Ecological Profile of the Hudson River National Estuarine ... · Ecological Profile of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve David J. Yozzo 1 Jessica L. Andersen 1

Ecological Profile of the Hudson RiverNational Estuarine Research Reserve

Ecological Profile of the Hudson River

National Estuarine Research Reserve

David J. Yozzo 1

Jessica L. Andersen 1

Marco M. Cianciola 1

William C. Nieder 2

Daniel E. Miller 2

Serena Ciparis 2

Jean McAvoy 2

1 Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc.

470 Aaron CourtKingston, NY 12401

2 Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve

Bard College Field StationAnnandale, NY 12504

NYSDEC Contract No. C004646

December 2005

i

PREFACE

The Hudson River National EstuarineResearch Reserve, designated in 1982, isone of 26 estuarine reserves included withinthe National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration’s National EstuarineResearch Reserve System (NERRS). As partof the NERRS program, each reserve isrequired to develop a site profile, whichdescribes the estuarine and terrestrialecosystems represented within the site;outlines ongoing research, monitoring, andeducation programs; and identifies site-specific research needs and priorities.

This site profile includes an introduction tothe Reserve; an environmental overview ofthe Hudson River Estuary; a description ofecological community types that occuramong the four individual Reserve sitecomponents; an overview of the Reserve’s

programs and partnerships; a summary ofbasic and applied research conducted withinthe past 20 years at the Reserve; andsuggestions for future research andmonitoring activities.

This document is intended to provideguidance for the future direction of theReserve’s research and monitoring programsand will be made available to a wide rangeof potential users, including scientists,natural resource managers, local planners,elected officials, and environmentaleducators.

The Reserve site profile was prepared byBarry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. underContract # C004646 from the New YorkDepartment of Environmental Conservation.

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank our manyHudson River colleagues who contributedinformation, data, and publications forinclusion in this profile.

We thank Betsy Blair, Hudson RiverReserve Manager, and Chuck Nieder forproject oversight and critical review. Dr.Robert Schmidt provided information onfish communities of the Tivoli Bays. Dr.Erik Kiviat provided literature andunpublished data on terrestrial insectcommunities and wildlife studies throughoutthe Reserve.

We also thank Dr. Stuart Findlay and Dr.Erik Kiviat for reviewing previous drafts of

the profile. We thank Linda BeckwithMcCloskey and Kathy Schmidt forproviding illustrations of the Reserve’s floraand fauna, respectively. Chastity Millerproduced the Reserve vegetation maps.Patricia Brown compiled the species list(Appendix B). Cover photos were providedby the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation and theInstitute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook,NY. We thank Laurie Fila for cover design.

Funding to produce this document wasprovided by the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration through Grant# NA17OR2486.

iv

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................... xii

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1Reserve Mission ......................................................................................................................2

HUDSON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................4Climate....................................................................................................................................4Geology...................................................................................................................................4Tidal and Riverine Hydrodynamics..........................................................................................5Salinity Regime .......................................................................................................................5Human Effects and Alterations ................................................................................................5Toxic Substances .....................................................................................................................7

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .......................................................................................7Other Toxic Substances ........................................................................................................8

Non-Indigenous and Invasive Species......................................................................................9Water Chestnut ....................................................................................................................9Common Reed ....................................................................................................................10Purple Loosestrife ..............................................................................................................12Zebra Mussel .....................................................................................................................13

COMPONENT SITE DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................16Piermont Marsh ....................................................................................................................16Iona Island Marsh .................................................................................................................18Tivoli Bays ...........................................................................................................................20Stockport Flats......................................................................................................................22

HUDSON RIVER NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE PROGRAMS......24Research and Monitoring Programs .......................................................................................24Education Programs...............................................................................................................25Fellowship Programs .............................................................................................................26Water Quality Monitoring......................................................................................................27The NERRS System-Wide Monitoring Program ....................................................................27Long-Term Meteorological Data Collection...........................................................................27Plant Community Inventory and Trends.................................................................................28SAV Inventory and Trends ....................................................................................................28Hudson River Benthic Mapping Project .................................................................................28Tivoli Bays Fish Community Surveys....................................................................................29Restoration Science Program .................................................................................................29Partners .................................................................................................................................29

vi

DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT AQUATIC HABITATS WITHIN THE

RESERVE....................................................................................................................31System: Estuarine – Sub-system: Subtidal .............................................................................31

Tidal River .........................................................................................................................31Tidal Creek ........................................................................................................................31Brackish and Freshwater Subtidal Aquatic Bed..................................................................31

System: Estuarine – Sub-system: Intertidal ............................................................................32Brackish and Freshwater Intertidal Shore ..........................................................................32Intertidal Brackish and Freshwater Mudflats .....................................................................32Intertidal Brackish and Freshwater Marshes......................................................................32Freshwater Tidal Swamp ...................................................................................................33

System: Estuarine – Sub-system: Cultural..............................................................................33Dredged Material Habitats ................................................................................................33Riprap/artificial Shore .......................................................................................................33

System: Riverine – Sub-system: Natural Streams...................................................................34Hudson River Tributaries ...................................................................................................34

System: Terrestrial – Sub-system: Forested Uplands..............................................................34Upland Forest ....................................................................................................................34

ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES AND BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ............................................36Long-Term Water Quality Monitoring...................................................................................36

Salinity...............................................................................................................................36Nitrate ...............................................................................................................................36Phosphate ..........................................................................................................................38Total Suspended Solids ......................................................................................................38Dissolved Oxygen and pH ..................................................................................................38Chloride and Sulfate ..........................................................................................................45

Hydrology .............................................................................................................................45Biogeochemistry....................................................................................................................49Sediment Contaminants .........................................................................................................50Plant Communities ................................................................................................................51

Phytoplankton ....................................................................................................................51SAV and Water Chestnut ....................................................................................................52Emergent Intertidal ............................................................................................................53Tidal Swamp ......................................................................................................................54

Invertebrate Communities......................................................................................................54Zooplankton .......................................................................................................................54Benthic and Epiphytic Invertebrates...................................................................................55Terrestrial Invertebrates ....................................................................................................56

Fish Communities..................................................................................................................58Marsh/Estuarine Resident Species......................................................................................58Freshwater Species ............................................................................................................60Migratory Species ..............................................................................................................62

Wildlife .................................................................................................................................64Reptiles and Amphibians ....................................................................................................64Birds ..................................................................................................................................65Mammals ...........................................................................................................................68

vii

ROLE OF THE HUDSON RIVER RESERVE IN REGIONAL HABITAT

RESTORATION .........................................................................................................69Restoration Planning, Information Transfer, and Regional Science Coordination...................69Hudson River Habitat Restoration (HRHR) Project ...............................................................70Fish Passage Restoration........................................................................................................70Functional Assessment of Freshwater Tidal Wetlands............................................................71

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND MONITORING ...................72

LITERATURE CITED ...........................................................................................................74

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Locator Map. ...........................3

Figure 2: Map depicting the location of the Hudson River within New York State...................6

Figure 3: Mean salinity at HRNERR marsh sites in the winter/spring and summer/fallseasons. Means are derived from monthly measurements from June 1991- May1992 and from June 1996- December 2003. Error bars represent one standarderror of the mean. ...................................................................................................37

Figure 4: Mean nitrate concentrations in ebb-tide water from HRNERR tidal marshes,their associated tributaries and the main channel of the Hudson River bylocation (The Battery = River km 0). Mean concentrations at HRNERR sites arederived from data collected monthly from May 1991- December 2003 (a breakin data collection in the marsh sites occurred from June 1992 – May 1996).Error bars represent one standard error of the mean. Mean concentrations in themain channel are derived from data collected bi-weekly during May throughOctober from 1993-2003 (N.F. Caraco and J. J. Cole, unpublished data). ...............37

Figure 5: Seasonal patterns of mean nitrate concentrations and percent saturation ofdissolved oxygen at all HRNERR marsh sites (Winter = 1, Spring = 2, Summer= 3, Fall = 4). Means include monthly measurements from 1991-1992 and from1996-2003. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean..............................39

Figure 6: Relationship between nitrate and tide stage at Tivoli South Bay during a dielsampling in August 2003. Depth data were recorded by a datalogger every 30minutes and a water sample was collected by an autosampler every 2.5 hoursover a 27.5-hour period. .........................................................................................39

Figure 7: Relationship between nitrate and tide stage at Tivoli South Bay during dielsampling events in June and November 2003. Depth data were recorded by adatalogger every 30 minutes and a water sample was collected by anautosampler every 2.5 hours over a 27.5-hour period. .............................................40

Figure 8: Phosphate (PO4) concentrations in HRNERR tidal marshes, their associatedtributaries and the main channel of the Hudson River by location (The Battery =River km 0). Main concentrations at HRNERR sites are derived from datacollected monthly from May 1991-December 2003 (a break in data collection inthe marsh sites occurred from June 1992-May 1996). Error bars represent onestandard error of the mean. Mean concentrations in the main channel are derivedfrom data collected biweekly during May through October from 1992-2003(N.F. Caraco and J.J. Cole, unpublished data).........................................................41

ix

Figure 9: Concentrations of suspended solids in HRNERR tidal marshes, their associatedtributaries and the main channel of the Hudson River by location (The Battery =River km 0). Mean concentrations at HRNERR sites are derived from datacollected monthly from May 1991-December 2003 (a break in data collection inthe marsh sites occurred from June 1992-May 1996). Error bars represent onestandard error of the mean (S.E.G. Findlay, unpublished data)................................41

Figure 10: Relationship between DO concentrations and tide stage in Tivoli North Bay inthe summer. DO and depth data were observed by a datalogger every 30minutes...................................................................................................................42

Figure 11: Percent saturation of DO in Tivoli North Bay (TN) and Tivoli South Bay (TS)in 2004. DO data were collected every 30 minutes by dataloggers from lateMarch through late December.................................................................................43

Figure 12: Number and timing of DO measurements <3.5 mg/L in Tivoli North Bay (TN)and Tivoli South Bay (TS) in 2004. DO date were collected every 30 minutes bydataloggers every 30 minutes from late March through late December. ..................44

Figure 13: Mean concentrations of chloride and sulfate and mean specific conductivity inall HRNERR tributaries. Means were derived from monthly measurements fromMay 1991-December 2003. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. ..........46

Figure 14: Increase in chloride concentrations in the Saw Kill from 1991-2003. The meanmonthly concentrations (two replicates) are shown for each year. The yearlymean chloride concentration has doubled over a 12-year period..............................46

Figure 15: Yearly mean sulfate concentrations in Doodletown Brook from 1991-2003.Mean concentrations are from monthly measurements for the entire year. Errorbars represent standard error of the mean................................................................47

Figure 16: Water level relative to the marsh surface (dashed line) from common reed atPiermont Marsh (A), common reed at Iona Island Marsh (B) and narrow-leavedcattail at Iona Island (C) from July 28-August 26, 2000. Data points wererecorded at 24-minute time intervals. Times of new moon (empty circle) andfull moon (filled circle) are depicted on the graph...................................................48

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Percent abundance of dominant macroinvertebrate taxa (> 5% of the total)collected at Tivoli North Bay sites, July and September 1997 (TNB L = lowerintertidal; TNB M = middle intertidal; and TNB U = upper intertidal) (adaptedfrom Yozzo et al., 1999). ........................................................................................57

Table 2: Total number, mean density, and biomass of dominant macroinvertebrate taxacollected at Tivoli North Bay sites, July and September 1997 (Adapted fromYozzo et al., 1999). ................................................................................................57

xi

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Plant Community and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Maps

Appendix B: List of Plants, Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, Birds, and Mammals Occurringin the Reserve.

xii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

µS/cm microsiemens per centimeter2,4-D 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acidBOCES Board of Cooperative Educational ServicesBOD biochemical oxygen demandCDMO Central Data Management Officecm centimetercm/yr centimeters per yearCSO combined sewer outfallCu copperDDT dichloro diphenyl trichloroethaneDO dissolved oxygenDOC dissolved organic carbonERD Estuarine Research DivisionESA Endangered Species ActFCI functional capacity indexg gramGIS geographic information systemGRF Graduate Research Fellowshipha hectareHg mercuryHREP Hudson River Estuary ProgramHRF Hudson River FoundationHRHR Hudson River Habitat RestorationHRNERR Hudson River National Estuarine Research ReserveIES Institute of Ecosystem StudiesII Iona Islandind./ha individuals per hectareIRIS Institute for Resource Information SystemsISSR Inter-Sample Sequence Repeatkg kilogramkm kilometerm meterm3/s cubic meters per secondmg/L milligrams per literMLW mean low waterN nitrogenNEIWPCC New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, Inc.NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve Systemng/g nanograms per gramNJ New JerseyNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNY New YorkNYC New York CityNYS New York State

xiii

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental ConservationNYSDOS New York State Department of StateNYSG New York Sea GrantNYSOGS New York State Office of General ServicesOPRHP Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historical PreservationP phosphorusPb leadPBDE polybrominated diphenyl ethersPCB polychlorinated biphenylPCDD polychlorinated dibenzo dioxinsPCDF polychlorinated dibenzo furanspg/g picograms per gramPIPC Palisades Interstate Park CommissionPM Piermont Marshppt parts per thousandSAV submerged aquatic vegetationSC Stony CreekSF Stockport FlatsSK Saw KillSP Sparkill CreekSPI sediment profile imageryST Stockport CreekSWMP System-Wide Monitoring ProgramTN Tivoli North BayTNB L Tivoli North Bay, lower intertidalTNB M Tivoli North Bay, middle intertidalTNB U Tivoli North Bay, upper intertidalTS Tivoli South BayTSS total suspended solidsU.S. United StatesUSACE U.S. Army Corps of EngineersUSACE-NYD U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York DistrictUSEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWRDA The Water Resources and Development ActYOY young-of-yearZn zinc

xiv

1

INTRODUCTION

The Hudson River National EstuarineResearch Reserve (the Reserve), designatedin 1982, encompasses 1,958 ha of brackishand freshwater tidal wetlands, tidal swamps,submerged plant beds, mudflats, forests, andmeadows distributed among four componentsites: Piermont Marsh, located at river km38-42 in Rockland County, NY; Iona Island,located at river km 72-74 in RocklandCounty, NY; Tivoli Bays, located at riverkm 98-100 in Dutchess County, NY; andStockport Flats, located at river km 192-200in Columbia County, NY (Figure 1).

The Reserve is administered by The NewYork State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (NYSDEC), in cooperationwith the New York State Office of Parks,Recreation, and Historic Preservation(OPRHP), the New York State Departmentof State (NYSDOS), the New York StateOffice of General Services (NYSOGS), andthe Palisades Interstate Park Commission(PIPC). The Reserve headquarters is locatedat the Bard College Field Station, inAnnandale-on-Hudson, NY.

