New York City Audubon Harbor Herons Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Snowy Egret Egretta Thula
Wyoming Species Account Snowy Egret Egretta thula REGULATORY STATUS USFWS: Migratory Bird USFS R2: No special status USFS R4: No special status Wyoming BLM: No special status State of Wyoming: Protected Bird CONSERVATION RANKS USFWS: No special status WGFD: NSS3 (Bb), Tier II WYNDD: G5, S1S2 Wyoming Contribution: LOW IUCN: Least Concern PIF Continental Concern Score: Not ranked STATUS AND RANK COMMENTS The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database has assigned Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) a state conservation rank ranging from S1 (Critically Imperiled) to S2 (Imperiled) because of uncertainty about population trends for this species in Wyoming. NATURAL HISTORY Taxonomy: There are currently two recognized subspecies of Snowy Egret, which are weakly distinguished by minor size differences: E. t. thula breeds in eastern North America, the Greater Antilles, and throughout South America, while E. t. brewsteri breeds in western North America west of the Rocky Mountains 1, 2. Both subspecies are likely found in Wyoming 3, but this has not been confirmed. Description: Identification of Snowy Egret is possible in the field. It is a medium heron; adults weigh approximately 370 g, range in length from 56–66 cm, and have wingspans of approximately 100 cm 1. Males are slightly larger, but the sexes are otherwise similar in appearance 1. Breeding adults have uniform white plumage with long plumes of delicate feathers on the nape, breast, and lower back that are used in courtship displays; a long S-curved neck; yellow eyes; bright lores that range from dark yellow to red; a long black bill; long black legs; and dark yellow or orange feet 1, 4. -
SNOWY EGRET Egretta Thula Non-Breeding Visitor, Vagrant Monotypic
SNOWY EGRET Egretta thula non-breeding visitor, vagrant monotypic Snowy Egrets breed in most of the contiguous United States and throughout Central and South America (AOU 1998). In the post-breeding season some wander irregularly north to S Canada and SE Alaska, and then withdraw to winter in the s. U.S. and southward. In the Pacific, vagrants have reached Clipperton, the Galapagos, and the Revilligedos Is (Howell et al. 1993, AOU 1998) as well as the Hawaiian Islands (Scott et al. 1983, Pratt et al.1987), where there are four confirmed records. Snowy Egrets and other small white herons and egrets were virtually unknown in the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1950, likely related to decreased source populations resulting from plume hunting during the first third of the century. Several small egrets observed during the mid-1970s through the early 1980s were reported as Snowy Egrets, but Scott et al. (1983) described the similarity in soft-part colors between Snowy Egret and Little Egret of Eurasia, and emphasized the difficulty in separating these in the field (see also AB 36:221). They concluded that an individual reported from Mohouli Pond , Hilo, Hawai'i 15-20 Jan 1975 (E 37:151, 43:79) and 1-2 at Kanaha Pond 5 Dec 1980-7 Apr 1981 were only identifiable as Snowy/Little egrets (cf. Pyle 1977), but that one on O'ahu in 1980 with nuptial plumes (see below) could be confirmed as a Snowy Egret. They also concluded Snowy Egret was more likely than Little Egret to reach Hawaii, since most migrants and vagrants to the Southeastern Islands are North American in origin; however, several observations in 1982-1990 were thought possibly to be Little Egrets. -
US Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan Conservation Seabird Pacific Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region 120 0’0"E 140 0’0"E 160 0’0"E 180 0’0" 160 0’0"W 140 0’0"W 120 0’0"W 100 0’0"W RUSSIA CANADA 0’0"N 0’0"N 50 50 WA CHINA US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region OR ID AN NV JAP CA H A 0’0"N I W 0’0"N 30 S A 30 N L I ort I Main Hawaiian Islands Commonwealth of the hwe A stern A (see inset below) Northern Mariana Islands Haw N aiian Isla D N nds S P a c i f i c Wake Atoll S ND ANA O c e a n LA RI IS Johnston Atoll MA Guam L I 0’0"N 0’0"N N 10 10 Kingman Reef E Palmyra Atoll I S 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W L Howland Island Equator A M a i n H a w a i i a n I s l a n d s Baker Island Jarvis N P H O E N I X D IN D Island Kauai S 0’0"N ONE 0’0"N I S L A N D S 22 SI 22 A PAPUA NEW Niihau Oahu GUINEA Molokai Maui 0’0"S Lanai 0’0"S 10 AMERICAN P a c i f i c 10 Kahoolawe SAMOA O c e a n Hawaii 0’0"N 0’0"N 20 FIJI 20 AUSTRALIA 0 200 Miles 0 2,000 ES - OTS/FR Miles September 2003 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W (800) 244-WILD http://www.fws.gov Information U.S. -
Sterna Hirundo)
