DOCSLIB.ORG

Stewart B. Mckinney National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stewart B. Mckinney National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment Spatial Fire Management Plan August 2016 Photo Credit: Meghan Powell/USFWS Environmental Assessment Spatial Fire Management Plan August 2016 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge Connecticut The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations. Recommended citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Environmental Assessment: Spatial Fire Management Plan for Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Connecticut. August 2016. TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND NEED Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................ 2 Project Area .......................................................................................................... 5 Impact Topics........................................................................................................ 8 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Fire and Fuels Management ............................................................................... 11 Prioritization of Treatments ................................................................................. 12 Preliminary Alternatives Considered ................................................................... 12 Alternatives Analyzed ......................................................................................... 14 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .............................. 24 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Methodology for Assessing Impacts ................................................................... 25 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 26 Fire Behavior and Fuels ...................................................................................... 33 Wildlife and Their Habitats .................................................................................. 39 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 51 Public Experience, Health, and Safety ................................................................ 56 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 63 CONSULTATION AND LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................... 67 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................. 68 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ 72 Fire Behavior ...................................................................................................... 74 Fire Behavior Components ................................................................................. 74 Fire Risk and Fire Hazard ................................................................................... 75 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Habitat Area by Refuge Management Unit ................................................. 7 Table 2. Summary of Preliminary Alternatives Considered ..................................... 13 Table 3. Comparison of Treatment Area by Alternative .......................................... 16 Table 4. Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 17 Table 5. Occurrence of Special Status Plant Species and Suitable Habitat by Fire Management Unit ................................................................................................... 28 Table 6. Invasive Plant Control Areas in 2007 through 2013 as Compared to Target Areas in 2014 and 2015 ................................................................................................... 29 Table 7. Summary of Current Fuel Models and Fire Tolerance Codes by Fire Management Unit ................................................................................................... 34 Table 8. Adjective Class for the 40 Fuel Models ..................................................... 35 Table 9. Impacts on Each Fuel Model within the Refuge ........................................ 36 Table 10. Federally or State Listed Animal Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur on Refuge by Fire Management Unit ........................................................... 41 Table 11. Public Uses by Management Unit ........................................................... 58 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Stewart B. McKinney NWR Management Units ...................... 7 PURPOSE AND NEED INTRODUCTION The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service, FWS) requires that every area with burnable vegetation has an approved fire management plan (FMP) that describes actions to prepare for and respond to a wildfire (fire suppression); plans for and manages vegetation by management actions, including prescribed fire; and completes other fire management business in accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The Service has prepared this Spatial Fire Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (SFMP and EA) for the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located along the Long Island Sound of Connecticut to continue to protect natural and cultural resources, the public, FWS employees and facilities, and comply with Agency and policy direction. This FMP and EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended [42 United States Code (USC.) 4332(2) (C)]; the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508.9]; the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) NEPA regulations (43 CFR Part 46); and Service policies 30 AM 2-3, 550 FW 3, 602 FW 1-3, and the handbook for National Wildlife Refuges (FWS 2014). The FMP must meet agency policy and direction of the: • National Fire Plan: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDI and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2001a) • Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment and Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy (also known as the National Fire Plan) (USDI and USDA 2001b) • A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (an adjunct to the National Fire Plan 2001) (USDI and USDA 2006) • Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (February 2009) • Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009 (National Cohesive Strategy) Among other policies, the FMP must provide for firefighter and public safety while it adheres to the USDI policy (620 DM 1) by giving full consideration to the use of wildland fire as a natural process during the fire management planning process. The Service intends to use the SFMP format to plan and implement fire suppression needs for the refuge in place of the traditional narrative FMP format. This type of planning is a new concept in the United States. Spatial (also referred to as geospatial) refers to a topographically accurate representation of landscape features presented in digital or hardcopy. Fundamentally, geospatial planning moves a lot of information from text descriptions in documents to geospatial representation on maps. The products are a combination of text