The tidal swamp between North Bay and South Bay has 8 feet 
of peat overlying silt. 

Extensive tidal shallows lie north and south of Cruger Island, and 
much of this area is only 1-2 feet deep at low tide. Just west of Cruger 
Island, the main river is 50 feet deep. 

Terrestrial soils of the site are derived largely from clay, with 
sandy soil in local areas, and till soils farther east. 

Iona Island Marsh . Bedrock at this site is mostly Precambrian 
gneiss. This rock is yery resistant to erosion and forms the bold hills 
that rise more than 1,000 feet within a half mile of the marshes (Dunder- 
berg and Bear Mountains) and the rocky knobs of Iona Island that project 
100 feet above the river. The same steep slopes dive down under the marsh 
where the sediments are more than 100 feet deep. Iona Island is in the 
Hudson Highlands, a part of the Old Appalachians, and this is the only 
location where the Old Appalachians are breached by an estuary. Pegmatite 
dikes occur locally in the Iona Island area, and there is a great variety of 
minerals associated with these igneous intrusions. 

The Iona Island Marsh formed in the shelter of the island, in a side 
channel of the Hudson River that was made larger by glacial erosion and 
glacial meltwaters. The marsh began to form at least 6,000 years ago 
according to radiocarbon dating of the peat, and some of the sediments 
uderlying the marsh are 12,500 years old. The marsh surface is peaty, but 
the sediments become increasingly silty beneath. Winding tidal creeks lace 
the marsh, with greatest depths at low tide about three feet. In Doodletown 
Bight, large areas of mud flats are exposed at low tide. The main river 
close to Iona Island has a maximum depth of 143 feet, and this is one of 
the narrowest reaches of the Hudson Estuary. 

Soils on Iona Island and the mainland are derived from glacial till 
and tend to be yery shallow, acid, and nutrient-poor. 



43 

Piermont Marsh . The west shore of Piermont Marsh is formed by part 
of the Palisades Ridge, where an abrupt flat-topped 150- foot high cliff-and- 
sliderock formation close to the marsh. The cliff is Triassic diabase, a 
hard igneous rock. The ridge is underlain by Triassic sandstone and shale 
which outcrop in small areas close to the marsh. Sparkill Gap, the valley 
of Sparkill Creek just west of the north end of Piermont Marsh, is the only 
sea level break in the Palisades Ridge and was thought to be a former route 
of the Hudson River. However, the gap was more 1 ikely created by torrential 
glacial meltwaters. Sparkill Gap has been proposed as a geological National 
Natural Landmark (Butler et al . , 1975). 

The marsh sediments are peat and organic silt and are at least 40 feet 
deep in the western part where the marsh has been developing for 4-5 thousand 
years. A few well-defined tidal creeks cut the marsh, but their deepest 
portions are only a few feet deep at low tide. Piermont Marsh is located 
at the south end of the very broad and shallow segment of the Estuary 
known as the Haverstraw Bay and Tappan Zee, and very extensive shallows 
border the east side of the marsh. While these shallows are only 1-2 feet 
deep at low tide, the river channel farther east has 50-foot depths. 

Soils on shore near Piermont Marsh are derived from glacial till and 
are shallow and acid, with deeper, richer pockets close to the marsh. The 
Erie Pier borders the marsh on the north. 

b. Hyd rol ogy 

The Hudson River Estuary drains about 13,400 square miles of land, 
mostly in New York State but includes small areas of New Jersey, Massachusetts, 
Connecticut and Vermont. The tidal river is 152 miles long from Troy 
south to the southern tip of Manhattan Island (Battery Park). Throughout 
this distance, the river bed is below sea level, allowing tidal penetration 
to Troy. Salt water, however, intrudes only half the length of the 
tidal river due to the Hudson's substantial and relatively dependable 
freshwater flow. 

Average freshwater flow (net discharge) in the tidal Hudson is 13 billion 
gallons per day, of which 60% enters from the mainstream of the Hudson-Mohawk 
above Troy and 40% comes in from 25 major and numerous minor tributaries 
below Troy. Peak freshwater flows occur in March or April with snow melt, 
and secondary peak flows often occur in November. Minimum flow is in summer 
and early fall. The reversing tidal flow moves about 30 times as much water 
as the average freshwater discharge. The average flushing rate for the 
tidal Hudson River (turnover time) is about 5 months. 