Vol. 1931XLVIII1 j JACKSONANDALLAN, C0•/gat/• ofTer•. 17 EXPERIMENT IN THE KECOLONIZATION OF THE COMMON TERN • (STERNA HIRUNDO). BY C. F. JACKSON AND PHILIP F. ALLAN. DURINGthe summerof 1929an attemptwas made at the Marine ZoologicalLaboratory at the Islesof Shoalsto establisha colony of Terns (Sternahitundo) on North Head of AppledoreIsland. This colonization was tried because of the threatened destruction of the colonyon Londoner'sIsland. The first recordsof a colonyof thesebirds at the Shoalscome from two of the oldest inhabitants. "Uncle" Oscar Leighton, ninety-oneyears of age, recalls a colony on Duck Island where thousandsof "mackerelgulls" nestedyearly. In his boyhood the fishermenused to collectthe eggsfor food,and the men and youthsshot the adults for the feathers. This colonypersisted until 1898 when "Captain" Caswellmoved to Duck Island. As a resultof this disturbance,the colonymigrated "down the Maine Coast" and settledon variousislands. In 1922a few pairsstarted nestingon Londoner'sIsland. This new colonyincreased rapidly and duringthe summerof 1928approximately one thousandpairs were breeding on the island. The year after the establishmentof the colony,a cottagewas erectedon the'island. The cottage,however, was not occupied to any extent until the summerof 1927. At this time the island wassold and the newowner, not desiringthe presenceof the birds, set aboutto drive them from the island. The eggswere destroyed, the youngwere killed, and the adultskept in a state of constant confusion. During the summerof 1929 large numbersof eggs were broken,and numerousyoung were killed. A dog was kept rovingthe islandand nosedout and killed many of the fledglings, and a flockof hensdestroyed great numbers of eggs. Althoughthe situationwas unfortunate, the ownerwas evidently well within his rightsin destroyingthe birdson his own property. -
New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan
NEW YORK CITY CoMPREHENSWE WATERFRONT PLAN Reclaiming the City's Edge For Public Discussion Summer 1992 DAVID N. DINKINS, Mayor City of New lVrk RICHARD L. SCHAFFER, Director Department of City Planning NYC DCP 92-27 NEW YORK CITY COMPREHENSIVE WATERFRONT PLAN CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMA RY 1 INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE COURSE 1 2 PLANNING FRA MEWORK 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5 LEGAL CONTEXT 7 REGULATORY CONTEXT 10 3 THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 17 WATERFRONT RESOURCES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 17 Wetlands 18 Significant Coastal Habitats 21 Beaches and Coastal Erosion Areas 22 Water Quality 26 THE PLAN FOR THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 33 Citywide Strategy 33 Special Natural Waterfront Areas 35 4 THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 51 THE EXISTING PUBLIC WATERFRONT 52 THE ACCESSIBLE WATERFRONT: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 63 THE PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 70 Regulatory Strategy 70 Public Access Opportunities 71 5 THE WORKING WATERFRONT 83 HISTORY 83 THE WORKING WATERFRONT TODAY 85 WORKING WATERFRONT ISSUES 101 THE PLAN FOR THE WORKING WATERFRONT 106 Designation Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas 107 JFK and LaGuardia Airport Areas 114 Citywide Strategy fo r the Wo rking Waterfront 115 6 THE REDEVELOPING WATER FRONT 119 THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT TODAY 119 THE IMPORTANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT 122 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 125 REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 127 THE PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT 128 7 WATER FRONT ZONING PROPOSAL 145 WATERFRONT AREA 146 ZONING LOTS 147 CALCULATING FLOOR AREA ON WATERFRONTAGE loTS 148 DEFINITION OF WATER DEPENDENT & WATERFRONT ENHANCING USES -
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River
Bonneville Power Administration, USACE – Portland District, USACE – Walla Walla District, and Grant County Public Utility District Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report 1 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report This 2013 Draft Annual Report has been prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Grant County Public Utility District for the purpose of assessing project accomplishments. This report is not for citation without permission of the authors. Daniel D. Roby, Principal Investigator U.S. Geological Survey ‐ Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐737‐1955 Ken Collis, Co‐Principal Investigator Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐382‐3836 Donald Lyons, Jessica Adkins, Yasuko Suzuki, Peter Loschl, Timothy Lawes, Kirsten Bixler, Adam Peck‐Richardson, Allison Patterson, Stefanie Collar, Alexa Piggott, Helen Davis, Jen Mannas, Anna Laws, John Mulligan, Kelly Young, Pam Kostka, Nate Banet, Ethan Schniedermeyer, Amy Wilson, and Allison Mohoric Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 2 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Allen Evans, Bradley Cramer, Mike Hawbecker, Nathan Hostetter, and Aaron Turecek Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Ave. Bend, Oregon 97702 Jen Zamon NOAA Fisheries – Pt. -