The Reserve is part of National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)National Estuarine Research ReserveSystem (NERRS), which includes 26reserves located among 20 coastal states and

Puerto Rico. The reserve system wasestablished to promote informedmanagement of the Nation’s estuaries andcoastal habitats by the Coastal ZoneManagement Act (CZMA) of 1972, asamended, 16 U.S.C. Section 1461, toaugment the Federal Coastal ZoneManagement (CZM) Program. As stated inthe NERRS regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part921.1(a), the National Estuarine ResearchReserve System mission is:

The establishment and management,through Federal-state cooperation, of anational system of Estuarine ResearchReserves representative of the variousregions and estuarine types in the UnitedStates. Estuarine Research Reserves areestablished to provide opportunities forlong-term research, education, andinterpretation.

Federal regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 921.1(b),provide five goals for the NERRS:

• Ensure a stable environment forresearch through long-termprotection of National EstuarineResearch Reserve resources;

• Address coastal management issuesidentified as significant throughcoordinated estuarine research withinthe System;

• Enhance public awareness andunderstanding of estuarine areas andprovide suitable opportunities forpublic education and interpretation;

• Promote Federal, state, public andprivate use of one or more Reserveswithin the System when such entitiesconduct estuarine research; and

• Conduct and coordinate estuarineresearch within the System,gathering and making availableinformation necessary for improvedunderstanding and management ofestuarine areas.

2

Reserve Mission

The mission of the Reserve is to improve thehealth and vitality of the Hudson RiverEstuary by protecting estuarine habitatsthrough integrated education, training,stewardship, restoration, and monitoring andresearch programs. Since acceptance of thenational designation in 1982, New YorkState has made a strong commitment todeveloping an estuarine research andeducation program; preserving tidalwetlands through acquisition, stewardship,and management of public use; and ensuringthe long-term availability of Reserve sites asnatural field laboratories for research,education, and environmental monitoring inthe Hudson River Estuary. The Reserve sitesprovide for public access and recreationalopportunities as long as these activities arecompatible with resource protection.

The specific goals of the Reserve are to:

• Increase scientific understanding ofHudson River Estuary habitats;

• Increase estuarine literacy topromote active stewardship andenvironmental ly sus ta inablebehaviors and decisions;

• Increase informed decision-makingto protect and enhance Hudson RiverEstuary habitats; and

• Enhance stewardship of the land andwater ecosystems within theReserve.

The Reserve’s research objectives include:

• Mapping/inventory of all HudsonRiver aquatic and shoreline habitatsto document their location andcharacteristics;

• Characterization of habitat functionsf o r selected estuarine habitats insupport of resource managementdecisions;

• Characterization of spatial andtemporal change in estuarine habitatsand tributaries to Reserve sites;

• Gather additional information abouthuman impacts on Hudson Riverhabitats and ways to reduce theseimpacts;

• Provide access to original andsynthesized scientific informationabout the Reserve and Hudson Riverhabitats to scientists, managers andeducators; and

• Conduct research at Reserve sitesand on Reserve priority topicselsewhere in the estuary.

3

Figure 1: Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Locator Map.

4

HUDSON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Hudson River originates at Lake Tear ofthe Clouds in the Adirondack Mountains andflows south 507 km to its confluence withUpper New York Bay (Figure 2). TheHudson River Valley lies almost entirelywithin the state of New York, except for itslast 35 km, where it serves as the boundarybetween New York and New Jersey.Tributaries to the river drain small portionsof Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey,and Vermont. The 247 km tidal estuaryportion extends north from the southern tipof Manhattan Island to the Troy Dam, northof Albany, NY (Limburg and Moran, 1986;Cooper et al., 1988).

The entire Hudson River drainage basincovers 33,835 km2 and includes three majorsub-basins: the Upper Hudson (11,987 km2),the Mohawk (8,972 km2), and the LowerHudson/Hudson River Estuary (12,876km2). The stream elevation gradient for theHudson River Estuary is slight, droppingonly 1.5 m from Albany to Manhattan. Theriver bottom at Albany is at sea level(Cooper et al., 1988). Flowing in almost astraight southerly direction, the estuary isbounded on the west by the CatskillMountains and on the east by the TaconicMountains. A major topographic feature ofthe central portion of the estuary is theHudson Highlands, whose cliffs rise directlyfrom the river’s edge.

Climate

Long, cold winters and short, warmsummers characterize the climate of theHudson River Valley. The mean annualtemperature for this region is approximately4 degrees Celsius (˚C). The normal annualtemperature during the winter months isabout -4 ˚C, and ranges from 21 ˚C to 24 ˚C

during the summer months. Annualprecipitation (in rainfall) for this region isapproximately 100 centimeters (cm). Themean annual snowfall for the entire HudsonRiver Basin varies from about 250 cm in thenorthern Hudson Valley to about 50 cm nearNew York City (USACE, 1995).

Geology

The Hudson River Valley is a north-southtrending linear lowland extending from NewYork City to the Adirondack Mountains.Although the Hudson River is considered anantecedent stream, many changes in theriver's course appear to be controlled byfault zones or by contact with erosion-resistant rocks (USACE, 1995).

From just south of Albany to Kingston theHudson River Valley is relatively narrowand steep-walled. The Catskill Mountains lieto the west and the lower TaconicMountains lie to the east. This section of theriver valley is predominantly underlain byOrdovician shale and sandstone with somechert and siltstone. Some Cambrian shale,conglomerate, and limestone are alsopresent.

South of Kingston, the valley widens and theriver deepens. The most common rocksunderlying the valley from Kingston to justbelow Poughkeepsie are Ordoviciangraywacke, shale, siltstone, chert, andargillite of the Austin Glen, Indian River,Mt. Merino, and Normanskill Formations.

At Cornwall-on-Hudson the river valleynarrows into a deep steep-sided gorge as theriver enters the the Hudson Highlands. Thisregion is underlain predominantly by

5

Precambrian and Cambrian metamorphicrocks.

After passing through the Hudson Highlandsthe river widens again. From Stony Pointsouth, the river follows the contact betweenthe Triassic rocks of the Newark Basin andthe Lower Paleozoic/Precambrian rocks ofthe Manhattan Prong until it reaches NewYork Bay.

Tidal and Riverine Hydrodynamics

The Hudson River is a tidal estuary from itsconfluence with Upper New York Bay to theFederal Dam at Troy. Hudson River tidesare semi-diurnal, with two highs and twolows occurring within a 25-hour period. Themean tidal range is 1.37 m at the Battery,0.80 m at West Point, and 1.56 m at Albany(Cooper et al., 1988). The mean tidalamplitude at Albany increased from 1890 to1950 from approximately 0.8 m to it’spresent-day amplitude as a result ofnavigation channel dredging whichincreased the river’s cross-sectional area(Cooper et al., 1988).

Freshwater flow in the Hudson estuaryfollows a typical seasonal pattern, withhighest flow during the spring and lowestflow during late summer and early fall. Theupper Hudson and Mohawk watershedscontribute nearly 80% of the annualfreshwater flow through the estuary, withthe drainage basin located below Troycontributing the remainder (Cooper et al.,1988). The estimated average annualfreshwater flow in the lower Hudson is 540-570 m3/s. Flushing time is estimated to be126 days, faster than many other large east-coast estuaries (Limburg and Moran, 1986).

Salinity Regime

The Hudson River Estuary can be dividedinto four salinity zones: polyhaline (18-30ppt), mesohaline (5-18 ppt), oligohaline(0.5-5 ppt), and freshwater tidal (<0.5 ppt).Salinity zones in the Hudson are determinedby a combination of hydrographic factors,primarily the tidal surge of saline waterupriver from the ocean and the magnitude offreshwater flow into the upper estuary.Under an average runoff regime the saltfront (0.5 ppt) reaches Newburgh by latesummer/early fall. During conditions of highfreshwater runoff, usually during spring, thesalt front may be pushed downriver as far asthe Bronx. Under low flow conditions,vertical mixing of salt water and freshwateris high, with only a 10% difference betweensurface and bottom water salinity. Thisdifferential may be as high as 20% underhigh flow conditions (Limburg and Moran,1986).

Human Effects and Alterations

The Hudson River Estuary has a longhistory of environmental perturbation,including shoreline modifications, dredgingimpacts/channelization, and pollution. Manyhabitats are impacted or threatened by toxicchemicals, increased sedimentation andturbidity, and non-point source pollutionfrom agricultural and residential watersheds.Treated sewage effluent is discharged intomany Hudson River tributaries by towns andvillages. Many older municipalities haveaging sewage treatment systems with claypipes, along with inadequate pump stationsand treatment plants. This decayinginfrastructure permits raw sewage to enterthe estuary under conditions of heavyrainfall (Cooper at al., 1988). In the lowerestuary, combined sewer outfalls (CSOs)discharge during storm events, contributinga pulse of nutrients and other contaminants

6

Figure 2: Map depicting the location of the Hudson River within New York State.

7

(e.g., grease, oil, floatable debris). However,recent funding initiatives, authorized by theNew York State Clean Water/Clean AirBond Act of 1996, have made significantprogress towards improvement of olderwastewater infrastructure in manymunicipalities along the Estuary.

Many Hudson River tributaries havehistorically been dammed for industrial use,eliminating access to spawning habitat formany anadromous fish, notably alewife(Alosa pseudoharengus). Construction ofrail beds along both shores has had majorimpacts on the tributary mouths and hasisolated numerous shallow coves and baysfrom the mainstem of the river, resulting ingreatly accelerated accumulation ofsediments (Squires, 1992).

Shoreline modifications to the Estuarybegan in the late 18th century, with theconstruction of a dam at the head ofPapscanee Island in 1790, intended to divertriver flow away from the island and into themain channel. Between 1790 and 1823, aseries of dams were constructed betweenNew Baltimore and Troy, NY. Byconnecting existing islands in the upperestuary to one another, it was believed thatthe currents would intensify and deepen themain channel. The completion of the ErieCanal in 1825 further increased the need fora navigable Hudson River. A plan for ashipping canal to run parallel with the riverwas rejected at this time; however, a seriesof longitudinal dikes was constructed from1836 to 1845 (USACE, 1995).

By the 1850s, it was evident that the channelwas deepening; however, shoals and barswere forming downstream of the projectareas, requiring dredging. Dikes continuedto be built until 1890 and the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) began to placedredged material behind the dikes,

accelerating deposition, which occurredwhen the natural flow of sediment into theriver was impeded. By 1925, miles of stoneand timber dikes lined the shores of theupper Hudson River Estuary. Expansivetidal flats were developing around islands,and many of the channels between islandshad become closed off by dredged materialplacement and natural siltation. Entrances tomany backwater areas were blocked off bydikes or shoals. In 1925, Congressauthorized deepening of the Hudson RiverNavigation Channel to 8.2 m. In 1954, thechannel was further deepened to 9.8 m. andremains so today (USACE, 1995).

Toxic Substances

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)PCBs are a class of organic chemicalcompounds used in industrial manufacturingand characterized by a high resistance tobiological degradation processes (Nadeauand Davis, 1976). PCBs were manufacturedin the United States from 1929 to 1977 byMonsanto and sold under the trade nameAroclor. During the interval 1951-1977, twoelectrical capacitor manufacturing facilitiesdischarged approximately 270,000 kg ofPCBs, primarily Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor1242, into the Upper Hudson River (Sloan etal., 1983). The vast majority of PCBsaccumulated in the sediments directlydownstream of the point sources. In October1973, a dam at Fort Edward was removed,allowing approximately 1,000,000 m3 ofPCB laden sediment to be transporteddownstream. This resulted in a significantincrease in PCB loadings throughout thesystem, including the estuary from Troy toNew York Harbor.

PCBs were first identified as anenvironmental hazard in 1966, by SorenJensen, a Swedish chemist who incidentallyencountered PCBs while conducting

8

bioassays on pesticide-contaminated fish.Although his results were published at thetime, it was not until a decade later thatPCBs were widely recognized as anenvironmental and human health hazard inthe Hudson River (Limburg, 1986).

In 1975, a public warning was issued by theNYSDEC against consumption of HudsonRiver fish due to PCB contamination. In1976, a settlement was negotiated betweenGeneral Electric and NYSDEC; PCBdischarge was terminated the following yearand General Electric was required to fund$4,200,000 for PCB related research andmitigation costs (Brown et al., 1985;Limburg, 1986).

In 1983, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA) listed the Hudson Riveron its Superfund National Priority List. In1984, the USEPA decided not to take actionto remove PCBs from the Hudson. In 1989,the USEPA reevaluated its 1984 decisionand initiated a series of studies on HudsonRiver PCBs to support future actions. In2000, the USEPA released a $500,000,000plan to dredge nearly 2,000,000 m3 of PCB-contaminated sediments in the Hudson Riverabove the Troy Dam. In 2002, the USEPAsigned a Record of Decision to implementthe dredging program (USEPA, 2002).

Striped bass (Morone saxatilis), anextremely popular gamefish along the eastcoast and elsewhere, was commerciallyharvested from the Hudson River until 1976when the fishery was closed due to PCBcontamination; the commercial fisheryremains closed to this day. Despite PCBcontamination, there is no evidence of apopulation level impact on the fishery(Wirgin and Waldman, 1998). The stripedbass population in the Hudson is estimatedto have grown at a rate of 8% per year sinceclosure of the commercial fishery and an

active and regionally profitable recreationalfishery has developed (Waldman, 2005).

Other Toxic SubstancesPCBs are not the only contaminant ofconcern in the Hudson River Estuary. Highconcentrations of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) have been identifiedin some Hudson River tributaries. Thesources of this harmful pesticide are difficultto pinpoint, but may be related to oldagricultural practices. Airborne mercury, abyproduct of coal combustion, is depositedalong the estuary and can accumulate toharmful levels in fish and other aquaticbiota.

Cadmium is another contaminant of concernin the Hudson River Estuary. During 1952-1979, a nickel-cadmium batterymanufacturing facility located in ColdSpring, NY, discharged over 179,000 kg ofcadmium-enriched waste into FoundryCove, a freshwater intertidal wetland. Thissite was considered the most heavilycadmium-polluted location in the world,with sediment cadmium concentrations of500 to 225,000 ppm (Knutson et al., 1987).Foundry Cove was designated a Super Fundsite by the USEPA in 1983. A $91,000,000sediment remediation and habitat restorationproject was conducted at the site in 1994.Fo l lowing comple t ion o f theremediation/restoration project, sedimentcadmium concentrations ranged from 10 to100 ppm (Junkins and Levinton, 2003).

Emerging or newly recognized contaminantssuch as poly-brominated-diphenyl-ethers(PBDEs), a class of chemicals used indeveloping fire-retardant industrialmaterials, are receiving attention in theHudson River Estuary and its tributaries, asare the effects of pharmaceutical chemicals(including anti-depressants, birth-control

9

drugs, and caffeine) (Strandberg et al., 2001;Kolpin et al., 2002; Buerge et al., 2003).

Non-Indigenous and Invasive Species

Water ChestnutWater chestnut is an annual aquatic plant,native to Eurasia and Africa, which grows indense floating mats, shading out nativesubmerged aquatics (Kiviat and Hummel,2004). The growth form is characterized bya distinctive rosette of floating leaf clusterswith air bladders. A slender cord-like stemattaches the plant to a large barbed seedburied in the substrate. The seeds areconsidered edible, but the plant is not relatedto the common Chinese water chestnut(Eleocharis dulcis) used in Asian-Americancuisine.