Salt water from the Atlantic Ocean moves upriver, mixing with the 
fresh water, and penetrating farther upriver at times of lower freshwater 
flow. Depending on freshwater flow, the 0.1 parts-per-thousand (ppt) 
salinity level ("salt front") may occur anywhere between about Yonkers 
and Hyde Park, but usually is somewhere in the region between Nyack and 
Beacon (Figure 5). Late summer and early fall are generally the periods 
of farthest intrusion of saline water. In the mid-1960s drought, the 



44 

salt front was recorded at the farthest known inland location in this century, 
definitely at Hyde Park and possibly at Kingston, but no farther. Freshwater 
flow from the Hudson River slightly dilutes sea water well out into the New 
York Bight. 

The Hudson is a partially stratified estuary. More saline water tends 
to move upriver under lighter outflowing fresh water in the New York City to 
Peekskill region. However, vertical salinity gradients are small with bottom 
waters only 0-20% more saline than surface waters. 

Vertical tidal fluctuation (tide range) is least in the middle of the 
estuary, about 3.1 feet at West Point, and greater at the two ends of the 
estuary, reaching a maximum of about 5.1 feet at Troy (National Ocean Survey 
1982 Tide Tables for East Coast of North and South America). Individual 
tides can be considerably higher or lower than average levels, and maximum 
tide ranges for any one month may exceed 9 feet. Although extremely high 
tides flood the higher wetlands to greater depth and for longer times, these 
tides do not cover large areas of land because the steep banks of the estuary 
generally restrict the extent of the floodplain to small areas. There are 
two high tides alternating with two low tides in an approximately 25-hour 
period, but the time, duration, and height of both high and low tides are 
affected by wind and runoff (freshwater flow as well as by gravitational 
forces). Tides are less regular farther upriver. 

The estuary has reversing tidal currents. Downriver ebb currents are 
slightly faster than upriver flood currents. Peak current speeds during a 
normal tidal cycle are about 2 miles-per-hour. 

All major estuaries in the Virginian biogeographic region have water 
quality problems. Quality in the Hudson River Estuary is remarkably good 
in view of the proximity of the Nation's largest metropolitan area. Dissolved 
oxygen may be in short supply at New York City during hot dry weather, but 
elsewhere in the estuary oxygen levels are almost always adequate for aquatic 
animals. Water quality has improved considerably in the last 15 years. Many 
health and esthetic problems associated with raw sewage discharges have been 
solved by construction of secondary treatment facilities. The generalized 
contamination of the Hudson by PCB discovered in the early 1970s has declined 
during the last 5 years as evidenced by reduced PCB levels in large samples 
of fish of several species monitored annually by the New York State Department 
of Environmental Conservation. There are persistent reports by longtime 
residents that the Hudson Estuary has become less turbid during the last few 
decades. 

Wetland hydrology in the Hudson is influenced most by the estuary's 
vertical tidal fluctuation, but also by runoff from tributary streams, wind, 
and the degree of shelter afforded by adjacent shallows, islands and bars. 
Incoming tides churn up sediments in the confines of marsh creeks creating 
high turbidity. Outgoing tides and dilution by clear water from tributaries, 
reduce turbidity greatly in the landward portions of the marshes. The downriver 
marshes are subject to higher salinity than the main river due to evaporation 
of water from the marsh surface: at Piermont Marsh, river salinity reaches a 
maximum around 12 ppt (Table 4) but on the intercreek marsh areas salinity 
may reach 15 ppt (nearly half the strength of sea water). 