Courtship and Pair Formation in the Great Egret
COURTSHIP AND PAIR FORMATION IN THE GREAT EGRET Joca• H. Wt•s• THv. reproductivebehavior of the Ardeidaehas receivedconsiderable attention (Verwey 1930; Meanley 1955; Cottrille and Cottrille 1958; Meyerriecks1960 and in Palmer 1962; Baerendsand Van Der Cingel 1962; Blaker 1969a, 1969b; Lancaster 1970). Although Meyerriecks (in Palmer 1962) summarizedthe behavior and McCrimmon (1974) described two sexual displays in detail, the reproductive behavior of the Great Egret (Casmerodiusalbus egretta) remainsessentially unknown. This paper describescourtship and pair formationin this little studied species. STLTD¾AREAS AND METIIODS Most of the observations were made at Avery Island, Iberia Parish, Louisiana, 91ø 30' W, 29ø 30• N. Great Egrets nested on five bamboo platforms (ranging from 4 by 20 m to 7 by 35 m, approximate]y) 2 m above the water surface in "Bird City," a 5-ha freshwater pond in the center of the island. Short lengths of bamboo twigs were provided for nest material. The five bamboo platforms supported 430 •-• 15 nesting pairs of Great Egrets in 1974. This number represented a drastic decline from previous years (E. M. Simmons, pets. comm.) and coincidedwith the establishmentof a second heronry 1 km southeast of Bird City. Additional observationswere made at Headquarter Pond, St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, and Smith Island, Wakulla County, Florida, 84ø 10' W, and 84ø 19• W, 30ø 05' N, and 30ø 03' N, respectively. At Headquarter Pond Great Egrets nested in willows growing in open water more than 0.6 m in depth. The number of nesting egretsdecreased from 38 pairs in 1971 to 9 pairs in 1972 (see below). -
Effects of Nest Characteristics and Black Rat Rattus Rattus Predation on Daily Survival Rates of Great Egret Ardea Alba Nest
Effects of nest characteristics and black rat Rattus rattus predation on daily survival rates of great egret Ardea alba nests in mangrove forest in the Hara Biosphere Reserve, the Persian Gulf Authors: Elnaz Neinavaz, Ahmad Barati, Jessi L. Brown, Farzaneh Etezadifar, and Besat Emami Source: Wildlife Biology, 19(3) : 240-247 Published By: Nordic Board for Wildlife Research URL: https://doi.org/10.2981/12-087 BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use. Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Wildlife-Biology on 04 Apr 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Wildl. Biol. 19: 240-247 (2013) Original article DOI: 10.2981/12-087 Ó Wildlife Biology, NKV www.wildlifebiology.com Effects of nest characteristics and black rat Rattus rattus predation on daily survival rates of great egret Ardea alba nests in mangrove forest in the Hara Biosphere Reserve, the Persian Gulf Elnaz Neinavaz, Ahmad Barati, Jessi L. -
Great Egret Ardea Alba
Great Egret Ardea alba Joe Kosack/PGC Photo CURRENT STATUS: In Pennsylvania, the great egret is listed state endangered and protected under the Game and Wildlife Code. Nationally, they are not listed as an endangered/threatened species. All migra- tory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. POPULATION TREND: The Pennsylvania Game Commission counts active great egret (Ardea alba) nests in every known colony in the state every year to track changes in population size. Since 2009, only two nesting locations have been active in Pennsylvania: Kiwanis Lake, York County (fewer than 10 pairs) and the Susquehanna River’s Wade Island, Dauphin County (fewer than 200 pairs). Both sites are Penn- sylvania Audubon Important Bird Areas. Great egrets abandoned other colonies along the lower Susque- hanna River in Lancaster County in 1988 and along the Delaware River in Philadelphia County in 1991. Wade Island has been surveyed annually since 1985. The egret population there has slowly increased since 1985, with a high count of 197 nests in 2009. The 10-year average count from 2005 to 2014 was 159 nests. First listed as a state threatened species in 1990, the great egret was downgraded to endan- gered in 1999. IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS: Great egrets are almost the size of a great blue heron (Ardea herodias), but white rather than gray-blue. From bill to tail tip, adults are about 40 inches long. The wingspan is 55 inches. The plumage is white, bill yellowish, and legs and feet black. Commonly confused species include cattle egret (Bubulus ibis), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and juvenile little blue herons (Egretta caerulea); however these species are smaller and do not nest regularly in the state. -
To Download Three Wonder Walks