documents and mapsheets, with the text documents being greatly reduced in volume from the present size. The SFMP provides advantages to the managers, fire fighters, all risk responders, and planners that rely on the Purpose and Need 1 critical information that is readily accessible in any number of mapsheets, spatially viewed, with limited text to digest. A mapsheet is a collection of one or more maps, tables, and other information on a single page. The following are important reasons to use the SFMP concept: • Critical information is more easily accessible to users, management, incident teams, stakeholders, and the public. • The information is updated more easily and kept current as conditions change (for example, fuels projects completed or as wildfires occur). • There is an overall reduction in the cost and time to produce and update documents. • There is a reduced reliance on large, dense text documents that may be difficult to use and reference. • The geospatially represented information from fire management planning becomes straightforward to integrate with other evolving spatially based systems such as the Wildfire Decision Support System and National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System (NFPORS). The planning effort will take significant core data from the FWS databases and geographic information systems to create geospatial representations in a coherent map set
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Save the Sound (“CFE/Save the Sound”) Work to Protect and Improve the Land, Air, and Water of Connecticut and Long Island Sound
    Meghan Quinn LIS DMMP/PEIS Project Manager Corps of Engineers, New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 October 16, 2015 Re: Dredge Material Management Plan Dear Ms. Quinn: Connecticut Fund for the Environment and its bi-state program Save the Sound (“CFE/Save the Sound”) work to protect and improve the land, air, and water of Connecticut and Long Island Sound. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Dredge Material Management Plan (“DMMP”) for Long Island Sound. While many agree that dredging is frequently the best means of maintaining safe channels for navigation, accessible marinas for recreation, and open ports for commerce, the material that results from this effort is often seen as a by-product to be discarded rather than a resource to be harnessed. CFE/Save the Sound supports the beneficial re-uses identified in the DMMP, particularly as a resource for habitat restoration and coastal resiliency projects. While the DMMP began the process of evaluating the wide array of beneficial re-use options, it stops far short of being a “comprehensive planning process and decision making tool.”1 Furthermore it fails to provide a sufficient path to significantly “reduce or eliminate the disposal of dredge materials in Long Island Sound,”2 the goal agreed upon by New York and Connecticut. CFE/Save the Sound has three key comments: 1) beneficial re-use is a real opportunity that requires additional assessment, project identification, and project coordination through the DMMP; 2) any economic analysis used to determine the “feasibility,” “practicability,” or “viability” of any project, must also include the environmental cost of using the Sound as a disposal facility to fairly reflect the true cost of disposal; and 3) additional information on the impact of disturbing, transporting, and disposing of nitrogen rich soils must be developed, analyzed, and monitored.
    [Show full text]
  • With MUNICIPAL COASTAL PROGRAM
    I I ,I I with MUNICIPAL COASTAL PROGRAM... WESTBROOK CONNECTICUT ( ... ( / ~..; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Background information was supplied in part by the response to a town-wide survey, the results of which were compiled by the Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agency. Additional background information was supplied by information reported and compiled by CRERPA and various town and state agencies. The Planning Commission wishes to acknowledge the work of Ms. Jenny Aley in drafting maps and information on open space and national resource protection. The natural resource factor maps and base property line maps are invaluable planning tools which can be used by all boards, departments, and citizens of the Town of Westbrook. Ms. Aley is a graduate of the Yale School of Forestry. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Preface A. What a Plan of Development Is ................................................................................1 B. Municipal Coastal Program.......................................................................................1 C. Overview of Goals.....................................................................................................2 II. People and Place, Background of the Plan of Development A. History............................................................................... .......................................4 B. Geography ...................................... .................................. .......................................5 C. Population and Housing ............................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A-Water Quality-Town Of
    Appendix A Water Quality – Town of Greenwich Town of Greenwich Drainage Manual February 2012 [This page left intentionally blank] Impaired Water Bodies – Town of Greenwich Water Body Impaired Segment Location Cause Potential Source Segment Designated Use Size From mouth at Greenwich Harbor (just downstream [DS] of I95 crossing, at exit Habitat for Fish, Horseneck 5.78 3 offramp), US to Putnam Lake Other Aquatic Cause Unknown Source Unknown Brook-01 Miles Reservoir outlet dam (just upstream [US] Life and Wildlife of Dewart Road crossing) From head of tide (US of Route 1 Habitat for Fish, Sources Outside State Jurisdiction or Borders, Source crossing, at INLET to ponded portion of Other Aquatic Cause Unknown Unknown, Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff (Non- Byram River- river, just DS of Upland Street East 0.49 Life and Wildlife construction Related) 01 area), US to Pemberwick outlet dam (US Miles Illicit Connections/Hook-ups to Storm Sewers, Source of Comly Avenue crossing, and US of Recreation Escherichia coli Unknown confluence with Pemberwick Brook Putnam Lake Habitat for Fish, Impoundment of Horseneck Brook, just 95.56 Alterations in wetland Reservoir Other Aquatic Habitat Modification - other than Hydromodification south of Rt. 15 Acres habitats (Greenwich) Life and Wildlife Western portion of LIS, Inner Estuary, Dissolved oxygen LIS WB Inner - upper Indian Harbor (lower portion of Habitat for 0.025 saturation; Nutrient/ Residential Districts, Municipal Point Source Indian Harbor Greenwich Creek) from Davis Avenue Marine Fish, Square Eutrophication Discharges, Non-Point Source, Unspecified Urban (upper), crossing, US to saltwater limit at West Other Aquatic Miles Biological Indicators; Stormwater Greenwich Brother Drive crossing (includes I95 Life and Wildlife Oxygen, Dissolved crossing).