Water chestnut was intentionally planted inCollins Lake (formerly Sanders Lake),Scotia, NY in 1884 (Kiviat and Hummel,2004). Subsequent flooding of the NewYork Barge Canal transported waterchestnut into the Mohawk River, where itwas well established by 1920. Waterchestnut was established in the HudsonRiver at Cohoes, NY by the late 1930s. Bythe 1950s, it was widespread in the mid-upper Hudson River Estuary. Transportationof the plant or its seed has been illegal inNew York State since 1949.

Proliferation of water chestnut can alter thephysical, chemical, and biologicalcharacteristics of shallow subtidal habitats.Plant biomass and the rapid accumulation oforganic matter in areas of dense waterchestnut growth results in marked increasesin biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) andlocalized anoxia/hypoxia. Dissolved oxygen(DO) concentrations in the largest waterchestnut beds typically remain below 2.5mg/L up to 30% of the time (Caraco andCole, 2002). In contrast, DO concentrations

Water Chestnut(Trapa natans)

in native Hudson River submerged aquaticvegetation (SAV) beds rarely drop below5.0 mg/L. Larval and juvenile fishcommunities associated with nativesubmerged plant beds may be negativelyimpacted by water chestnut, due to changesin the physical structure of their submersedhabitat and changes in the availability andcomposition of invertebrate prey (Schmidtand Kiviat, 1988). Additionally, theaesthetic and recreational qualities of theestuary may be significantly reduced, as thedense floating water chestnut mats are anuisance and potential hazard to boaters andanglers.

For many years, proliferation of waterchestnut in the Hudson River (andelsewhere) was controlled by application ofthe herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic

10

acid (2,4-D). This practice ceased in 1976after Federal regulations limited the use of2,4-D in water bodies. Since then, waterchestnut has spread throughout shallow,low-energy areas along the Hudson River,from the Troy Dam south to ConstitutionIsland (Nieder et al., 2004). Scatteredpatches can be found as far south as IonaIsland; however, salinity limits waterchestnut growth (Schmidt and Kiviat, 1988).Hand pulling and mechanical harvesting areused to remove water chestnut in some localareas. The tough, barbed seeds may remainviable for years buried in soft sediments oraccumulate in piles along the high-tide line.Potential vectors of water chestnut seeddispersal in the Hudson River includeCanada geese (Branta canadensis), mute

swans (Cygnus olor), boats and trailers, nets,tides, and construction/dredging equipment.

Common ReedIntertidal wetlands in the Hudson River areincreasingly undergoing changes due to theproliferation of common reed (Phragmitesaustralis). This species has the potential tospread rapidly within brackish and intertidalfreshwater wetlands, especially in the mid-to upper-intertidal zone, where it outcompetes native species such as narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), spottedjewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and Olney-threesquare (Scirpus americanus).

During the 1900s, common reed expandedits range in many parts of North America,invading fresh and brackish wetlands(Saltonstall, 2002 ). This successful invasionmay have been in part driven by humanactivities such as habitat alteration,sedimentation, and eutrophication of marshand wetland areas. The recent spread ofcommon reed is also believed to be in partdue to the proliferation of a more aggressiveEuropean genotype in North America(Saltonstall, 2002). A new native subspecies

Common Reed(Phragmites australis)

(Phragmites australis subsp. americanus) isnow recognized as genetically distinct fromboth the European genotypes and the GulfCoast North American lineages (Saltonstallet al., 2004).

It is believed that invasive common reedfirst appeared at the Piermont Marshcomponent of the Hudson River Reserve asearly as 1791–1858. Expansion of commonreed occurred exponentially since that time,with an average expansion rate of five ha peryear. There was a long interval of stabilityfrom 1964-1980, with a rapid increase by1991. Common reed replaced narrow-leavedcattail, Olney-threesquare, and salt-meadow

11

cordgrass (Spartina patens) at PiermontMarsh and now dominates the site(Winogrond and Kiviat, 1997).

The dominant mechanism for expansion atPiermont Marsh was linear clonal growthalong creekbanks. Creekbanks may be anoptimum area for initial invasion since theyare subject to a variety of naturaldisturbances including ice shear, waveaction, and muskrat burrowing (Winogrondand Kiviat, 1997) and are most likely to becolonized first by water-borne propagules(Lathrop et al., 2003).

A similar pattern of expansion has occurredat the Iona Island Reserve component,originally an oligohaline cattail marsh,which is now nearly dominated by commonreed. Initial colonization by common reed atIona Island Marsh is believed to haveoccurred as recently as the mid-1960s(Winogrond and Kiviat, 1997). Commonreed stands at the Tivoli Bays and StockportFlats Reserve components are in a muchearlier stage of invasion and exhibit a slowerexpansion rate, approximately 0.1 ha peryear.

A number of detrimental effects have beenattributed to common reed. In the upperChesapeake Bay and in southern New Jersey(Delaware Bay), it has been shown thatcommon reed has altered intertidal wetlandtopography and hydrology by rapidlyaccreting biomass and trapping soils,elevating the wetland and reducing floodingdepth and duration (Windham and Lathrop,1999; Rooth and Stevenson, 2000). Wetlandmicrotopographic features, such as shallowpools and intertidal rivulets, are obscured(Weinstein and Balleto, 1999) and deadstems and leaves (litter) form a denseorganic mat on the marsh surface (Angradiet al., 2001).

In addition to reducing the biodiversity ofthe native plant community, use of themarsh by resident finfish may be diminishedas a result of invasion by common reed(Able and Hagan, 2000, 2003; Raichel et al.,2003). Larval and juvenile fish abundance issignificantly lower in common reed standsand dense stands may restrict the movementof fish and other natant macrofauna acrossthe marsh surface, fragmenting marshcommunities (Weinstein and Balleto, 1999).

Common reed expansion may be excludingseveral wildlife species from the structure ofthe native community, which they dependon for refuge and nesting (e.g., rails andother small wading birds) (Benoit andAskins, 1999). Muskrats (O n d a t r azibethicus) and several insect species areamong the few animals that can eat thetough common reed leaf. Muskrats also uselive and dead common reed stems to buildlodges (Kiviat, 2005).

The influence of common reed colonizationon the ecological function of intertidalmarshes appears to be determined bymaturity of the reed stand and distributionwithin the marsh landscape (areal coverage,patch configuration, stand orientation)(Lathrop et al., 2003). The deleteriouseffects of common reed invasion appear tobe much greater when common reedoccupies dynamic locations (e.g.,creekbanks) and/or when a common reedmonoculture occupies the majority of themarsh plain and patches coalesce in laterstages of invasion (Lathrop et al., 2003).

Some recent studies have attributedecosystem benefits to common reed stands,including a superior capacity for nutrientretention relative to native intertidal wetlandvegetation, habitat for terrestrial insects, andutilization by a wider range of bird speciesthan previously thought (Meyerson et al.,

12

2000; Kiviat and MacDonald, 2004). Somewading birds use common reed stems andleaves as nest building material. Recentsurveys conducted in Tivoli North Bay havedocumented less singing and breedingactivity in common reed stands relative tonarrow-leaved cattail; however, severalspecies roosted in the reed beds at night insignificant numbers [e.g., tree swallow(Iridoprocne bicolor), bank swallow(Riparia riparia), barn swallow (Hirundorustica), Eastern kingbird (T y r a n n u styrannus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaiusphoeniceus), common grackle (Quiscalusqu i s cu la ), rusty blackbird (Euphagusc a r o l i n a ), bobolink (D o l i c h o n y xoryz ivorus ), brown-headed cowbird(Molothrus aler), and European starling(Sturnus vulgaris)] (Kiviat, 2005).

Large populations of phytophagous mites,aphids, and scale insects occupy reed standsand attract insect predators, such asladybugs (Coccinellidae). These are in turnpreyed upon by spiders and birds, such asmarsh wrens (Cistothorus palustris), black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus), andAmerican goldfinches (Carduelis tristis).White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)and Eastern cottontails (S y l v i l a g u sfloridanus) will bed in common reed standsduring winter. Small mammals occupyingreed stands are preyed upon by marsh hawksand foxes.

Some studies of fish communities inwetlands undergoing invasion by commonreed do not support the theory that nektonuse is impaired, at least in terms of use byadult fish (Fell et al., 1998; Meyerson et al.,2000). Feeding habits of resident fish inConnecticut tidal marshes undergoinginvasion by common reed were similar tothose in marshes dominated by native saltmarsh vegetation (Fell et al., 2003),although it was not clear if the marshes in

question were in an early or advanced stateof invasion.

Given similar flooding dynamics, fish useamong common reed and native salt marshvegetation [e.g., smooth cordgrass (Spartinaalterniflora)] is similar (Osgood et al.,2003). At Iona Island Marsh, resident fishabundance did not differ among commonreed vs. narrow-leaved cattail stands acrossa gradient of elevation and floodingduration; however, the abundance ofjuvenile fish was significantly greater innarrow-leaved cattail stands, indicating thatnursery function of the intertidal marshsurface may be reduced following commonreed invasion (Osgood et al., in press). Acomparison of larval mummichog (Fundulusheteroclitus) distribution at Iona Islanddocumented similar abundances of early lifestage mummichogs in cattail and small,more recently established common reedstands; significantly fewer mummichogswere collected within older, more expansivereed sands, supporting the contention thatlarger , older s tands experiencehydrogeomorphic changes which result inreduced spawning success (increasedelevation, reduced tidal flooding). Larvalfish abundance was positively correlated togreater depth of tidal flooding. An unusuallyhigh density of larval and juvenilemummichogs was observed at low tide inshallow subtidal pools containing SAVadjacent to common reed stands; therefore,it was hypothesized that reduced habitatsuitability in common reed stands maydisplace early life stage mummichogs to theshallow subtidal zone (Harm et al., 2003).Iona Island Marsh is at a relatively earlystate of common reed invasion incomparison to Piermont Marsh.

Purple LoosestrifePurple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) occursin Hudson River tidal wetlands from Troy to

13

Piermont Marsh. This species first appearedin the Hudson Valley around 1800, perhapsarriving in ship ballast or deliberatelyintroduced as an ornamental, and waswidespread in the region by 1900 (Kiviat1996). Purple loosestrife is very common intidal and non-tidal freshwater wetlands andmeadows throughout the U.S., especially inthe northeast and in southern Canada.

Most breeding marsh birds will not nest inpurple loosestrife, with the exception ofcertain songbirds, such as red-wingedblackbird, common grackle, swamp sparrow(Melospiza georgiana), song sparrow(Melospiza melodia), marsh wren, andAmerican goldfinch (Kiviat, 1996). Thececropia moth (Hyalophora cecropia) andpolyphemus moth (Antheraea polyphemus)are known to eat purple loosestrife, andpollinating insects are attracted to purpleloosestrife flowers (Barbour and Kiviat,1997). In an attempt to find a biologicalcontrol agent, Cornell University researchersare experimenting with two species ofEuropean leaf-eating beetles (Galerucellacalmariensis and G. pusilla), a root-miningweevil (Hlyobius transversovittatus), and aflower-eating weevil (N a n o p h y e smarmoratus). These insects were released atseveral locations in the lower Hudson RiverValley during 1994-1995 (Blossey andNuzzo, 2004). The insects have sucessfullyreduced the abundance of purple loosestrifein many locations; however, in some ofthese locations other invasives such ascommon reed or reed canary-grass (Phalarisarundinacea) have expanded as loosestrifeis controlled (Blossey et al., 2001).

Zebra MusselZebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha),originally described from the Caspian Seaand Ural River in Eurasia, were firstdiscovered in North America in 1988 in theCanadian waters of Lake St. Clair. By 1990,

Purple Loosestrife(Lythrum salicaria)

they had spread throughout the LaurentianGreat Lakes (Pace et al., 1998). The likelyvector for introduction of zebra mussels tothe Great Lakes was ballast water discharge.Rapid expansion of this species in theMississippi and other drainages is attributedto barge traffic and recreational boattrailering.

Zebra mussels were first identified in theHudson River in 1991, with currentpopulation estimates ranging from 50-550billion individuals. The population is cyclic,with strong year classes every 4-5 years.Zebra mussels initially colonized rockybottom habitats, but are now spreading tosoft bottom areas as mud-sand substrate isbeing converted to shell-gravel.

14

Within 17 months of detection, zebramussels accounted for over 50% of theheterotrophic biomass in the Hudson RiverEstuary (Strayer et al., 1999). Water columnphosphate concentrations increased andaverage DO levels declined. An increase inSAV growth in the littoral zone may havemoderated the reduction in DO to somedegree (Caraco et al., 2000).

Significant declines in phytoplankton (80-90%), zooplankton (70%), and deepwaterzoobenthos occurred rapidly following theHudson River zebra mussel invasion.Microzooplankton (tintinnid ciliates,rotifers, and copepod nauplii) declinedmarkedly in 1992 and continued to declinethereafter, probably due to direct ingestionby zebra mussels. Adult copepods and mostcladoceran species have not declinedmeasurably (Pace et al., 1998).

It was hypothesized that these systemchanges would lead to a decrease in theabundance of open water fishes [e.g.,American shad (Alosa sapidissima), whiteperch (Morone americana), striped bass]and an increase in littoral zone fishes [e.g.,black bass (Micropterus spp.), sunfish].Feeding studies of Hudson Rivercentrarchids indicate that at least twospecies, pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus)and redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), consumezebra mussels (Schmidt et al., 1995).Analysis of long-term data on young-of-year(YOY) fish collected by NYSDEC isconsistent with this hypothesized change.Populations of open water fish speciesdeclined 28% and shifted their distributionsdownriver in response to the zebra musselinvasion. Populations of littoral zone speciesincreased by 97%. Alosids and centrarchidsseem to exhibit the strongest response to thezebra mussel invasion. Growth rates ofjuvenile American shad have declined by asmuch as 20% since 1992, as zebra mussels

Zebra mussel(Dreissena polymorpha)

have removed critical food resources(phytoplankton) from the water column(Strayer et al., 2004). Although watercolumn nutrients increased as a result of thezebra mussel invasion, phytoplanktongrowth did not increase and light penetrationonly increased modestly in the shallows;overall water column transparency in theHudson River is controlled by inorganicparticulates (silt) in the water column ratherthan phytoplankton blooms. (Strayer et al.,2004).

Deep-water benthic macroinvertebrates,which depend on recently sedimentedphytoplankton as a primary food source,declined 33% during 1991-1995; however,in shallow littoral areas, benthic

15

macroinvertebrate density increased by25%, presumably due to an indirect positiveeffect of increased water clarity andincreased macrophyte/algal productionresulting from zebra mussel filter-feeding(Strayer et al., 1998).

Native suspension-feeding bivalves(Unionidae: Elliptio complanata, Anodonta

implicata, and Leptodea ocracea) have alsodeclined in the Hudson due to the decreasein phytoplankton. Since 1992, nativeunionid densities have declined by 56%, andrecruitment of YOY unionids has declinedby 90% (Strayer and Smith, 1996; Strayer etal., 1998).