45 



to 
0J 

+J 

00 



03 

+-> 
O 

03 

O0 

O) 



03 

+-> 
10 
LU 

■o 

<D 

to 
O 
Q. 
O 

(-. 
Q. 



x: 



to 
o 

to 



u 

03 

c 

03 



■•-> 

c 

OJ 

E 
c 
o 

c 

•1— 

> 
c 



(V 



x: 
to 

c_ 

03 



to 

+-> 



-o 

OO 



.*: 


a 


O 


<v 


O 


(J— • 


■o 


S *J 


O) 


«/) 0J 


OQ 





a; 

CD 

c 

03 ^-s 

at a> 

-o «•- 



<u 
>> > 



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 


<u a> 


•T" 




•"I— 




<T3 1 


03 r— 


»♦- +j 


03 




ra 


n 


■i-> "O 


+J Q- 


•1- +-> 


4-> 


3 


+j 


3 


+J i— 


■!_> C 


i- 03 


+J 


+j 


03 •*- 


03 3 


+J CL 


03 


(U 


03 


<D 


O 2 


U CL 


to to 


O 


£_ 


o 


c 



o 


E 


o 


Z5 


03 


rs 


E 


to 


E 



4-> -M 


+-> -l-> 


03 i— 


03 i— 


OJ *i~ 


OJ »T— 


Q. tO 


Q. to 



a> 




C1J 


c 




» c 


o 




<D O 


-•-> 


to 


to •»-•-> 


to a> 


to 


03 CD (O 


■o ,— 


•r— 


xj ,— -a 


C fO 


<u 


03 fO C 


03 XT 


c 


•r- XT 03 


to to 


r.-« 


T3 tO tO 



CO 



00 

o 



o 



to 



to 

i- 



© 




o 




+J 




■P 


-M 


x: 


+j 


x: 


Q. 


W) 


a. 


to 


CL 


as 


CL 


a> 




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 
cynosuroide s) , 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 tulipifer a), black birch ( Betula lenta ), beech ( Fagus grandi folia ) 
white pine ( Pinus strobu s), 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"pp7 7, 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 



a DECL = 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 

Endangered 3 (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 

a The 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. discors yT"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 inaT T 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 americanu s) , 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 vatic a) 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 diaphanu s) 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 commerson i ) 
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 C onservation 

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 enucleato r 

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 5 s 

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 

: E j? 
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<M -J -J 

t> cm n e* cc 

DSaooi e> 



e 
S 
© 



i 

r 





«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 


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 « 

<J c c i; 

Sj?E I 
O c« -• ft 

©-i£c 



•09 



in • 

» • C 



" N © 



..OT 

II 



© o 

O Cy 

o 




143 






E 

■o 
< 



• 
a 

«s 

e 
E 



e 
e 
• 

w 

O 

"o 

e 
o 

o 
Z 



o. 
o 

a 



2 o S« 

3 e3 at — 

S£2g 

* w c $ 

2-gi- 

U^" 1 03 >, 

°* 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 *= 3 2 - 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 



"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- * C Z 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 

d 3 

££ 
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 



<v s 



O -D 



V) VI 

c o 

■0 . 

a2 



S a 



>)>i£j,:vi 



«■> si © 

t» D oj 

C • 

?fi C 

a-° 

£a^ 
&© w 

a c g 
5 ° « 

£ |h 

S a 



n 

|S a § 

£ « ti- 

4-5&: 

i» ■£ e 

*s o >> — 
£ *- *• 

oj»<3? 

O 1 C K 

5 = o u 

rt f 3 

or ' 
>, 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-. 
s E ll 

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 

E rSS 

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: « 

CN N 

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 2 d a 
g oj-ga 



tS *-x: 



^ a 

** — — 

OJ w 2 

ESa* 
h o •■ 2 



5 a -t 

X* 4) -J 

- 2 W 

S •» 41 
s c£ 

^a 
■O « 3 
a "S 

w al 

sk 3 a 

— •~ 1 u 

a " s 
& 
«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 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 
> 




_« 




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^f c 

= 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 ° 



a 1 ? « 
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 ft 1 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 
Sf rt 

>> 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 




C 
1 




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 



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) 

v 3£ 
(0 — > 



O u 

a s) — 
* ri 

8<S 

0-55 

oj C « 

•- be ft) 