    [Show full text]
  • Sec. 15-121-C1. Transportation of Hazardous Substances In
    Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Sec. 15-121-C1. Transportation of hazardous substances in Connecticut waters (a) No vessel, regardless of tonnage size, or manner of propulsion, and whether self- propelled or not, transporting oil or other hazardous substance in bulk shall navigate in Connecticut waters in Long Island Sound north of a “Shore Clearance Line” except when, in the judgment of the master, the safety of the vessel, cargo or crew would be jeopardized and except further that a course not less than sixty degrees north of the Shore Clearance Line may be taken when making an approach to the channel entrance at a port of call or in departing from same and except further that a vessel may navigate north of the Shore Clearance Line at Long Sand Shoal when making an approach to the Connecticut River. (b) Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredge spoil; hazardous substance means any liquid cargo which is inflammable or combustible or which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon the waters of Connecticut causes or is likely to cause significant damage to the environmental resources of Connecticut, including but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches; Shore Clearance Line means a series of straight lines connecting sequentially the following navigation aids as numbered and described in Coast Guard Light List (CG-158) Volume I, Atlantic Coast (1972): Number Description Nearest Locality 981 Parsonage Point Lighted Buoy 40 Mamaroneck, N.Y 976 The Cows Lighted Bell Buoy 32 Stamford, Conn.
    [Show full text]
  • A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C
    !n !n S c Skunk Pond Beaver Brook Davidge Brook e d d k h P O H R R O F p S o i d t n n l c t u i l R a T S d o i ll l t e e lv i d o t R r r d r l h t l l a H r n l t r M b a s b R d H e G L R o r re R B C o o u l e t p o n D o e f L i s Weston Intermediate School y l o s L d r t e Huckleberry Hills Brook e t d W d r e g Upper Stony Brook Pond N L D g i b R o s n Ridgefield Pond a t v d id e g e H r i l Country Club Pond b e a R d r r S n n d a g e L o n tin a d ! R d l H B n t x H e W Still Pond d t n Comstock Knoll u d a R S o C R k R e L H d i p d S n a l l F tt h Town Pond d l T te r D o e t l e s a t u e L e c P n n b a n l R g n i L t m fo D b k H r it to Lower Stony Brook Pond o r A d t P n d s H t F u d g L d d i Harrisons Brook R h e k t R r a e R m D l S S e e G E o n y r f ll H rt R r b i i o e n s l t ld d d o r l ib l a e r R d L r O e H w i Fanton Hill g r l Cider Mill School P y R n a ll F i e s w L R y 136 e a B i M e C H k A s t n d o i S d V l n 3 c k r l t g n n a d R i u g d o r a L 3 ! a l r u p d R d e c L S o s e Hurlbutt Elementary School R d n n d D A i K w T n d o O n D t f R l g d R l t ad L i r e R e e r n d L a S i m a o f g n n n D d n R o t h n Middlebrook School ! l n t w Lo t a 33 i n l n i r E id d D w l i o o W l r N e S a d l e P g n V n a h L C r L o N a r N a S e n e t l e b n l e C s h f ! d L nd g o a F i i M e l k rie r id F C a F r w n P t e r C ld l O e r a l y v f e u e o O n e o a P i O i s R w e t n a e l a n T t b s l d l N l k n t g i d u o e a o R W R Hasen Pond n r r n M W B y t Strong
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Populations of Terns and Skimmers on Long Island Sound and Eastern Long Island: 1972-19751