16

COMPONENT SITE DESCRIPTIONS

Piermont Marsh

Location: Rockland County; River km 38 –42Area: 412 haSalinity and Tidal Range: 0-12 ppt; 1.0 m.

Description: Piermont Marsh is a brackishtidal wetland complex, bordered on thenorth by Piermont Pier and on the west bythe 50 m cliffs and talus slopes of thePalisades Ridge in southeastern RocklandCounty. Sparkill Creek drains 29 km2 of apredominantly urban watershed anddischarges into the north end of the marsh.A few well-defined but relatively shallowtidal creeks traverse the marsh. Extensiveshallows border the east side of the marsh.Most of the Reserve site is within theboundaries of Tallman Mountain State Park.

Piermont Marsh sediments arepredominantly peat and organic silt, with anestimated deposition rate of approximately0.26 cm/yr (Wong and Peteet, 1999). Peatdeposits are at least 12 m deep in thewestern part of the marsh, which has beendeveloping for over 4,000 years. Landwardsoils are primarily derived from glacial till.

Piermont Marsh habitats include brackishtidal marsh, shallows, and intertidalmudflats. The emergent marsh is dominatedby common reed (>80 %); however,portions of the marsh interior are vegetatedby mixed stands of Olney-threesquare, salt-meadow cordgrass, salt-grass (Distichlisspicata), narrow-leaved cattail, and rose-mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos).

Smooth cordgrass occurs along portions ofthe marsh edge. Offshore shallows arelargely unvegetated mud/sand, althoughwater ce lery , cur ly pondweed

Northern Harrier(Circus cyaneus)

(Potamogeton crispus), sago pondweed(Potamogeton pectinatus), and hornedpondweed (Zannichellia palustris) occur insparse beds.

The upland forest at the base of thePalisades Ridge has abundant and largeAmerican beech (Fagus grandifolia), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Northern redoak (Quercus rubra), cherry birch (Betulalenta), and flowering dogwood (Cornusflorida).

Common fish and macrocrustaceans whichoccur in Piermont Marsh include dagger-blade grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio),fiddler crab (Uca minax), blue crab(Callinectes sapidus), mummichog, andstriped bass. Muskrats build lodges in themarsh interior. Snapping turtles (Chelydraserpentina) and diamondback terrapins(Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) reside withinthe marsh and can be observed baskingalong the Piermont Pier. Wading and shore

17

birds include green-backed heron (Butoridesstriatus), American bittern (Botauruslentiginosus) and semipalmated sandpiper(Calidris pusilla). Piermont Marsh has beendesignated as part of the Atlantic Flyway forseasonally migrating birds and is used bymany threatened and endangered speciessuch as least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis),osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Northern harrier(Circus cyaneus), bald eagle (Haliaeetusleucocephalus), and peregrine falcon (Falcoperegrinus).

Native American sites in Rockland Countyand the surrounding area date back 5,000-6,000 years. The Tappan tribe had fishingvillages at each end of the marsh, onTallman Mountain and at Sneden's Landing.Dutch settlers moved into the New Yorkarea in the early 1600s and by 1640,settlements such as Tappan were present.Sparkill Creek was the first sea-level breakin the Palisades north of New York City andserved as an important access route inland asthe first mile of the waterway was navigableby the flat-bottomed sloops of the 17th and18th centuries.

By the early 19th century, development oflarger sloops with deeper drafts made theuse of Sparkill Creek impractical. To solvethis problem, the 1.6 km long pier wasconstructed in 1839 at the terminus of theErie railroad. The pier still stands today andis used by local residents for access to theHudson River. Most of Piermont Marsh ismanaged by the PIPC as a state park, butNYSDEC owns a small portion of the site.Recreational activities permitted at PiermontMarsh include boating, fishing, crabbing,hiking, and bird watching.

The urban setting of this site and thecontinued dominance of the marsh plant

community by common reed are two factorsdriving research and monitoring efforts.Future research needs include:

• Conduct a marsh breeding birdsurvey;

• Conduct a rare and threatened plantsurvey;

• Continue monitoring marsh plantcommunities at 5-10 year intervals;

• Determine if any native commonreed clones exist;

• Determine the feasibility ofcontrolling common reed, especiallywhere high marsh habitat is beinglost or threatened by reed expansion;

• Continue to support researchaddressing the ecological effects ofcommon reed expansion;

• Identify sources of chloride in thewa te r shed and documen tchanges/trends in chloride loadings;

• Establish a water quality dataloggerstation on Piermont Pier incollaboration with ColumbiaUniversity;

• Expand paleoecology studies to thenorthern and southern portions of themarsh;

• Monitor the recently documentedspotfin killifish (Fundulus luciae)population; and

• Update the 1994 land cover/land usedigital database.

18

Iona Island Marsh

Location: Rockland County; River km 72-74Area: 225 haSalinity and Tidal Range: 0-6 ppt; 0.9 m

Site Description: Iona Island Marsh is oneof the largest, undeveloped, tidal wetlandson the Hudson River, located between IonaIsland and the western shore of the HudsonRiver, in the Town of Stony Point, RocklandCounty. The site is primarily oligohalineintertidal marsh, dominated by common reedand narrow-leaved cattail. Tidal mudflats,SAV beds, and small areas of rocky uplandsalso occur in the area. Iona Island Marshreceives freshwater from DoodletownBrook, a small, high-gradient stream thatdrains a small (7.5 km2), predominantlyforested watershed. The marsh ishydrologically connected to the HudsonRiver through openings in the railroad bankat each end of Iona Island. Iona IslandMarsh is located within Bear Mountain StatePark and is owned by the PIPC. A causewayprovides vehicular access to the island fromthe mainland; however, this becomesflooded during extreme high tides.

Sediments in the tidal marshes and shallowsconsist of peat and silt. According toradiocarbon analysis of the peat, the marshbegan to form at least 6,000 years ago,behind Iona Island, in what is believed tohave been an old channel of the HudsonRiver. Some sediments under the marsh areas old as 12,500 years. Soils on Iona Islandand the mainland are derived from glacialtill and are very shallow, acidic, and nutrientpoor. A network of tidal creeks dissects themarsh and Doodletown Brook enters thewestern edge of the marsh north of the roadcauseway. In Doodletown Bight, thenorthern portion of the marsh, extensivemudflats are visible at low tide.

Red-winged Blackbird(Agelaius phoeniceus)

The dominant species of SAV in thebrackish tidal shallows are water celery andEuropean water-milfoil. Sparse growth ofwater chestnut occurs in Doodletown Bight,representing the farthest downriver locationof this invasive species. Plants in the lowerintertidal zone include arrow-arum(Peltandra virginica), pickerel-weed(Pontederia cordata), and arrowhead(Sagittaria sp.). The upper intertidal zone isdominated by narrow-leaved cattail andcommon reed, with rose-mallow. Woodedswamps occur in the southwest corner, northof the causeway, and west of railroad tracks.

Rocky woodland communities occur oneach side of the causeway and include oaks(Quercus spp.), ashes (Fraxinus spp.),birches (Betula spp.), willows (Salix spp.),red maple (Acer rubrum), and elms (Ulmusspp.). The woodlands are maintained for

19

their value as cover, perch sites, and bufferzones.

Iona Island Marsh provides favorablehabitats for a variety of fish and wildlifespecies. Shallow areas and tidal creeksprovide spawning and nursery habitat foranadromous and resident estuarine fishes,including alewife, blueback herring (Alosaaestivalis), white perch, striped bass, andmummichog. Blue crabs are also common inthe shallows and tidal creeks.

Iona Island Marsh is especially important formarsh-nesting birds. Probable or confirmedbreeding species include green-backedheron, least bittern, Canada goose, mallard(Anas platyrhynchos), wood duck (A i xsponsa), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), sora(Porzana carolina), belted kingfisher(Ceryle alcyon), marsh wren, red-wingedblackbird, and swamp sparrow. Largeconcentrations of herons, waterfowl andshorebirds also occur in Iona Island Marshduring spring and fall migrations (March-Apri l and September-November ,respectively). Other resident wildlife speciesin the area include muskrat, white-taileddeer, snapping turtle, painted turtle(Chrysemys picta), Northern water snake(Nerodia sipedon), and green frog (Ranaclamitans melanota). Five-lined skinks(Eumeces fasciatus) can occasionally befound on the rock outcrops overlooking themarsh.

The original inhabitants of Iona Island wereNative Americans who hunted and fishedthere. Evidence of human occupation of themarshes and Iona Island date back about5,500 years ago. Stephanus van Cortlandacquired the property in 1683 and named itSalisbury Island. The site was re-namedIona by C.W. Grant, who purchased the

property in 1849 and cultivated the Ionagrape. The U.S. Navy purchased Iona Islandin 1899 and constructed a military complex,which included nearly 150 buildings, plus anassortment of concrete bunkers. Iona Islandwas acquired by the PIPC in 1965. Thepresent causeway to the island wasoriginally built in 1911 and rebuilt in 1983.

The primary coastal management concern atIona Island Marsh is the rapid loss of marshplant diversity caused by the expansion ofcommon reed since 1970. The area of IonaIsland Marsh dominated by common reedincreased from 16 ha (31%) to 30 ha (56%)during the interval 1991-1997. Research hasfocused on identifying ecosystem effects ofthis expansion (e.g., fish use of the marsh,marsh breeding bird populations) and futureresearch should include the following:

• Monitor marsh breeding birds everyfive years;


• Determine the feasibility ofcontrolling common reed;

• Continue to support researchaddressing the ecological effects ofcommon reed expansion;

• Develop a hydrological model forthe tidal marshes;

• Establish a continuous water qualitydatalogger station and a weatherstation; and

• Initiate a paleoecology study, similarto that conducted at Piermont Marsh.

20

Tivoli Bays

Location: Dutchess County; River km 98-100Area: 697 haSalinity and Tidal Range: Freshwater; 1.2m.

Site Description: The Tivoli Bays consistsof two large river coves partially surroundedby wooded clay bluffs encompassing twomiles along the eastern shore of the HudsonRiver between the villages of Tivoli andBarrytown, in Dutchess County, NY. Thebays are partially isolated from the mainchannel of the Hudson River by a railroadcauseway built on fill in approximately1850. Tivoli North Bay encompassesapproximately 170 ha and Tivoli South Bayencompasses approximately 117 ha. Two15-20 m wide openings in the rail bed andthree culverts permit tidal exchange withNorth Bay. Three openings, approximately20-30 m, currently permit tidal exchangewith South Bay (a fourth opening wasclosed circa 1950). Tivoli North Bay'sintertidal marsh has a well-developednetwork of tidal creeks and pools. A similarnetwork of creeks and pools began to formin Tivoli South Bay's shallows and mudflatsduring the 1970s. The site also includesCruger Island and Magdalen Island, twobedrock islands located west of the railroad.A road built on fill connects Cruger Islandwith the mainland. Extensive tidal shallowslie north and south of Cruger Island,although just west of the island the mainriver is 15 m deep. The main tributaries arethe Stony Creek and the Saw Kill, whichdrain a combined watershed of about 124km2. The Reserve is headquartered at theBard College Field Station on South Bay,near the mouth of the Saw Kill.

Freshwater tidal marshes at Tivoli NorthBay are dominated by narrow-leaved cattail,with spatterdock (Nuphar advena) and

Marsh Wren(Cistothorus paulstris)

pickerel-weed occurring in the lower tomiddle intertidal zone. Two NY state-listedrare plants, goldenclub (O r o n t i u maquaticum) and heartleaf plantain (Plantagocordata), are known to occur in North Bay.

Invasive purple loosestrife and commonreed both occur within North Bay. Aerialmapping conducted in 1997 indicated thatsome 30 ha of Tivoli North Bay wereoccupied by purple loosestrife, representingnearly 18% of the vegetated marsh surface.In the 1997 vegetation survey, common reedstands represented a relatively minorcomponent of total wetland area (1.9 ha, or1% of total marsh area), but presentlycontinue to expand.

Subtidal shallows support communities ofsubmerged plants, with water celery andEuropean water-milfoil most abundant.

21

Freshwater intertidal mudflat and shorecommunities are also present. Tivoli SouthBay is dominated by water chestnut, whichforms dense mats covering most of the bay’ssurface during summer. An extensive tidalswamp located on Cruger Neck, thepeninsula between the two bays, and asmaller swamp located at the mouth ofStony Creek are mixed deciduouscommunities, with a well-developed shrublayer and diverse moss species. The claybluffs and rocky islands in the vicinity of thebays support mixed forests dominated byoak, hickory (Carya spp.), Eastern hemlock(Tsuga canadensis), and white pine (Pinusstrobus).

The Tivoli Bays are an important spawningand/or nursery ground for a variety ofanadromous and freshwater fish species,including black bass, white perch, andcommon carp (Cyprinus carpio). Tworegionally uncommon fish species,American brook lamprey (L a m p e t r aappend i x ) and Northern hog sucker(Hypentelium nigricans), are known to occurin the mouth of the Saw Kill.

A large snapping turtle population exists inTivoli North Bay. In late June, femalesdeposit their eggs in shallow burrowsexcavated in the soft sand of the rail beds.Painted turtles appear to have declined inrecent years (Rozycki and Kiviat, 1996).Waterfowl use the Tivoli Bays extensivelyduring migration and winter. Many otherbird species use the site for feeding,breeding, and migratory stopovers. Marshwren, least bittern, and Virginia rail nest innarrow-leaved cattail in North Bay.

Tivoli Bays and the associated uplands areadministered by NYSDEC as a Reservecomponent and as a Wildlife ManagementArea. Activities permitted at Tivoli Baysinclude scientific research, nature study,

hunting, trapping, boating, hiking, crosscountry skiing, bird watching, and fishing.

Native Americans used the Tivoli shores andCruger Island as fishing and hunting campsas early as 2500 B.C. and archaeologicalsites have been excavated within the area.The original non-native inhabitant of theTivoli Bays was Peter Schuyler, who settledthere in the late 17th Century. Cruger Islandwas purchased in 1835 by John ChurchCruger. Lavish homes were constructed onthe island during the mid to late 19th

Century. A series of summer camps weremaintained until the mid 1900s. CrugerIsland was purchased by Central HudsonGas & Electric in 1960; NYSDEC acquiredthe island in 1979.

Research, inventory, and monitoringpriorities at this site include:

• Develop a reliable hydrological/tidalexchange model;

• Continue monitoring resident andtransient fish species;



• Develop a land cover/land use digitaldatabase;


• Initiate a paleoecology study, similarto that conducted at Piermont Marsh;and

• Monitor the response of the marsh tocommon reed removal.

22

Stockport Flats

Location: Columbia County; River km 192-200Area: 625 haSalinity and Tidal Range: Freshwater; 1.2m

Site Description: Stockport Flats is an 8-kmmosaic of intertidal shore, marshes, subtidalshallows, sandy islands, and tidal swamp. Itis located on the eastern shore of the HudsonRiver in Columbia County, a few milesnorth of the city of Hudson, in the towns ofStockport and Stuyvesant. Most of this sitelies west of the eastern shore railroad line.The site’s primary geographic features, fromnorth to south, include Nutten Hook (abedrock outcropping), Gay's Point andStockport Middle Ground (created duringthe deepening of the Federal navigationchannel in the 1920s), the mouth ofStockport Creek, and Priming Hook.Stockport Creek, one of the ten largesttributaries to the lower Hudson, drains about1,300 km2.