» u£ 

2- o 

S * s 

Cft) 
_ —> 

>»^ 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 c i2 

2 «1 

a >> 
"I* 

M 5? d 

MOW 

es ft> 

a) M 7 
«! 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=? 
w 2 < 



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?le 7 

53 ^ 'O 



•2-2 es 

5> = E 

w H)6t 
i_ XI JS O 
oj «o •— 

•3-= M 2 
c ft) J2 

3 3 ~ bO 



w « 5 £ 



be 



ft) S 
c 3 

e — 



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)"- <o 

"O eS 3 n c 

C ft) i «j es 

— eS 4) 0<c 
W c ft) cj 

ft) w 



?S&£5 



35 

C D 
JS 



&i2 

eS eS 
3 ft) 



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> 

g W 

£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> 

£ >•= 

a o- 

■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 

"7 C 

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 j2 z 

i --b 

; s> 

CJ C8 S> 

Z !5 ft 1 

. 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 <r 



III 

■ ° 

s c 

C 0) 

ej._ 
< c 

N E 

— a 

• 



•y ft) 

> 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 
8 I • 

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 
. 

2 00 
s 3 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 a j3 , 

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) 
<r © 3 

O to «j 

c £^ 

3 _ XJ 
*3 d 3 

as d 



ac 
o 

k. 

o a 



d O 

10 -^ 

ft) 3 
ft) o 


3 _ k. 

ft) o o 

E I 

© £ ft) 
ac o u 
eS Sk 



3 d 
d ' 



- 2 

to d 



O a 

& © 

• ao 

"" d 
ej 

to u 

3 O 



= 12 

OB - 
s ft) 

1§© 

o " JS 

U 4-> 



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 © 

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 © 

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 „. 

rt 2 



X! 

© - 

to J; 

O k. 

a a 

o 

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 





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 



"i a So2aHsc 

eo)c«uiS a: £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,© 
<ai 3 O 

3-§ 
O «°. 

5 4)** 

< C O 

ft " 

© — as 
M 0J S 



146 



45522 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration 

[ 15 CFR Part 921 ] 

ESTUAR1NE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES 

Policies and Procedures for Selection 

Acquisition and Management 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos- 
pheric Administration, Department of 
Commerce. 
ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule will 
allow the National Oceanic and Atmos- 
pheric Administration to make a pre- 
liminary acquisition grant to a State to 
undertake a fair market value appraisal, 
and to develop a uniform relocation act 
plan, a detailed management plan and a 
research framework for a proposed estu- 
arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to 
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage- 
ment Act of 1972, as amended. 

DATE: Comments must be received on or 
before October 1, 1977. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- 
TACT: 

Robert R. Klfer, Physical Scientist, 
Policy and Programs Development Of- 
fice. Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 
ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page 
One Building. Washington. D.C. 20235 
(202-634-4241) . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
On June 4, 1974, The National Oce- 
anic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en- 
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" 
pursuant to then section 312 of the 
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 
as amended, for the purpose of establish- 
ing policy and procedures for the selec- 
tion, acquisition, and management of 
estuarine sanctuaries. 

Under new subsection 315(1) of the 
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au- 
thorized to make available to coastal 
States grants of up to 50 per centum of 
the cost of acquisition, development, and 
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In 
general, subsection 315(1) provides that 
grants may be awarded to States on a 
matching basis to acquire, develop, and 
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc- 
tuaries in order that scientists and stu- 
dents may be provided the opportunity 
to examine over a period of time ecologi- 
cal relationships within the area. The 
purpose of these guidelines is to imple- 
ment this program. 

As a result of two years of program 
implementation, the regulations are pro- 
posed to be modified to specifically au- 
thorize the granting of acquisition 
money to States in two stages : 

(I) An Initial grant for such prelimi- 
nary purposes, as surveying and assess- 
ing the land to be acquired, and the de- 
velopment of management procedures 
and research programs; and 

(II) A second grant for the actual ac- 
quisition of the land. The Federal share 
of the sum of the two grants shall not 



PROPOSED RULES 

exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs 
Involved. Any State receiving an initial 
grant shall be obligated to repay it if, 
due to any fault of the State, the sanctu- 
ary is not established. 