    1974-1977 No. 73 PROCEEDINGS OF THE LINNA A SOCIETY OF NEW YORK For the Three Years Ending March 1977 Date of Issue: August 1977 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Members who participated in editing this issue of the Proceedings were: Berry Baker, Eugene Eisenmann, John Farrand, Jr., and Mary LeCroy. The Committee wishes to thank Alice Oliveri for typing manuscripts. Catherine Pessino, Editor Breeding Populations of Terns and Skimmers on Long Island Sound and Eastern Long Island: 1972-19751 DAVID DUFFY By 1972, it had become apparent to many working on colonial sea­ birds that the nesting terns and skimmers of Long Island were being increasingly exposed to a broad spectrum of pressures that might be causing severe changes in their populations. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) had been implicated in birth deformities of Common and Roseate Terns (Sterna hirundo and S. dougallii; Hays and Risebrough 1972). Mercury had been linked to feather loss in young terns (Gochfeld 1971). Egg shell thinning had been noted at several colonies in the area (Hays, pers. com.; pers. obs.); such thinning is believed to be caused by deriva­ tives of DDT (Wiemeyer and Porter 1970; Peakall 1970). Further pressure on tern populations had come from invasions of nesting sites by rats, development of recreational beaches, human harassment, and natural suc­ cession rendering colony sites unfit for nesting. For all of these factors there were only scattered and often anecdotal accounts of acute situations. What, if any, long-term effect there might be for the tern populations was unknown. Were Common and Roseate Terns holding their own? Or were they, instead, retreating to a few, safe colonies as their populations declined? Little as we knew of Commons and Rose­ ates, we knew even less of what was happening to Least Terns (Sterna albifrons) and Black Skimmers (Rynchops niger).
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 CT IWQR Appendix
    1 Appendix A-3. Connecticut 305b Assessment Results for Estuaries Connecticut 2018 305b Assessment Results Estuaries Appendix A-3 Waterbody Waterbody Square Segment ID Name Location Miles Aquatic Life Recreation Shellfish Shellfish Class See Map for Boundaries. Central portion of LIS, LIS CB Inner - Inner Estuary, Patchogue and Menunketesuck Rivers Patchogue And from mouths at Grove Beach Point, US to saltwater Menunketesuc limits just above I95 crossing, and at I95 crossing NOT Direct CT-C1_001 k Rivers respectively, Westbrook. 0.182 UNASSESSED UNASSESSED SUPPORTING Consumption See Map for Boundaries. Central portion of LIS, LIS CB Inner - Inner Estuary, SB water of inner Clinton Harbor, Inner Clinton including mouths of Hammonasset, Indian, Harbor, Hammock Rivers, and Dudley Creek (includes NOT FULLY Commercial CT-C1_002-SB Clinton Esposito Beach), Clinton. 0.372 SUPPORTING UNASSESSED SUPPORTING Harvesting See Map for Boundaries. Central portion of LIS, Inner Estuary, Hammonasset River SB water from LIS CB Inner - mouth at inner Clinton Harbor, US to SA/SB water Hammonasset quality line between Currycross Road and RR track, NOT Commercial CT-C1_003-SB River, Clinton Clinton. 0.072 UNASSESSED UNASSESSED SUPPORTING Harvesting 2 See Map for Boundaries. Central portion of LIS, Inner Estuary, Hayden Creek SB water from mouth LIS CB Inner - at Hammonasset River (parallel with Pratt Road), US Hayden Creek, to saltwater limit near Maple Avenue (off Route 1), NOT Commercial CT-C1_004-SB Clinton Clinton. 0.009 UNASSESSED UNASSESSED SUPPORTING Harvesting See Map for Boundaries. Central portion of LIS, Inner Estuary, (DISCONTINUOUS SEGMENT) SA LIS CB Inner - water of upper Hammonasset, Indian, Hammock Clinton Harbor Rivers, Dudley Creek and other small tributaries, (SA Inputs), from SA/SB water quality line, US to saltwater NOT Direct CT-C1_005 Clinton limits, Clinton.