Subtidal shallows at Stockport support SAV,with water celery the most abundant speciespresent. The tidal marshes are dominated bynarrow-leaved cattail, wild rice (Zizaniaaquatica), spatterdock, pickerel-weed, andpurple loosestrife. Common reed standsencompassed approximately nine ha (6.5%of total marsh area) during a 1997vegetation survey, while purple loosestrifecovered 22 ha (16% of the total intertidalmarsh area surveyed). Invasive commonreed is estimated to be colonizing at a rate of0.1 ha per year at Stockport (Winogrond andKiviat, 1997). Tidal and floodplain swampsat Stockport support a mixed deciduousforest community.

The bluffs along the south side of Stockportand east of the main marsh are covered by

Bank Swallow(Riparia riparia)

deciduous forest with oaks and otherspecies, as well as localized stands of whitepine. The sandy islands and peninsulas haveabundant cottonwood (Populus deltoides),black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), staghornsumac (Rhus typhina), oaks, and otherspecies.

State-listed rare plants known to occur atStockport Flats include Southern estuarinebeggar-ticks (Bidens bidentoides), salt-marsh bittercress (Cardamine longii) ,Fernald’s sedge (Carex merritt-fernaldii),Schwein i t z ’ s f l a t sedge (Cyperusschweinitzii), kidneyleaf mud-plantain(Heteranthera reniformis), sharpwingmonkey-flower (Mimulus alatus) ,goldenclub, swamp lousewort (Pedicularislaneceolata), heartleaf plaintain, spongyarrowhead (Sagittaria calycina subsp.

23

s p o n g i o s a ), and Hudson sagittaria(Sagittaria subulata).

Stockport Flats is a spawning and/or nurseryground for anadromous and freshwater fishspecies including alewife, blueback herring,American shad, striped bass, yellow perch(Perca flavescens), and largemouth bass(Micropterus salmoides). Stockport Creekand its tributaries represent an importantspawning area for smallmouth bass(Micropterus dolomieu) (Schmidt andStillman, 1994; 1998).

Waterfowl use the site as both a migrationstaging area and wintering ground, when notfrozen. Wading, shore, and songbirds use itfor feeding and breeding. Bank swallowsand belted kingfishers nest in the sand cliffson the southwestern shore of StockportMiddle Ground and Gay's Point peninsula.

Nutten Hook was the site of the R & WScott Ice Company (circa 1885), which wasone of the largest independently-ownedicehouses on the Hudson River, now on theNational Register of Historic Places. Withportions of the foundations and thepowerhouse chimney remaining, this site isthe most intact and interpretable ruinassociated with the ice industry on theHudson River.

Nearly the entire Stockport Flats componentis in New York State ownership under thejurisdiction of NYSDEC, the OPRHP, andthe OGS. Three small parcels are in privateownership.

Stockport Flats likely contains some of theyoungest tidal marsh habitat on the Hudson

River because of the recent and continuedmovement of sediments. Many uplandhabitats at this site were created by disposalof dredged material from the navigationchannel. This material is primarily sand andis continually shifting and eroding. Pertinentmanagement issues for this site are theinfluence of visitors on the erosion of theshoreline and the stability of the underwaterlands and dredged material islands. Futureresearch needs include:


• Initiate a paleoecology study, similarto that conducted at Piermont Marsh;



• Develop a land cover/land use digitaldatabase;

• Conduct a cultural resources study atNutten Hook;

• Determine the status of Ceruleanwarbler (Dendroica cerulea) use ofdredged material habitats (uplandand wetland forests); and

• Describe the dynamic nature of thebathymetry along the Hudson Riverchannel through Stockport Flats.

24

HUDSON RIVER NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE

PROGRAMS

Research and Monitoring Programs

Research policy at the Reserve is designedto fulfill the NERRS goals, authorized underSection 315 of the Coastal ZoneManagement Act of 1972 (NERRSRegulations: Title 15, Part 921 of the Codeof Federal Regulations). These include:

• Addressing coastal managementissues identified as significantthrough coordinated estuarineresearch within the system;

• Promoting Federal, state, public andprivate use of one or more reserveswithin the system when such entitiesconduct estuarine research; and

• Conducting and coordinatingestuarine research within the system,gathering and making availableinformation necessary for improvedunderstanding and management ofestuarine areas.

The goal of the Hudson River Reserve’sresearch and monitoring program is toincrease scientific knowledge andunderstanding of natural and humanprocesses, ecological interrelationships, andtrends occurring at the Reserve sites, withintheir watersheds, and throughout the HudsonRiver Estuary. To further this goal, theReserve will:

• Promote the use of the Reserve byresearchers representing public andprivate research entities for researchprojects consistent with local andnational research priorities andprotection of estuarine resources;

• Continue the development of long-term, continuous data sets to be usedto test research hypotheses, identifyshort-term variability and long-termtrends in estuarine ecosystem health,and provide a source of hypotheseson fundamental ecologicalre l a t ionsh ips and coas ta lmanagement questions;

• Develop and maintain facilities,equipment, tools, a reference library,data-bases, and other resourcesnecessary to facilitate research andmonitoring;

• Disseminate scientific information toresearchers, resource managers, andlocal decision-makers to promoteimproved coastal management andstewardship of the Hudson RiverEstuary and its watershed; and

• Coordinate and manage researchprojects at the Reserve sites in orderto streamline scientific efforts andavoid research site conflicts anddisturbances.

Current key research priorities include:

• Assess ecological functions ofaquatic habitats (e.g., SAV, tidalmarsh and swamp, benthic habitats);

• Inventory estuarine aquatic habitatsand document their spatialdistribution within the estuary;

• Investigate effects of invasive plantand animal species on ecosystemstructure and function;

25

• Initiate habitat restoration studies;

• Continue development andverification of the Hudson RiverWetland Functional AssessmentMethod to guide restoration planningand evaluation;

• Advance the knowledge base onrestoring freshwater tidal wetlandhabitats; and

• Identify watershed sources of pointand non-point surface waterpollutants.

Education Programs

The Reserve offers a wide spectrum ofeducation programs designed to increaseawareness and understanding of estuarinehabitats and promote sound stewardship ofthese resources. Programs for the generalpublic include guided canoe trips at three ofthe Reserve’s component sites, interpretiveprograms and a monthly lecture series at theTivoli Bays Visitor Center, representation atregional Hudson River events and a varietyof on-site field trips and off-sitepresentations. Interpretive panels andbrochures describe the ecological, culturaland recreational aspects of the Reserve’scomponent sites. A network of trails at twoof the Reserve’s component sites allowsvisitors to explore the uplands adjacent totidal habitats.

Formal education programs serve teachersand their K-12 classes, as well asundergraduate and graduate students. TheReserve is currently targeting middle schoolscience classes in the Tivoli Bays area,exploring ways to link them with HudsonRiver research. The program underdevelopment will utilize distance learningtechnology, supplemented by classroom

visit and site visit components. Future workwill build on this pilot program to reach outto middle schools adjacent to the other threeReserve sites and to expand services toelementary and high school science classes.

Another primary focus of the Reserve’seducation program is the development ofcollaborative workshops that will assistdecision makers in the Hudson Valley inmanaging and protecting the estuary’sresources, including its watershed area, byproviding science-based training andinformation, access to technology and aforum for networking with colleaguesthroughout the estuary.

The Reserve augments its educationalimpact by supporting a variety of othereducational programs in the Hudson RiverEstuary. Other organizations using Reservesites for educational purposes include BardCollege, the Dutchess County’s WatermanBird Club, and local chapters of the SierraClub and the National Audubon Society.More active field support is given toorganizations such as Clearwater, RocklandCounty Board of Cooperative EducationalServices (BOCES), the Museum of theHudson Highlands, the Stony Kill FarmEnvironmental Center, and the TrailsideMuseum of Bear Mountain State Park. TheReserve is working in close collaborationwith the NYSDEC’s Hudson River EstuaryProgram (HREP) to help develop a HudsonValley K-12 curriculum and synchronizewith its education goals (HREP, 2002).

Effectively incorporating findings of theReserve’s research and monitoring programsinto all its educational outreach and trainingprograms is critical to fulfilling its missionof promoting improved coastal management.Over the next five years, the Reserve willfocus on the following topics:

26

• Anthropogenic sources of chloridesto aquatic systems;

• Ecological costs/benefits ofcontrolling invasive common reed inHudson River estuarine wetlands;

• The role of Hudson River tidalwetlands in processing dissolvedinorganic nitrogen and phosphorus;

• Application of Hudson Riverecological functional assessmentmethods to Hudson River estuarinerestoration;

• Effect ive management andprotection of Hudson River estuarineaquatic habitats (e.g., benthic, SAV,and tidal wetland habitats);

• Use of water quality monitoring datafor classroom and/or communityeducation; and

• Continued implementation of theSAV volunteer monitoring program.

Fellowship Programs

Three graduate and undergraduatefellowship programs have contributedgreatly to the body of estuarine researchconducted at the Hudson River Reserve: theTibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, theNOAA/NERRS Graduate ResearchFellowship Program (GRF), and the NewYork Sea Grant (NYSG) / Hudson RiverNERR Cooperative Fellowship Program.

The Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship programwas established in 1985 and is a cooperativeprogram between the Reserve and theHudson River Foundation for Science andEnvironmental Research. To date, over 160undergraduate and graduate fellows have

been supported under the Polgar FellowshipProgram to conduct original research in theHudson River Estuary. Research topicsinclude life cycles and trophic dynamics ofestuarine biota; water quality, sediment andnutrient exchanges between tidal wetlandsand the river; vegetation communities;pollution impacts; archaeologicalinvestigations; watershed and land usestudies; and public policy research. Many ofthe Polgar projects have been conductedwithin one or more Reserve componentsites.

The NOAA/NERRS GRF is intended tosupport research in the reserves by providinggraduate students with hands-on experiencein research, coastal zone management andmonitoring. This competitive fellowshipprogram provides graduate students withfunding for one to three years to conducttheir own research projects while receivingtraining in ecological monitoring and coastalmanagement. GRF projects must addresscoastal management issues identified ashaving regional or national significance,relate them to the NERRS research prioritieslisted, and be conducted at least partiallywithin one or more designated Reserve sites. The Reserve and NYSG co-sponsor agraduate fellowship program which providesannual funding for one student to conductresearch within one or more of the fourReserve components. Current researchpriorities are to:

• Develop evaluation techniques tomeasure restoration success and/orremediation techniques to restoredisturbed coastal environments andhabitat;

• D e t e r m i n e f u n c t i o n a limpacts/importance of introducedand native species on estuarine

27

wetland ecosystem functioning anddevelop effective detection andcontrol mechanisms;

• I d e n t i f y a n d / o r e v a l u a t eanthropogenic effects on estuarinewetland ecosystem functions; and

• Identify and/or evaluate relationshipsbetween wetland ecosystems and thedrainage basin.

Although research in these areas ispreferred, other topics, including socio-economic research relevant to the missionsof NYSG and Reserve programs may alsobe considered.

Water Quality Monitoring

In 1991, a long-term water quality-monitoring program was initiated at heReserve. The goal of the program is to takemonthly measurements of physical andchemical components of the marsh andtributary surface waters of the Reserve sites.Since then, this program has been carriedout continuously and has resulted in a 13-year database.

The monitoring program includes fieldmeasurements of DO, specific conductivity,temperature, and salinity, as well ascollection of whole water samples fornutrient analysis (nitrate, phosphate,chloride and sulfate) and long-term (Aprilthrough December) deployment ofelectronic dataloggers at four marsh and fivetributary monitoring stations among theReserve components. Each instrumentpackage measures depth, DO, watertemperature, specific conductivity, salinity,pH, and turbidity. Episodic event and baseflow data have been collected in order toassess seasonal variations and to determinethe response of tributaries to storm events.

Monitoring tributary water quality isimportant to document the effects of urbanand residential land use practices on Reservesite watersheds. Since residential coveragecontinues to increase, it is hoped that theintensive monitoring of the surface waters inthese watersheds will identify trendsassociated with this rapid development.

The NERRS System-Wide MonitoringProgramThe NERRS has a System-wide MonitoringProgram (SWMP), which providesstandardized data on national estuarineenvironmental trends while allowing theflexibility to assess coastal managementissues of regional or local concern. Theprincipal mission of the SWMP is todevelop quantitative measurements of short-term variability and long-term changes inthe integrity and biodiversity ofrepresentative estuarine ecosystems andcoastal watersheds for the purposes ofcontributing to effective coastal zonemanagement. The program is designed toenhance the value and vision of the reservesas a system of national references sites. Datacollected by the NERRS monitoringprogram are compiled electronically at acentral data management “hub.” Thecentralized data management office(CDMO) at the Belle W. Baruch Institute forMarine Biology and Coastal Research of theUniversity of South Carolina providesadditional quality control for data andmetadata. The Reserve participates in theSWMP via data collection at the TivoliSouth Bay, Tivoli North Bay, Saw Kill, andStony Creek long-term water qualitymonitoring sites.

Long-Term Meteorological Data

Collection

Meteorological data have been collected atthe Tivoli Bays component since July 1999.

28

Measurements of air temperature, relativehumidity, barometric pressure, precipitation,photosynthetically active radiation, andwind speed and direction are taken from aweather station, located at the Bard CollegeEcology Field Station, adjacent to theconfluence of the Saw Kill and Tivoli SouthBay.

Plant Community Inventory and Trends

The Reserve has been monitoring marshplant communities of each component siteand has completed two communityinventories, in 1991 and 1997 (Appendix

A). This has enabled the Reserve to identifytrends in plant community coverage,including the spread of invasive plantspecies such as common reed and purpleloosestrife. The results of the communitymapping study are being used by theReserve to direct research efforts on theecology and potential control of these andother invasive species.

SAV Inventory and Trends

Through a collaborative partnership withCornell University, The Institute ofEcosystem Studies (IES), New York SeaGrant, and Hudson River Estuary Program,the Reserve has mapped the distribution ofSAV in the Hudson River along a 200-kmstudy area from Troy, NY south to Yonkers,NY using 1995, 1997, and 2002 aerialphotography. Four broad categories wereused in the classification: 1) watercelery/other SAV, 2) water chestnut, 3) openwater, and 4) upland/intertidal. No attemptwas made to distinguish among individualSAV species within the first category,although approximately 20 occur in thestudy area. Light penetration is the primarydeterminant of SAV distribution in theHudson River, and the increase in light

penetration resulting from enhancedfiltration of the estuary water column byinvasive zebra mussels in recent years isbelieved to be changing the distribution ofSAV in the estuary (Strayer et al., 1999).