As a result of this new grant procedure, 
much more information relating to costs, 
values, management procedures, and re- 
search programs will be available at the 
time of the publication of a draft ' en- 
vironmental impact statement. Proposals 
made public to date in the form of an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
have been criticized for lack of specificity 
in these areas. By making a small pre- 
liminary acquisition grant to a State, 
the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be 
more fully developed and the public can 
become more aware of the costs and the 
exact nature of the long-term manage- 
ment. 

In response to State questions about 
estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- 
posed regulations provide that such re- 
search can be funded if it can be shown 
to be related to program administration. 

NOAA has reviewed these proposed 
regulations pursuant to the National En- 
vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has 
determined that promulgation of these 
regulations will have no significant im- 
pact on the environment. 

Compliance with Executive Order 
11821. The economic and inflationary 
impact of these proposed regulations has 
been evaluated in accordance with OMB 
Circular A-107 and it has been deter- 
mined that no major inflationary im- 
pact will result. 

Dated: August 26, 1977. 

T. P. Gleots. 
Assistant Administrator 
for Administration. 

It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part 
921 as follows: 

" (1) By revising the table of contents 
and authority citation to read as follows: 

Subpart A — General 
Sec. 

931.1 PoUcy and objectives. 

921.2 Definitions. 

921.3 Objectives and implementation ot 

the program. 

921.4 Blogeographic classification. 

921.5 Multiple use. 

921.3 Relationship to other provisions of 
the Act and to marine sanctuaries. 

Subpart B — Application for Grants 

921.10 General. 

921.11 Application for prel im i n ary acquisi- 

tion grants. 

921.12 Application for land acquisition 

grants. 

921.13 Application for operational grants. 

921.14 Federally-owned lands. 



921 JO 
921.21 



Subpart C— Selection Criteria 

Criteria for selection. 
FubUc participation. 



Subpart O — Operation 

92 UO General. 

921.31 Changes In the sanctuary boundary, 

management poUcy. or research 
program. 

921.32 Program review. 

AtrrHoarrr: Sec. 315(1), Coastal Zone Man- 
agement Act of 1972, as amended (90 Stat. 
1030, (18 TJ-S.C. 1461) Pub. L. 94-370) . 



(2) By revising Subpart B — Applica- 
tion for Grants — as follows : 

Subpart B — Application for Grants 

§ 921.10 General. 

Section 315 authorizes Federal grants 
to coastal States so that the States may 
establish sanctuaries according to regu- 
lations promulgated by the Secretary. 
Coastal States may file applications for 
grants with the Associate Administrator 
for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) , 
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Page 
1. 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW. Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which 
has been certified to the Office of Coastal 
Zone Management as the entity respon- 
sible for administration of the State 
coastal zone management program may 
either submit an application directly, or 
must endorse and approve applications 
submitted by other agencies within the 
State. 

§ 921.11 Application for preliminary 
acquisition grants. 

(a) A grant may be awarded on a 
matching basis to cover costs necessary 
to preliminary actual acquisition of land. 
As match to the Federal grant, a State 
may use money, the cost of necessary 
services, the value of foregone revenue, 
and/or the value of land either already 
in its possession or acquired by the State 
specifically for use in the sanctuary. If 
the land to be used as match already is 
in the State's possession and is in a pro- 
tected status, the State may use such 
land as match only to the extent of any 
revenue from the land foregone by the 
State in order to include it in the sanc- 
tuary. Application for a preliminary ac- 
quisition grant shall be made on form 
SF 424 application for Federal assistance 
(non-construction programs) . 

(b) A preliminary acquisition grant 
may be made for the defrayal of the 
cost of: 

(1) An appraisal of the land, or of the 
value of any foregone use of the land, 
to be used in the sanctuary; 

(2) The development of a Uniform 
Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
Acquisition Policies Act plan: 

(3) The development of a sanctuary 
management plan; 

(4) The development of a research and 
educational program; and/or, 

(5) Such other activity of a prelimi- 
nary nature as may be approved in writ- 
ing by OCZM. Any grant made pursuant 
to this subsection shall be refunded by 
the State to whatever extent it has spent 
in relation to land not acquired for the 
sanctuary, and if OC21M requests such 
refund. 