    [Show full text]
  • Stewart B. Mckinney National Wildlife Refuge ©Photos by Susan, Susan Drew Roseate Tern
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge ©Photos By Susan, Susan Drew Roseate tern Represented by Members of Congress: Purpose U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D) The refuge was established as a 1 800/344 WILD Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D) breeding ground for migratory birds http://www.fws.gov Rep. Robert Simmons (R-2nd) and other wildlife, for research, and for Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-3rd) education. May 2006 Rep. Christopher Shays (R-4th) Public Use Notes Contact n Visitor contact station Andrew C. French, Project Leader n Interpretive nature trails Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge 733 Old Clinton Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Phone: 860/399 2513 Fax: 860/399 2515 Highlights and Potapaug Audubon Society jointly TDD: 800/877 8339 The refuge established two new units, produced a brochure detailing projects E-mail: [email protected] Menunketesuck Island (4.6 acres) and and volunteer opportunities. The Peach Island (2.6 acres) and added refuge has $47,000 available to begin The refuge is administratively complexed another 16 acres to the Salt Meadow making improvements outlined in the under Silvio O. Conte National Fish and unit. new public access concept. Wildlife Refuge. The refuge will host a Youth The Falkner Island unit supports Management Activities Conservation Corps program in the one of the last colonies of federally n Provide technical and financial Stratford and Bridgeport area. endangered roseate terns and 97% support through the Partners for of nesting common terns in the state. Fish and Wildlife Program to help Removing about 160,000 cubic yards The refuge has $150,000 available landowners protect wetland of fill reclaimed over 42 acres of salt to rehabilitate the jetty, pier and habitat in Connecticut marsh and restored the natural tidal boathouse.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 MARINE FISHERIES INFORMATION CIRCULAR Connecticut Commercial and Recreational Fishing
    Connecticut Department of ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2021 MARINE FISHERIES INFORMATION CIRCULAR Connecticut Commercial and Recreational Fishing INTRODUCTION IMPORTANT NOTE: CHANGES MAY BE MADE DURING THE YEAR THAT WON’T BE REFLECTED IN THIS CIRCULAR. Commercial fishery licensing statutes were amended in 2015 (Public Act 15-52) creating some new license types and mandating annual renewal of moratorium licenses commercial fishing vessel permits and quota managed species endorsements. PLEASE SEE Page 1 General Provisions for important details. This circular is provided to inform commercial and recreational fishermen about Connecticut statutes and regulations that govern the taking of lobsters, marine and anadromous finfish, squid, whelk (conch) and crabs using commercial fishing gear or for commercial purposes. For information pertaining to oysters, clams and bay scallops, contact local town clerks or the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Aquaculture (203-874-0696). The circular is intended to be a layman's summary. No attempt is made to employ the exact wording of statutes or regulations or to provide a complete listing of them. Interpretation or explanation of the material contained herein may be obtained from a Connecticut Environmental Conservation Police Officer, or from the following sources: DEEP Marine Fisheries Program (860-434-6043) DEEP Marine Environmental Conservation Police (860-434-9840) For legal purposes, please consult the most recent: • Commissioner Declarations at www.ct.gov/deep/FisheriesDeclarations, • Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies at https://eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal/ and • Connecticut General Statutes at http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/titles.htm. License applications and licenses are obtained by writing the DEEP Licensing and Revenue Unit, 79 Elm Street, First Floor, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, or by calling 860-424-3105.