Hudson River Benthic Mapping Project

The Reserve, working with several private,state, and Federal partners, is mapping thesubmerged lands of the Hudson RiverEstuary with a suite of geophysical tools.Multibeam swath bathymetry, side-scansonar, and sub-bottom profiling using“chirp” sonar and ground-penetrating radarwere used to collect information on bottomcontours, submerged structures, and shallowgeophysical features from NY/NJ Harbor tothe Federal Dam at Troy, NY. Thegeophysical data collection has beensupplemented with sediment profile imagery(SPI) and characterization of benthiccommunities by sediment core/grabsampling. This study represents the firstmodern attempt to map the bottom of theHudson River Estuary, as the lastcomprehensive bathymetric survey of theriver was conducted in the 1930s.

Data products include acoustic images,mosaics, and several interpreted geographicinformation system (GIS) data layers. Theselayers include anthropogenic deposits,recently deposited fine-grained sediments,sediment grain size, bedforms, and riverbottom morphology.

The benthic mapping project has yielded awealth of new information on the bottomfeatures of the Hudson River Estuary,including cultural and historic resources.Historic oyster beds have been mapped inthe Tappan Zee and ten-foot high sandwaves were observed to be extensive in theKingston-Saugerties region. Sediment lobes

29

at the mouths of major tributaries weremapped in Newburgh Bay.

This information will be used to classify andmanage benthic habitats, and to monitor andmanage sediment and contaminant transportwithin the estuary. The images and GISdatabase will prove useful in documentingtemporal and spatial change in the estuary,guiding future research and enforcing thelaws that govern human activity in theestuary.

Tivoli Bays Fish Community Surveys

In 2001, the Reserve partnered with Simon’sRock College to establish a long-term fishcommunity monitoring program at theTivoli Bays Reserve component. Thepurpose of this program is to assess inter-annual variability and document long-termtrends in resident fish populations andanadromous fishes that are using the TivoliBays.

Monitoring takes place at several stations inboth Tivoli North and South Bays.Additional samples are collected along theinner shore of Magdalen and Cruger Islands.Anadromous fish and larvae are sampled atthe mouths of Stony Creek and the Saw Killtributaries to South and North Bays,respectively. Rectangular drift nets are usedto sample larval fish at night on ebb tides. Apop net was used to collect fish from thedense water chestnut beds in South Bayduring summer 2002. Adult fish are sampledat mouths of the Saw Kill and Stony Creekon occasion using a backpackelectroshocker.

Restoration Science Program

The Reserve has developed a RestorationScience Program, which involves regional

planning and collaboration with severallocal agencies and research institutions,including the NYSDEC Hudson RiverEstuary Program; Hudsonia, Ltd.; CornellUniversity; and IES. The program focuseson several key restoration priorities in theHudson River, including:

• Restoration of migratory fish passagewithin Hudson River tributaries;

• Development of an understanding ofthe functional shifts associated withmanaging invasive common reed;

• Softening of hardened shorelinesalong the estuary;

• Conversion of dredged materialuplands to intertidal and subtidalfreshwater wetlands;

• Developing a reference set ofwetlands and data to guidefreshwater tidal wetland restoration;and

• Determining the limiting factorscontrolling the establishment anddistribution of SAV in freshwatertidal habitats.

Partners

A key ingredient in the success of theReserve’s research, monitoring, andeducation programs is the partnerships thathave been established and strengthened overthe past 15 years. Partners include: NOAA’sEstuarine Reserves Division (ERD), HREP,IES, Cornell University’s Institute forResource Information Systems (IRIS), BardCollege, Hudson River Foundation (HRF),Columbia University; Hudsonia, NYSG, theGreenway Conservancy for the HudsonRiver Valley, and the New England

30

Interstate Water Pollution ControlCommission (NEIWPCC). Thesepartnerships have been critical for directingthe Reserve’s research focus, attractingresearch scientists and funding, extending

research and monitoring results to coastalmanagement programs, and implementingresearch, monitoring, and educationprograms in the most effective manner.

31

DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT AQUATIC HABITATS WITHIN THE

RESERVE

The Reserve includes many distinctecological communities and significanthabitats, including tidal deepwaters, shallowbays and coves, intertidal mudflats,emergent tidal wetlands, tidal swamps,forested uplands, and both the tidal and non-tidal portions of Hudson River tributaries.Reschke (1990) developed a classificationscheme for ecological communities in NewYork State. This scheme arrangescommunity types by systems and sub-systems. For example within the system“Estuarine” there exist three subsystems(subtidal, intertidal, and cultural). Eachsubsystem includes several community types(e.g., tidal marsh, tidal mudflat, etc.). Eachcommunity type is further subdivided bysalinity regime (e.g., brackish vs.freshwater). The following communitydescriptions are based upon Reschke’sclassification.

System: Estuarine

Sub-system: Subtidal

Tidal RiverReschke (1990) divides the tidal rivercommunity type into two depth strata. Theshallow zone includes areas less than 2 mdeep that lack rooted aquatic vegetation. Thedeepwater zone includes areas over 2 m indepth at low tide. This zone is generally toodeep to support growth of aquaticmacrophytes. Swift currents and sandy orrocky bottoms characterize many HudsonRiver t idal deepwater habitats .Characteristic fish species of the deepwaterzone include Atlantic tomcod (Microgadustomcod), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli),and hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus).Characteristic fish of the shallow zone

include striped bass, American shad, andwhite perch.

Tidal CreekTidal creeks are the permanent drainagefeatures of brackish or freshwater intertidalmarshes. Water levels in a creek fluctuatetwice daily with the tides and manysecondary tidal creek bottoms are exposed atlow tide. With the exception of those thatwere channelized, most tidal creeks exhibit acharacteristic sinuous pattern, due to the flattopography of the low-lying tidal marshes,which they drain. Characteristic SAVspecies of tidal creeks include widgeon-grass (Ruppia maritima) in brackish creeks,and water celery in freshwater tidalwetlands. The non-native European water-milfoil and water chestnut commonly occurin freshwater tidal creeks as far south asIona Island. Characteristic fish species ofbrackish tidal creeks in the Hudson Estuaryinclude Atlantic silverside (M e n i d i amenidia) and mummichog. Characteristicfish species of freshwater tidal creeksinclude banded killifish (Fundulusdiaphanus ), spottail shiner (Notropish u d s o n i u s ), and tessellated darter(Etheostoma olmstedi). Tidal creeks are usedas nursery areas by several estuarine-dependent species, including striped bassand bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix).

Brackish and Freshwater Subtidal AquaticBedThis shallow subtidal zone occurs abovedeepwater, but below mean low water(MLW). Typically, this zone occurs innarrow bands along the shoreline or in broadshallow flats. In the upper estuary, this zonemay also be present in shallow bays such asTivoli South Bay. Water celery is the most

32

common SAV species of the upper estuary.Additional species include water-weeds(Elodea canadensis and E. nuttallii), naiads(Najas guadalupensis and N. minor) ,pondweeds, and the non-native waterchestnut and European water-milfoil.Brackish SAV communities occur inHaverstraw Bay and in the Tappan Zee.Historically, SAV was abundant at themouth of the Croton River and throughoutCroton Bay.

Characteristic SAV species of the lowerestuary include water-weeds, water celery,coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), naiads,sago pondweed, horned pondweed, andwidgeon-grass.

System: Estuarine

Sub-system: Intertidal

Brackish and Freshwater Intertidal ShoreIntertidal shore communities includesparsely vegetated gravel or sandyshorelines and the extensive railroadembankments, which occur along bothshores of the Hudson. Characteristic plantspecies occurring along intertidal shoresinclude knotweeds (Polygonum spp.),tidewater hemp (Amaranthus cannabinus),heartleaf plantain, and Northern estuarinebeggar-ticks (Bidens hyperborea) (USFWS,1997).

Intertidal Brackish and Freshwater MudflatsIntertidal mud flats are sparsely vegetated,depositional environments which occur intributary mouths or behind islands, wherewave and current energy is relatively low.Some 440 ha of brackish and intertidal mudflats are present throughout the estuary.Extensive brackish intertidal mud flats occurbehind Iona Island and Constitution Island,in the oligohaline portion of the estuary.Significant areas of freshwater intertidal

mud and sand flats occur at the Tivoli Baysand Stockport Flats (USFWS, 1997).

Characteristic mud flat vegetation in themid-Hudson River Estuary includesEuropean water-milfoil, arrowheads(Sagittaria subulata, S. calycina), andkidneyleaf mud-plantain. In the upperestuary, bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) may occuron intertidal sand flats.

Intertidal Brackish and Freshwater MarshesThe Hudson River Estuary containsapproximately 1800 ha of intertidal brackishand freshwater tidal marshes; both broadleafand graminoid community types are well-represented. There are very few intertidalmarshes in the lower estuary, with thenotable exception of Piermont Marsh.Freshwater tidal marshes are widelydistributed throughout the mid- and upper-Hudson River Estuary.

Although Hudson River freshwater tidalmarshes perform many of the samefunctions as tidal saltwater or brackishmarshes, their floral and faunal compositionis similar to that of non-tidal freshwaterwetlands. In contrast to salt marshes, inwhich plant distribution and zonation isusually dominated by one or two species(e.g., Spartina sp.), freshwater tidal marshesfrequently include mixed communities ofmany species, including grasses, shrubs, andforbs. Floristic intertidal zonation occursalong an elevation gradient, but may not beas sharply defined as in saline coastalmarshes. Seasonal variation in plantcommunity composition may bepronounced, with annual and perennial plantspecies alternating both in aerial extent andbiomass.

Characteristic plants of the lower freshwaterintertidal marsh include spatterdock andpickerel-weed. In the mid to upper reaches

33

of the marsh, both annuals and perennialsare encountered, including arrow-arum, wildrice, narrow-leaved and hybrid cattail(Typha angustifolia, Typha X glauca),common arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia),knotweeds, beggar-ticks (Bidens spp.), ricecut-grass (Leerzia oryzoides), and sweet flag(Acorus calamus). Seed availability andgermination potential may, in part,determine the distribution of plants acrossthe marsh landscape. Various species arerestricted to upper intertidal locations as aresult of intolerance to extended periods ofinundation (Leck and Simpson, 1987).Competition and shading may alsocontribute to the determination of plantzonation, vegetative growth patterns, anddistribution patterns. Many freshwater tidalmarshes in the mid-upper Hudson Riverestuary are undergoing invasion by commonreed.

Freshwater Tidal SwampFreshwater tidal swamp, a regionally andglobally rare community type, can be foundin select locations within the upper HudsonRiver Estuary, including the Tivoli BaysReserve (Cruger Island Neck). Some 600 haof freshwater tidal tree/shrub swamp occurswithin the mid-upper Hudson River Estuary.Tidal swamps provide habitat for a varietyof nesting birds, mammals, reptiles, andamphibians. Characteristic plant species offreshwater tidal swamps include red maple,green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) ,American elm (Ulmus americana), andwillows. Shrub species may include Bell'shoneysuckle (Lonicera X bella), silkydogwood (Cornus amomum), smooth alder(Alnus serrulata), common buttonbush(Cephalanthus occidentalis), and Northernspice-bush (Lindera benzoin). Typical plantsof the tidal swamp understory include purpleloosestrife, spotted jewelweed, sensitive fern(Onoclea sensibilis), knotweeds, and skunk

cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) (USFWS,1997).

System: Estuarine

Sub-system: Cultural

Dredged Material HabitatsDredged material islands and uplands are acommon landscape feature in the upperHudson River Estuary. Most of these wereconstructed from 1860 to 1925, asnavigation improvements were implementedto deepen the Federal navigation channel inthe upper reaches of the estuary, betweenHudson and Albany. Significant portions ofthe Stockport Flats Reserve component arecomprised of dredged material habitats.

Reschke (1990) describes several dredgedmaterial community types, includingestuarine/marine dredge spoil shore, dredgespoil wetland, and dredge spoils. Stevens(2001) further divides these into thefollowing sub-communities: dredge spoiltidal swamp/tidal supra swamp, dredge spoilshore meadow, dredge spoil forest, dredgespoil floodplain forest, dredge spoil drymeadow, dredge spoil bluff slope, anddredge spoil vernal pool. Reschke (1990)suggests that dredged material habitatscontain relatively few plant and animalspecies and that vegetation cover is minimal;however, Stevens (2001) documented afairly diverse assemblage of species atStockport Flats and nearby. Given sufficienttime (years to decades), succession by avariety of plant and animal species is likelyto occur on these man-made habitats.

Riprap/Artificial ShoreThis community type represents thevegetation and biota associated with rocks,wooden bulkheads, and concrete structuresplaced to stabilize shorelines and controlerosion. Much of the shoreline of the upperHudson River Estuary (north of the city of

34

Hudson) is characterized by woodenbulkheading, some constructed as early asthe late 18th century, intended to stabilizedredged material islands and other man-made shoreline features. Vegetative coverand species diversity tends to be low inassociation with rip/rap bulkheadedstructures as compared to natural shorelinesubstrates.

System: Riverine

Sub-system: Natural Streams

Hudson River TributariesHudson River tributaries provide a source ofsediments and nutrients to the main stem ofthe estuary, influencing both its physical andbiological attributes. Some Hudson Rivertributaries may contain relatively swiftcurrents, with considerable lateral erosionand a well-defined pool, riffle, and rungeomorphology. Others may be dominatedby clearly defined meanders andconsiderable deposition. Characteristic fishspecies of Hudson River tributaries includecreek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) ,blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), andtessellated darter. Rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout

(Salmo trutta) have been introduced in theupper reaches of some tributaries. The lowernon-tidal sections of Hudson Rivertributaries provide important overwinteringareas for smallmouth bass and largemouthbass. The non-tidal portions of tributariesalso provide essential spawning habitat foranadromous fish, notably alewife.

System: Terrestrial

Sub-system: Forested Uplands

Upland ForestReschke (1990) defines a forested upland asthose upland communities with more than60% canopy cover of trees occurring onsubstrates with less than 50% rock outcropor shallow soil over bedrock. Characteristictrees of the Hudson Valley region includeoaks, maples (Acer spp.), birches, Americanbeech, Eastern hemlock, and white pine. Dryrocky slopes in the vicinity of Iona Islandsupport Northern red oak and rock chestnutoak (Quercus prinus). Areas with moist,deeper soils, typically found in the mid toupper Hudson Valley, support oaks, sugarmaple (Acer saccharum), tulip tree, sweetbirch (Betula lenta), American beech,Eastern hemlock, and flowering dogwood(USFWS, 1997). Shrubs, ferns, lichens, andmosses are common among the forestunderstory. Successional northern hardwoodcommunities occur in areas that have beencleared (for agriculture or logging) orotherwise disturbed. The upland forestcommunity adjacent to the estuary shorelineprovides habitat for a variety of mammals,birds, repti les, and amphibians.Characteristic species known to occur withinthe Reserve include white-tailed deer, wildturkey (Meleagris gallopavo), red-belliedwoodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalissirtalis), Eastern box turtle (Terrapenecarolina carolina), American toad (Bufoamericanus), and Eastern red-backedsalamander (Plethodon cinereus).