(c) The application should contain: 

(1) Evidence that the State has con- 
ducted a scientific evaluation of it: estu- 
aries and selected one of those most rep- 
resentative. 

(2) Description of the proposed 
sanctuary Including location, proposed 
boundaries, and size. A map(s) should 
be included, as well as an aerial photo- 
graph If available. 



RDESAt UCISTES, VOC 42, NO. 175 — FSIOAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977 



147 



PROPOSED RULES 



45523 



(3) Classification of the proposed 
sanctuary according to the biogeo- 
graphic scheme set forth in § 921.4. 

(4) Description of the major physical, 
geographic, biological characteristics and 
resources of the proposed sanctuary. 

(5) Demonstration of the necessary 
authority to acquire or control and man- 
age the sanctuary. 

(6) Description of existing and poten- 
tial uses of, and conflicts v/ithin. the 
area if it were not declared an estuarine 
sanctuary; and potential use restriction 
and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab- 
lished. 

(7) List of protected sites, either with- 
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or 
within other Federal. State, or private 
programs, which are located in the same 
region or biogeographic classification. 

(8) The manner in which the State 
solicited the views of interested parties. 

(9) In addition to the standard A-95 
review procedures, the grant application 
should be sent to the State Historic Pres- 
ervation Office for comment to insure 
compliance with section 106 of the Na- 
tional Preservation Act of 1966. 

(d) In order to develop a truly repre- 
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- 
aries, the States should coordinate their 
activities. This will help to minimize the 
possibility of rimilar estuarine types be- 
ing proposed in the same region. The 
extent to which neighboring States were 
consulted should be indicated. 

§ 921.12 Application for land acquisi- 
tion grants. 

(a) Acquisition grants will be made to 
acquire land and facilities for estuarine 
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly 
described in a preliminary acquisition 
grant application, or where equivalent 
information is available. Application for 
an acquisition grant shall be made on 
SP 424 application for Federal assist- 
ance (construction program). 

In general, lands acquired pursuant to 
this subsection are legitimate costs and 
their fair market value, developed ac- 
cording to Federal appraisal standards, 
may be included as match. The value of 
lands donated to the State and cash do- 
nations may also be used as match. If 
the State already owns land which is to 
be used in the sanctuary, the value of 
any use of the land foregone by the State 
in order to include such land in the 
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 
years, may be used by the State as 
match. The value of lands purchased by 
a State within the boundaries of pro- 
posed sanctuaries while an application 
for a preliminary acquisition grant or 
land acquisition grant is being consid- 
ered may also be used as match. 

(b) An acquisition application should 
contain the following information: 

(1) Description of any changes in pro- 
posed sanctuary from that presented in 
the preliminary acquisition grant appli- 
cation. If such an application has not 
been made, then. Information equivalent 
to that required in such a grant applica- 
tion should be provided. 

(2) Identification of ownership pat- 
terns, proportions of land already in the 



public domain; fair market value ap- 
praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. 

(3) Description of research programs, 
potential and committed research or- 
ganizations or agencies, and benefits to 
the overall coastal zone management 
program. 

(4) Description of proposed manage- 
ment techniques, including the manage- 
ment agency and proposed budget — in- 
cluding both State and Federal shares. 

(5) Description of planned or antici- 
pated land and water use and controls 
for contiguous lands surrounding the 
proposed sanctuary (including, if appro- 
priate, an analysis of the desirability of 
creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent 
areas) . 

(6) Assessment of the environmental, 
and socio-economic impacts of declaring 
the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- 
ing the economic impact on the sur- 
rounding community and its tax base. 

(7) Discussion, including cost and 
feasibility of alternative methods for ac- 
quisition and protection of the area. 

§ 921.13 Application for operation 
grants. 