Three Wonder Walks (After the High Line) Featuring Walking Routes, Collections and Notes by Matthew Jensen Three Wonder Walks (After the High Line) The High Line has proven that you can create a des- tination around the act of walking. The park provides a museum-like setting where plants and flowers are intensely celebrated. Walking on the High Line is part of a memorable adventure for so many visitors to New York City. It is not, however, a place where you can wander: you can go forward and back, enter and exit, sit and stand (off to the side). Almost everything within view is carefully planned and immaculately cultivated. The only exception to that rule is in the Western Rail Yards section, or “W.R.Y.” for short, where two stretch- es of “original” green remain steadfast holdouts. It is here—along rusty tracks running over rotting wooden railroad ties, braced by white marble riprap—where a persistent growth of naturally occurring flora can be found. Wild cherry, various types of apple, tiny junipers, bittersweet, Queen Anne’s lace, goldenrod, mullein, Indian hemp, and dozens of wildflowers, grasses, and mosses have all made a home for them- selves. I believe they have squatters’ rights and should be allowed to stay. Their persistence created a green corridor out of an abandoned railway in the first place. I find the terrain intensely familiar and repre- sentative of the kinds of landscapes that can be found when wandering down footpaths that start where streets and sidewalks end. This guide presents three similarly wild landscapes at the beautiful fringes of New York City: places with big skies, ocean views, abun- dant nature, many footpaths, and colorful histories. -
About Fresh Kills
INTERNATIONAL DESIGN COMPETITION : 2001 ABOUT FRESH KILLS Fresh Kills Landfill is located on the western shore of Staten Island. Approximately half the 2,200-acre landfill is composed of four mounds, or sections, identified as 1/9, 2/8, 3/4 and 6/7 which range in height from 90 feet to approximately 225 feet. These mounds are the result of more than 50 years of landfilling, primarily household waste. Two of the four mounds are fully capped and closed; the other two are being prepared for final capping and closure. Fresh Kills is a highly engineered site, with numerous systems put in place to protect public health and environmental safety. However, roughly half the site has never been filled with garbage or was filled more than twenty years ago. These flatter areas and open waterways host everything from landfill infrastructure and roadways to intact wetlands and wildlife habitats. The potential exists for these areas, and eventually, the mounds themselves, to support broader and more active uses. With effective preparation now, the city can, over time, transform this controversial site into an important asset for Staten Island, the city and the region. Before dumping began, Fresh Kills Landfill was much like the rest of northwest Staten Island. That is, most of the landfill was a salt or intertidal marsh. The topography was low-lying, with a subsoil of clay and soils of sand and silt. The remainder of the area was originally farmland, either actively farmed, or abandoned and in stages of succession. Although Fresh Kills Landfill is not a wholly natural environment, the site has developed its own unique ecology. -
New York City Audubon's Harbor Herons Project: 2018 Nesting Survey
NEW YORK CITY AUDUBON’S HARBOR HERONS PROJECT: 2018 NESTING SURVEY REPORT 11 December 2018 Prepared for: New York City Audubon Kathryn Heintz, Executive Director 71 W. 23rd Street, Suite 1523 New York, NY 10010 Tel. 212-691-7483 www.nycaudubon.org Prepared by: Tod Winston, Research Assistant New York City Audubon 71 W. 23rd Street, Suite 1523 New York, NY 10010 Tel. 917-698-1892 [email protected] 1 New York City Audubon’s Conservation Programs are made possible by the leadership support of The Leon Levy Foundation. Support for the Harbor Herons Nesting Surveys comes from New York City Audubon major donor contributions, including the generosity of Elizabeth Woods and Charles Denholm, and from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This report should be cited as follows: Winston, T. 2018. New York City Audubon’s Harbor Herons Project: 2018 Nesting Survey Report. New York City Audubon, New York, NY. 2 Abstract New York City Audubon’s Harbor Herons Project Nesting Survey of the New York/New Jersey Harbor and surrounding waterways was conducted between 15 May and 26 June 2018. This report principally summarizes long-legged wading bird, cormorant, and gull nesting activity observed on selected harbor islands, and also includes surveys of selected mainland sites and aids to navigation. Seven species of long-legged wading birds were observed nesting on eight of fifteen islands surveyed, on Governors Island, and at several mainland sites, while one additional species was confirmed as nesting exclusively at a mainland site. Surveyed wading bird species, hereafter collectively referred to as waders, included (in order of decreasing abundance) Black-crowned Night-Heron, Great Egret, Snowy Egret, Glossy Ibis, Yellow-crowned Night-Heron, Little Blue Heron, Tricolored Heron, and Great Blue Heron.