35

Arrow-arum(Peltandra virginica)

Spatterdock(Nuphar advena)

Pickerel-weed(Pontederia cordata)

Narrow-leaved Cattail(Typha angustifolia)

36

ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES AND BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

Long-Term Water Quality Monitoring

Since 1991, the Reserve’s long-term waterquality monitoring program has provided anearly continuous time series of basic waterquality parameters [salinity, total suspendedsolids (TSS), DO, pH] and nutrientconcentrations (nitrate and phosphate)within the four Reserve components andtheir principal tributaries. While basic waterquality conditions throughout the Reserveare generally representative of conditions ina temperate estuary, and thereforeunremarkable, monitoring of nutrients hasidentified some areas of concern andpotential sources of organic enrichment. Inaddition, monitoring of sulfate and chloridehas identified elevated concentrations of thelatter within the Reserve components andtheir tributaries. Along with nutrientenrichment, chloride pollution is linked tothe increasing urbanization of the sitecomponent’s individual watersheds. Sulfatelevels have decreased within the past 15years among the Reserve components,consistent with a decreasing trend inatmospheric sulfate deposition regionally.The long-term data record generated by theReserve’s monitoring program can be usedto compare temporal trends and spatialpatterns in water quality among theindividual Hudson River component sites,between the Reserve components and theHudson River mainstem and among theHudson River Reserve and other reserveslocated throughout the U.S.

SalinityFrom NYC to Troy, salinity decreases as thedistance from the mouth of the HudsonRiver increases (Figure 3). The averagesalinity at Iona Island Marsh (II) isapproximately one-half that of PiermontMarsh (PM). At these two sites, salinity in

winter and spring is approximately one-fourth that of summer and fall. Ebb-tidemeasurements often reflect lower salinitythan the main channel due to the influenceof the major tributary at each site. TivoliSouth Bay (TS), Tivoli North Bay (TN), andStockport Flats (SF) always exhibitfreshwater conditions. Mean concentrationsof chloride and sulfate follow the samespatial pattern as salinity at the marsh sites.

NitrateNitrate concentrations in the tributaries arerelated to activities within the watersheds(Figure 4). Stockport Creek, Stony Creekand the Saw Kill all have watershedsclassified as low-density residential.However, nitrate concentrations in the SawKill and Stony Creek are higher than inSparkill Creek, which is located within aprimarily urban watershed. Septic systems inthe watershed contribute nitrate to the SawKill. A municipal sewage treatment plantdischarges nitrate-laden effluent in theupstream reaches of Stony Creek.Discernible spikes in nitrate concentrationsoccur at this site, primarily during low-flowconditions.

Nitrate concentrations in Piermont Marshand Stockport Flats are similar toconcentrations in the tributaries. At bothsites, the tributary does not flow through anextensive marsh system prior to entering theriver. Nitrate concentrations are similaramong Iona Island Marsh, Tivoli South Bay,and Tivoli North Bay. Concentrations atthese three sites are more similar to the riverthan to the dominant tributary. These threemarshes not only intercept nutrients beingexported from the watershed; they are alsoremoving nutrients from the tidal waters ofthe Hudson River mainstem.

37

Figure 3: Mean salinity at HRNERR marsh sites in the winter/spring and summer/fall seasons. Meansare derived from monthly measurements from June 1991- May 1992 and from June 1996-

December 2003. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 4: Mean nitrate concentrations in ebb-tide water from HRNERR tidal marshes, their associated

tributaries and the main channel of the Hudson River by location (The Battery = River km

0). Mean concentrations at HRNERR sites are derived from data collected monthly fromMay 1991- December 2003 (a break in data collection in the marsh sites occurred from June

1992 – May 1996). Error bars represent one standard error of the mean. Mean concentrations

in the main channel are derived from data collected bi-weekly during May through Octoberfrom 1993-2003 (N.F. Caraco and J. J. Cole, unpublished data).

38

At all marsh sites, nitrate and DO are lowestin the summer, due to increased biologicalactivity (Figure 5). Decomposition in thefall leads to higher nitrate concentrationsrelative to summer, while DO remains thesame. Concentrations of nitrate and DO arehigher in the winter and spring, likely due tolimited biological activity during theseseasons.

When invasive water chestnut is atmaximum biomass in Tivoli South Bay,nitrate removal during a tidal cycle isevident (Figure 6). Late ebb-tideconcentrations are less than 20% of floodtide values. This removal is either due touptake by the plants (Tsuchiya andIwakuma, 1993; Kiviat and Hummel, 2004)or denitrification in the hypoxic sediments,created in the water under the plant canopy.Nitrate removal during a tidal cycle is muchless before the water chestnut beds achievepeak biomass (June) and after the waterchestnut beds have senesced (November)(Figure 7).

PhosphatePhosphate concentrations in Stony Creek areaffected by discharge of effluent from amunicipal sewage treatment plant located inthe adjacent village of Tivoli. Discerniblespikes in phosphate concentrations occur atthis site, primarily during low-flowconditions. Higher concentrations ofphosphate in Sparkill Creek relative to theSaw Kill and Stockport Creek are likely dueto the greater degree of development withinthe watershed (Figure 8).

Concentrations of phosphate in PiermontMarsh and Iona Island Marsh are similar tomain channel concentrations. Concentrationsat Iona Island Marsh are less than PiermontMarsh, but greater than all of the freshwatertidal sites. Higher concentrations in thesouthernmost sites may be due to greater

population density and sewage inputs orrelease of phosphate from sediments in thesummer (Lampman et al., 1999). Phosphateconcentrations in Tivoli North Bay andTivoli South Bay are similar to mainchannel concentrations and phosphateconcentrations in Stockport Flats are moresimilar to concentrations in Stockport Creekthan to concentrations in the main channel.

Total Suspended SolidsMean concentrations of total suspendedsolids at the Reserve marsh sites (ebb-tidemeasurements) are similar to meanconcentrations at nearby locations in themain channel (Figure 9). Concentrations inPiermont Marsh and Stockport Flats arelikely influenced by tributary input. Of allthe tributaries, Stockport Creek has thehighest mean concentration of suspendedsolids, due in part to the size of the drainage.

Dissolved Oxygen and pHIn both Tivoli South Bay and Tivoli NorthBay, as depth decreases (ebb-tide), DO andpH decrease (Figure 10). As depth increases(flood tide), DO and pH increase again.Biological activity in both Tivoli Bays sitesappears to remove DO from the water andthe change in pH likely results from CO2

addition. These effects are less obvious inthe early spring and late fall/early winter dueto reduced biological activity and coldertemperatures.

Among all Reserve marsh sites, yearly meanDO percent saturations (from monthlymeasurements) are lowest at Tivoli NorthBay and Tivoli South Bay (Figure 11,Figure 12). This is likely due to highbiological activity in the marsh at TivoliNorth Bay and the presence of the waterchestnut beds in Tivoli South Bay during thesummer and fall. Yearly mean dissolvedoxygen saturation is highest in Stockport

39

Figure 5: Seasonal patterns of mean nitrate concentrations and percent saturation of dissolved oxygen

at all HRNERR marsh sites (Winter = 1, Spring = 2, Summer = 3, Fall = 4). Means include

monthly measurements from 1991-1992 and from 1996-2003. Error bars represent onestandard error of the mean.

Figure 6: Relationship between nitrate and tide stage at Tivoli South Bay during a diel sampling in

August 2003. Depth data were recorded by a datalogger every 30 minutes and a water

sample was collected by an autosampler every 2.5 hours over a 27.5-hour period.

40

Figure 7: Relationship between nitrate and tide stage at Tivoli South Bay during diel sampling events

in June and November 2003. Depth data were recorded by a datalogger every 30 minutesand a water sample was collected by an autosampler every 2.5 hours over a 27.5-hour

period.

41

Figure 8: Phosphate (PO4) concentrations in HRNERR tidal marshes, their associated tributaries and

the main channel of the Hudson River by location (The Battery = River km 0). Mainconcentrations at HRNERR sites are derived from data collected monthly from May 1991-

December 2003 (a break in data collection in the marsh sites occurred from June 1992-May

1996). Error bars represent one standard error of the mean. Mean concentrations in the main

channel are derived from data collected biweekly during May through October from 1992-2003 (N.F. Caraco and J.J. Cole, unpublished data).

Figure 9: Concentrations of suspended solids in HRNERR tidal marshes, their associated tributaries

and the main channel of the Hudson River by location (The Battery = River km 0). Mean

concentrations at HRNERR sites are derived from data collected monthly from May 1991-

December 2003 (a break in data collection in the marsh sites occurred from June 1992-May1996). Error bars represent one standard error of the mean (S.E.G. Findlay, unpublished

data).

42

Figure 10: Relationship between DO concentrations and tide stage in Tivoli North Bay in the summer.

DO and depth data were observed by a datalogger every 30 minutes.

43

Figure 11: Percent saturation of DO in Tivoli North Bay (TN) and Tivoli South Bay (TS) in 2004. DO

data were collected every 30 minutes by dataloggers from late March through late

December.

44

Figure 12: Number and timing of DO measurements <3.5 mg/L in Tivoli North Bay (TN) and Tivoli

South Bay (TS) in 2004. DO date were collected every 30 minutes by dataloggers every 30

minutes from late March through late December.

45

Flats and Iona Island Marsh, perhaps due tothe presence of SAV at these sites. DOsaturation at Piermont Marsh, where SAV isscarce and largely restricted to the shallowflats offshore of the marsh, is intermediate.

Chloride and SulfateDifferences in chloride and sulfateconcentrations and specific conductivityreflect the degree of development within thewatersheds and localized inputs. SparkillCreek (SP) has a predominantly urbanwatershed (70%) and Doodletown Brookhas a small, forested watershed. The SawKill (SK), Stony Creek (SC), and StockportCreek (ST) have low-density residentialwatersheds. Development in the Saw Killwatershed is increasing, which may beaffecting chloride concentrations andspecific conductivity. Stony Creek receiveseffluent discharge from a sewage treatmentplant upstream from the sampling site,which may contribute to the higher specificconductivity and sulfate concentrationsrelative to the other low-density residentialsites.

An increase in chloride concentrations wasevident in four out of five Reservetributaries from 1991-2003 (Figure 13). Thehighest concentrations and greatest increasein yearly mean concentrations (40-110mg/L) were documented in Sparkill Creek.A seasonal pattern, with spikes in chlorideconcentrations in the winter months, isevident at this site. This suggests that roadsal t l ikely inf luences chlor ideconcentrations. Yearly mean concentrationshave doubled in the Saw Kill since 1991(Figure 14). There is a strong inverserelationship of chloride concentrations toflow at this site, suggesting that chloride isentering the groundwater. Possible sourcesinclude road salt, septic systems, and watersofteners. Yearly mean concentrations haveincreased in Stony Creek since 1991, but the

increase is not as dramatic (<10 mg/L).However, spikes in chloride concentrationsare concurrent with spikes in nitrate andphosphate concentrations, suggesting thepossible influence of the sewage treatmentplant discharge at this site. Yearly meanconcentrations have also increased inStockport Creek since 1991 (16-23 mg/L),but sources are more difficult to distinguishdue to the large area of the watershed (1326km2).

Yearly mean sulfate concentrations havedecreased in all five Reserve tributaries from1991-2003 (Figure 15). The total decreasein concentration ranges from 20-40%. Asimilar decrease (approximately 33%) insulfate concentrations in wet deposition hasbeen recorded by the National AtmosphericDeposition Program monitoring station inWest Point, NY. Rainfall appears to affectsulfate concentrations in all Reservetributaries, with higher concentrationsoccurring during dry years. In DoodletownBrook, atmospheric deposition is likely themajor source of sulfate. Sewage treatmentplants on Sparkill Creek and Stony Creekmay contribute to sulfate concentrations atPiermont Marsh and Tivoli North Bay.

Hydrology

Hydrologic processes have been studied atthree of the four Reserve component sites.Hydrologic exchange between Tivoli NorthBay and the Hudson River mainstem hasbeen estimated using a water budget. Tidalinflow accounts for approximately 90% ofthe total volume of water inflow, and tidaloutflow accounts for nearly all of the waterleaving the marsh (Lickus and Barten,1991). Examining the influence of tidalexchange allows identification of long-termtrends in the water quality of the HudsonRiver Estuary and the potential inputs to theestuary from the Reserve sites.

46

Figure 13: Mean concentrations of chloride and sulfate and mean specific conductivity in all HRNERRtributaries. Means were derived from monthly measurements from May 1991-December

2003. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Figure 14: Increase in chloride concentrations in the Saw Kill from 1991-2003. The mean monthly

concentrations (two replicates) are shown for each year. The yearly mean chloride

concentration has doubled over a 12-year period.

47

Figure 15: Yearly mean sulfate concentrations in Doodletown Brook from 1991-2003. Meanconcentrations are from monthly measurements for the entire year. Error bars represent

standard error of the mean.

A comparison of tidal inundation patternswas conducted among narrow-leaved cattailand common reed stands occurring across arange of elevations at Iona Island Marsh,and across an elevation gradient (creekbankto interior) at Piermont Marsh, in associationwith a study of habitat utilization ofcommon reed stands by resident finfish andmacrocrustaceans within the Reserve(Osgood et al., in press). Iona Island marshflooded more frequently (approximately 50-80% of high tides inundated the marsh) thanPiermont Marsh, where an average of 30%and 45% of high tides inundated the marshsurface each month at the high and lowelevations, respectively (Figure 16) .Flooding duration and frequency weresignificantly different between elevations at

Iona Island Marsh, but did not differ withelevation at Piermont Marsh. Floodingdepth, duration, and frequency were similarbetween common reed and narrow-leavedcattail stands occurring at similar elevationsat Iona Island Marsh.

Greater depth of flooding did not translateinto longer duration of flooding at PiermontMarsh. This phenomenon has also beenobserved among common reed stands in aConnecticut salt marsh (Osgood et al.,2003). One possible explanation for theincongruity of flooding depth and durationmay be ponding in interior sections of marshthat increases duration of flooding relative tothe creekbank or marsh edge.

48

Figure 16: Water level relative to the marsh surface (dashed line) from common reed at Piermont Marsh

(A), common reed at Iona Island Marsh (B) and narrow-leaved cattail at Iona Island (C)

from July 28-August 26, 2000. Data points were recorded at 24-minute time intervals. Times

of new moon (empty circle) and full moon (filled circle) are depicted on the graph.

49

Biogeochemistry

Var ious a spec t s o f s ed imen tbiogeochemistry have been studied withinthe Hudson River Reserve. Sedimentationrates for Tivoli South Bay range from 0.59-2.92 cm per year (Benoit et al., 1999). Themean is 1.16 cm per year, which exceeds thecurrent rate of sea level rise, suggesting thatthe bay will fill in within the next century.Sources of sediment include tidal exchangefrom the main channel of the Hudson,epsiodic storm events, and sediment inputfrom the Saw Kill. Subtidal areas have lowersedimentation rates, compared to intertidalareas, due to a lack of deposition of organicmatter. Burial rates of nitrogen range from8-19 g of nitrogen m-2 per year and 1.1-3.6 gof phosphorus m-2 per year in marshsediments (Merrill, 1999).