    [Show full text]
  • LISS 3.3.Qxd
    RestoringRestoring LongLong CONNECTICUT Connecticut Quinnipiac River River IslandIsland Thames Sound’s River Sound’s Housatonic River Stonington HabitatsHabitats Old Saybrook COMPLETED RESTORATION SITES IN PROGRESS RESTORATION SITES POTENTIAL RESTORATION SITES PROJECT BOUNDARY RIVER LONG ISLAND SOUND Greenwich 2002 RESTORATION SITES Southold BLUE INDICATES COMPLETED SITE – CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROJECT IS FINISHED, BUT MONITORING MAY BE ON-GOING GREEN INDICATES IN PROGRESS SITE– SOME PHASE OF THE PROJECT IS UNDERWAY, E.G. APPLYING FOR FUNDING, DESIGN, OR CONSTRUCTION BLACK INDICATES POTENTIAL SITE – A RESTORATION PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, NO ACTION TAKEN YET MOUNT VERNON RYE BOLDFACE IN ALL COLORS INDICATES HIGH-RANKED SITES Rye Glover Field (FW) Beaver Swamp Brook (FW) Beaver Swamp Brook/Cowperwood site (FW) Brookhaven NEW ROCHELLE Blind Brook (FW) Echo Bay (TW/SR/IF/RI) Edith G. Read Wildlife Sanctuary (TW/F/EE/FW) CONNECTICUT Former Dickerman’s Pond (FW) Marshlands Conservancy (TW/F/IF) Farm River (TW) EW ORK Nature Study Woods (F/FW) Farm River tributary/Edgemere Rd. (TW) N Y Pryer Manor Marsh (TW) SMITHTOWN BRANFORD Morris Creek/Sibley Lane (TW) Callahan’s Beach (CB) Branford River STP (TW) New Haven Airport (TW) Bronx BRONX NORTH HEMPSTEAD Fresh Pond (FW/F/BD) Branford R./Christopher Rd. (TW) Nissequogue Bronx Oyster Reefs (SR) Baxter Estates Pond (FW) Harrison Pond Town Park (FW/RMC/TW/F) Branford R./St. Agnes Cemetery (TW) EAST LYME NEW YORK Bronx River mouth (TW/F/RMC) Hempstead Harbor (EE/IF/TW) Landing Avenue Town Park (TW) Branford R./Hickory Rd. (TW) Brides Brook Culvert (RMC/TW) River Bronx River Trailway (TW/FW/F/RMC) Lake Success (FW) Long Beach (BD) Branford R.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lakes Islands
    FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Biodiversity of Michigan’s Great Lakes Islands Knowledge, Threats and Protection Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist April 5, 1993 Report for: Land and Water Management Division (CZM Contract 14C-309-3) Prepared by: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 3734552 1993-10 F A report of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 309-3 BIODWERSITY OF MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS Knowledge, Threats and Protection by Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist Prepared by Michigan Natural Features Inventory Fifth floor, Mason Building P.O. Box 30023 Lansing, Michigan 48909 April 5, 1993 for Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division Coastal Zone Management Program Contract # 14C-309-3 CL] = CD C] t2 CL] C] CL] CD = C = CZJ C] C] C] C] C] C] .TABLE Of CONThNTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4 Geology and post-glacial history 4 Size, isolation, and climate 6 Human history 7 BIODWERSITY OF THE ISLANDS 8 Rare animals 8 Waterfowl values 8 Other birds and fish 9 Unique plants 10 Shoreline natural communities 10 Threatened, endangered, and exemplary natural features 10 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS 13 Island research values 13 Examples of biological research on islands 13 Moose 13 Wolves 14 Deer 14 Colonial nesting waterbirds 14 Island biogeography studies 15 Predator-prey
    [Show full text]
  • THE 2000 FALKNER ISLAND TERN PROJECT REPORT Jeffrey A
    }' ~USGS science for a.changing world THE 2000 FALKNER ISLAND TERN PROJECT REPORT Jeffrey A. Spendelow USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) 11510 American Holly Drive. Laurel, MD 20708-4017 USA · 3 February 2001 Pre-season Preparations and Spring Work Weekend · U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Manager Bill Kolodnicki. and NWR staff Kevin Allen. Jennifer Brown, Patrick Comins, and Deb Trantor visited Falkner Island on 2~ April (4-20) to assess the overwinter damage and survey the island for waterfowl nests. They also boated past Goose Island where they saw both a Harbor Seal and a Gray Seal. Falkner Island Tern Project (FITP) Director Jeff Spendelow and PWRC Biological Technician Peter Osenton arrived in Guilford on 4-26, but didn't make it out until the next day to begin pre-season preparations, put a new line across the harbor, clear net lanes, and set up some nets. UMass/Amherst M.Sc. student Corey Grinnell joined us that night. The next morning we did some banding, set up the 2m-X-2m grid on the north end gravel spit, _remarked the baseline for the beach plots~ finished taking tires and nestboxes out of storage, and placed the boxes on the beach for the habitat enhancement project. Bill Kolodnicki, Kevin Allen and Pam Denmon brought five volunteers out on 4-29 to help move the tires to the spit, set them in place. and load them with gravel, and Jeff,,-Peter. and Corey flagged the top plots that evening. A calm dawn allowed some netting, but increasing winds on 4-30 forced our departure before finishing the nestboxes and beach plot system.
    [Show full text]