(a) Although an acquisition grant ap- 
plication for creation of an estuarine 
sanctuary should include initial opera- 
tion costs, subsequent applications may 
be submitted following acquisition and 
establishment of an estuarine sanctuary 
for additional operational funds. As in- 
dicated in 5 921.11. these costs may in- 
clude administrative costs necessary to 
monitor the sanctuary and to protect the 
integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive 
management programs, capital expenses, 
or research will not normally be funded 
by section 315 grants. 

(b) After the creation of an estuarine 
sanctuary established under this pro- 
gram, applications (Form SF 424) for 
Federal assistance (non-construction 
program), for such operational grants 
should include at least the following in- 
formation : 

(1) Identification of the boundary 
(map) . 

(2) Specifications of the research and 
management programs, including man- 
aging agency and techniques. 

(3) Detailed budget. 

(4) Discussion of recent and projected 
use of the sanctuary. 

(5) Perceived threats to the Integrity 
of the sanctuary. 

§ 921.14 Federally-owned lands. 

(a) Where Federally-owned lands are 
a part of or adjacent to the area proposed 
for designation as an estuarine sanc- 
tuary, or where the control of land and 
water uses on such lands is necessary to 
protect the natural system within the 
sanctuary, the State should contact the 
Federal agency maintaining control of 
the land to request cooperation in provid- 
ing coordinated management policies. 
Such lands and State request, and the 
Federal agency response, should be iden- 
tified and conveyed to the Office of 
Coastal Zone Management. 

(b) Where such proposed use or con- 
trol of Federally -owned lands, would not 



conflict with the Federal use of their 
lands, such cooperation and coordination 
is encouraged to the maximum extent 
feasible. 

(c) Section 315 grants may not be 
awarded to Federally-owned lands; how- 
ever, a similar status may be provided on 
a voluntary basis for Federally-owned 
lands under the provisions of the Federal 
Committee on Ecological Perserves 
program. 

§ 921.20 [Amended] 

(4) Subpart C — Selection Criteria — is 
amended by changing the first sentence 
in 3 921.20 to read: '•Applications for 
preliminary acquisition or land acquisi- 
tion grants to establish estuarine sanc- 
tuaries will be reviewed and judged on 
criteria including: " 

(5) Section 921.21 is revised, as fol- 
lows: 

§ 921.21 Public participation. 

(a) Public participation in the selec- 
tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re- 
quired. In the selection process, the se- 
lecting entity (see § 921.10) shall seek 
the views of possibly affected landown- 
ers, local governments, and Federal 
agencies, and shall seek the views of pos- 
sibly interested other parties and orga- 
nizations. The latter would include, but 
need not be limited to, private citizens 
and business, social, and environmental 
organizations in the area of the site be- 
ing considered for selection. This solici- 
tation of views may be accomplished by 
whatever means the selecting entity 
deems appropriate, but shall include at 
least one public hearing in the area. No- 
tice of such hearing shall include infor- 
mation as to the time, place, and subject 
matter, and shall be published in the 
principal area media. The hearing shall 
be held no sooner than 15 days follow- 
ing the publication of notice. 

(b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man- 
agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft 
and final environmental impact state- 
ments pertaining to the site finally se- 
lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol- 
lowing public participation in the selec- 
tion of that site, and shall distribute 
these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a 
public hearing in the area of such site at 
which both the draft environmental im- 
pact statement (DEIS) and the merits 
of the site selection may be addressed by 
those in attendance. OCZM shall hold 
such a hearing if: (1) In its view, the 
DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there ap- 
pears to be a need for further informing 
the public with regard to either the DEIS 
or one or more aspects of the site se- 
lected, or (3) if such a hearing is re- 
quested in writing (to either the select- 
ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in- 
terested party, or (4) for other good 
cause. If held, such hearing shall be held 
no sooner than 30 days fallowing the is- 
suance of the DEIS and no sooner than 
15 days after appropriate notice of such 
hearing has been given In the area by 
OCZM with the assistance of the select- 
ing entity. 

[FR Doc.77-fiai23 Flle<i»-B-77;3:45 am J 



rtCEXAl lEGISTE*, VCH. 42, NO. 175 — FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977 




PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 

IIIIIIIIIHI 



I 



I