There exist four principal sources ofnutrients to Hudson River tidal marshes: 1)incoming tides, 2) tributaries, 3) re-mineralization of organic nutrients duringthe decomposition of organic matter, and 4)atmospheric deposition of nitrogen. Tidalinputs dominate and inorganic nitrogen andphosphorus concentrations are high in theHudson River mainstem (Lampman et al.,1999). Nitrate concentrations measured inebbing tidewaters are lower than meannitrate concentrations in the mainstem,suggesting that Hudson River tidal marshesfunction as sinks, not sources of nitrogen.The considerable phosphorus uptakerequirements of marsh plants suggests alarge source of phosphate in incomingtidewaters and phosphorus concentrations intributary waters are high, likely as a result oftreated sewage effluent. Phosphorusconcentrations in ebb and flood tide aresimilar among Reserve marshes.Denitrification is moderate to high in springand relies on nitrification of reducednitrogen, rather than uptake of nitrate fromthe water column. It is estimated that the

Tivoli Bays remove 10,500 kg of particulatenitrogen and 2,000 kg of particulatephosphorus on an annual basis. As surfacewater salinity increases downriver, sulfatereduct ion increases. Conversely,denitrification increases as surface watersalinity decreases along an estuarinegradient to freshwater habitats upriver(Gould and Findlay, 1991).

Interstitial sulfate concentrations are higherin South Bay than in the river mainstem.The occurrence of methane gas in bubblesfrom agitated sediments from South Bayindicates substantial anaerobic respiration(McCarron and Findlay, 1989).Consumption and production of methane inSouth Bay is greater than in North Bay(Goldman and Groffman, 1994).

Porewater nutrients represent a largenutrient pool, and this is considered to be theimmediate source of nutrients for emergentmarsh vegetation. Enclosed tidal marshestypically exhibit 2-3 times higherconcentrations of porewater nitrogen andphosphorus in comparison to sheltered(semi-enclosed) or fringing marshes. Therate of emergent plant nutrient uptake isgreat enough to completely turnoverporewater nutrient pools several timeswithin a single growing season. At TivoliNorth Bay, porewater phosphate issignificantly lower in purple loosestrifestands during summer, in comparison to thatof common reed and narrow-leaved cattailstands (Templer et al., 1998). Porewaterammonium does not differ among the threespecies.

Common reed sequesters nearly twice theamount of nitrogen per unit marsh area inabove-ground plant tissues, than that ofnarrow-leaved cattail. Sediment microbialbiomass on cattail and reed litter isdominated by fungi, and fungal nitrogen

50

accounts for 25% of total nitrogenassociated with litter (Findlay et al., 2002).Microbial biomass is similar in waterchestnut, narrow-leaved cattail, andspatterdock communities. Production issignificantly lower in sandy Hudson Rivershoreline communities dominated byScirpus pungens (Austin and Findlay, 1989).

Tivoli North Bay and Tivoli South Bayexport dissolved organic carbon (DOC) intothe Hudson River. Flux studies havedetermined the primary source of DOCwithin Tivoli South Bay to be sediment porewater diffusion driven by a concentrationgradient between the surface water and porewater. The Saw Kill is not considered to be amajor source of DOC as it was determinedto have a lower DOC concentration than theHudson River mainstem. In North Bay, aportion of the total exported DOC diffusesfrom subtidal sediments; however, themajority of North Bay-derived DOC leachesfrom narrow-leaved cattail leaf litter and isexported to the Hudson River via ebb tides.North Bay sediment porewater supported thehighest rate of bacterial productivity inbioassays; however, since the primarysource of DOC in North Bay is leaf litter,the bioavailability of North Bay DOC maybe relatively low, in comparison to SouthBay (Raphael and Findlay, 1996).

Sediment Contaminants

The Hudson River Estuary has a long andwell-documented history of environmentalperturbation, including the input of chemicalcontaminants form a variety of sources. TheReserve sites have been the setting for anumber of studies intended to document thedistribution of contaminants in estuarine andwetland sediments.

Cores samples form all four Reservecomponents were analyzed for

polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxins (PCDDs)and polychlorinated dibenzo-furans(PCDFs). These samples were supplementedwith air, soil, rain, and storm runoff samplesfrom nearby locations. PCDDs and PCDFswere found at all four component sites downto 60 cm. Average PCDD and PCDFconcentrations ranged from 800-47,900pg/g. Average concentration across theReserve was 9,800 pg/g. The relativecontribution of each was about 90% PCDDsand 10% PCDFs. The historical recordindicates that PCDD/PCDF deposition wasvery low prior to 1945; after 1945,concentrations increased rapidly, reaching amaximum between 1950 and 1980 and thendeclined to values of 4,100-5,600 pg/g bythe early 1990s. The primary mechanism ofentry to wetlands and adjacent upland soilsis atmospheric deposition (Smith et al.,1996).

A time series of sediment and associatedpollutant deposition within the estuary wasestablished by inputting the history ofradionucleides associated with knownreleases from the Indian Point nuclearreactor located in Westchester, NY. A corefrom Iona Island was chosen for detailedanalysis; PCB, DDT, and trace metalconcentrations were found to be declining(Peller and Bopp, 1986).

Sediment concentrations of lead (Pb),copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) at Tivoli SouthBay are well correlated with each other, asdetermined by 210Pb dating, implying acommon source for the three metals (Wangand Benoit, 1993). Mercury (Hg) enters tidalmarshes through atmospheric deposition(Stevenson et al., 1986). However, relativelyhigh mercury concentrations of 190-1070ng/g-Hg have been reported from TivoliSouth Bay, suggesting an additional (non-atmospheric) source of contamination, themost likely source being tidal transport of

51

sediments from the Hudson River mainstem(Zelewski and Armstrong, 1997). Removalof the dam at Fort Edwards in 1973, whichresulted in a pulse of PCB contamination tothe estuary, is also the likely upstreamsource of mercury. This event correlateswith the occurrence of the highest mercuryconcentrations in Tivoli South Bay sedimentprofiles. Deposition rates have declinedsince this time; this is attributed to a generalimprovement in water and sediment qualityas a result of the passage andimplementation of the Clean Water Act of1972.

Plant Communities

PhytoplanktonThe most common of Hudson Estuaryphytoplankton fall under four categories:diatoms, blue-green algae, green algae, andflagellates. Asterionella formosa is the mostcommon species of pennate diatom found inthe freshwater tidal Hudson. A. japonica is amarine species typically found downriver.Coscinodiscus excentricus is widelydistributed along the entire estuary. C.lineatus is found in the lower estuary and C.lustris and C. rothii are found north of theTappan Zee. Cyclotella is widely distributedthroughout the estuary. A spring and fallbloom of C. aliquantale is common. C.atommus occurs following the spring bloomof C. aliquantale. Other species ofCyclo te l la in the Hudson include C.boadnica, C. kutingiana, C. gloema, C .ocellata, C. pedostelligera, and C stylorum.Another common diatom in the HudsonEstuary is the genus Melosira. M. ambiguais abundant in spring and early summer. M.disan, M. granulata, and M. italica alsooccur in the estuary. M monoliformis and M.sulcata are typically present south of theTappan Zee, but have been reported as farnorth as Bear Mountain. Skeletonemacostatum is common, occurring in late

summer and early fall (Boyce ThompsonInstitute, 1977).

Free-floating green algae (Chlorophyta)include Pediastrum, which are abundant inthe mid-estuary during summer. Typicalspecies include P. biradiatum, P. duplex, P.simplex, and P. tetras. Over 20 species ofScenedesmus occur in the estuary, includingS. quafirausa, S. bijuga, S. dimorphus, S.obliqus, and S. opoliensis. North of theTappan Zee, the genus Ankistrodesmus isencountered, with A. falcatus the mostcommon species. Others include A. barunii,A. convilus, A. fracus, and A. siralis.

Dinoflagellates are an important componentof the Hudson River phytoplantoncommunity. Typical species includeCeratium hinunella and C. t r ipos .Procentumis micans is a marine speciesfound in the lower estuary.

Blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) arecommon in estuarine waters and undercertain conditions, some species may formharmful blooms toxic to fish and humanbathers. Anacystis, a fresh to brackish watercolonial genera is represented by twospecies in the Hudson, A. aeriginusa and A.incerta. Another toxin-producing blue greenalga is Anabena, which may occur in a freefloating or colonial form. A cicinalis, A. flos-aquae, and A. siroides are common in theHudson Estuary.

A total of 62 phytoplankton taxa wereidentified during summer sampling atStockport Flats (Campbell and Dexter,1987). Freshwater diatoms representing 32genera and 25 genera of colonial and single-celled green algae achieve peak abundancein the freshwater tidal portion of the estuaryduring June and early July.

52

SAV and Water ChestnutThe areal extent of SAV in the HudsonRiver Estuary from Hastings to Troy is1,802 ha. This represents some 6% of thetotal river bottom and approximately 18% ofthe tidal shallows (Nieder et al., 2004).Water chestnut covers 575 ha and represents2% of the total river bottom and 6% of theshallows. In the most densely vegetatedreach of the river (approximately Hyde Parkto Stockport), the combined coverage ofSAV and water chestnut approaches 25% ofthe river area. From Albany north to theFederal Dam at Troy, there are frequentoccurrences of very narrow linear beds ofwater celery located adjacent to theshoreline. These beds are generally less thanthree meters wide and occur in waters lessthan two meters in depth.

It is believed that other factors besides lightpenetration can play a significant role indetermining the distribution of SAV in theHudson River Estuary. These factors mayinclude substrate type, flow velocities, icescour, bioturbation (by carp and snappingturtles), and grazing by waterfowl andmuskrat. Longitudinal distribution patternsof SAV in certain reaches of the estuaryhave implications for distribution of earlylife stages of organisms which rely on SAVas critical habitat (e.g., larval and juvenilefish) and may result in differential habitatencounter rates for transient fish that seekout SAV habitat for feeding or predatoravoidance. In general, fishes movingtowards shore will encounter SAV habitatbefore encountering water chestnut. Becauseof the high visibility of the floating waterchestnut beds to the casual river observer, itis difficult to appreciate the fact that SAVhabitat is actually three times more abundantin the estuary.

More than 20 studies have been conductedon water chestnut, which has thrived in theHudson River since the 1930s. The body ofresearch has included studies of the lifecycle of the water chestnut, distribution andtrophic dynamics of the fish and invertebratepopulations that live within the waterchestnut beds, and comparisons of waterchestnut beds with other SAV communities.Most of the research has been conductedwithin Tivoli South Bay, which is almostentirely covered with water chestnut duringthe summer months.

Stems and rosettes of the water chestnutdevelop in late spring. By the end of June,water chestnut reaches its maximumcoverage of shallow areas of the estuary. ByJuly, water chestnut reaches its greatestbiomass. The plants undergo rapidsenescence and decomposition duringSeptember and October (Schmidt andKiviat, 1988). The decline of the waterchestnut beds in August-Septembercorrelates with a decline in the export oforganic seston, indicating that waterchestnut decomposes in the bay, with themajority of the organic biomass consumedby bacteria and fungi (Goldhammer andFindlay, 1988; Findlay et al., 1990).

Negative effects of the water chestnut bedsinclude: extirpating rare and native species,out-competing waterfowl food plants,increasing sedimentation in areas wherebeds flourish, modifying water chemistryand BOD, decreasing DO, altering the fishspecies composition of an area, andinterfering with recreation and navigation(Anderson and Schmidt, 1989).

Three food webs exist within the waterchestnut beds. Larval and juvenile fish feedon epiphytic invertebrates, which in turnfeed on the algae growing on the leaves andstems of the plants; a benthic system of

53

decomposers thrives on the water chestnutdetritus and sediments; and the water-lilyleaf beetle (Galerucella nymphaeae) feedson the upper surface of the leaves and is fedon by a predatory ladybug (Coleomegillamacolata). Juvenile fish, including spottailshiners, common carp, golden shiners(Notemigonus crysoleucas), banded killifish,and fourspine sticklebacks (Apeltesquadracus), feed upon a variety of epiphyticmicrocrustaceans and insect larvaeassociated with the water chestnut plants.

Emergent IntertidalPrimary production and abovegroundmacrophyte standing crop in freshwater tidalwetlands is among the highest reported forwetlands (Odum et al., 1984; Odum, 1988).Soils of Hudson River freshwater tidalwetlands are predominantly fine silts andclays with organic matter content of 8-12%in shallow subtidal environments, and up to25-45% in vegetated mid-upper intertidallocations (Kiviat and Beecher, 1991). Thesevalues are similar to those reported frommarshes in the Delaware River andChesapeake Bay. Some differences notedbetween the Hudson River freshwater tidalmarshes and those occurring in moresouthern estuaries are that narrow-leavedcattail appears to occupy a greater portion ofthe upper intertidal zone and purpleloosestrife is more prevalent in the Hudson.

The Reserve has completed plantcommunity maps for each component siteusing aerial photographs taken duringsummer 1991 and repeated in 1997. Theselarge-scale maps (1"=200'), produced inboth black and white and color, accuratelydepict the wetland vegetation communities.

The 1991 surveys consisted of over 100 landcover classes, which were subsequentlyrecoded to match the 20 classes used in the1997 survey.

Water Celery(Vallisneria americana)

European Water-milfoil(Myriophyllum spicatum)

54

Water celery, European water-milfoil, andwater chestnut dominate subtidal habitatswithin Tivoli North Bay. Spatterdockdominates the lower third of the intertidalzone and creek bank edge habitat supports amixed community of spotted jewelweed,rice cut-grass, arrow-arum, purpleloosestrife, and narrow-leaved cattail. Theupper portion of the intertidal zone isdominated by narrow-leaved cattail andcommon arrowhead. Aboveground biomassof narrow-leaved cattail is similar to thatreported from freshwater tidal wetlands inother estuaries, but aboveground biomass ofspatterdock is lower than reported elsewhere(Kiviat and Beecher, 1991).

Some changes in the vegetation dynamics ofthe Tivoli Bays are occurring. Since themid-1970s, muskrat clearings have been re-invaded by narrow-leaved cattail, andcommon reed has become established in atleast six distinct stands. Water celerypopulations have increased at the expense ofEuropean water-milfoil. Water chestnut wasable to re-invade the Tivoli Bays whenNYSDEC discontinued application of theherbicide 2,4-D in 1976. Purple loosestrifeexpanded throughout Tivoli North Bayduring the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s,especially along the rail causeway. Sweetflag, previously considered rare in the TivoliBays, has increased in certain areas. Manyof these changes have been attributed to thedecline of the muskrat population in theTivoli Bays, as many of the aforementionedspecies (sweet flag and cattail) were favoredmuskrat food items. Kiviat and Beecher(1991) determined that elevation was theprimary environmental variable controllingthe production and accumulation of organicmatter by rapidly growing, flood-tolerant,marsh perennials which tend to have largeunderground storage organs and/or standingdead aerial parts, and which persist throughthe winter. Physical and biological

disturbance along creekbanks and pooledges prevents establishment of narrow-leaved cattail stands, allowing a mixedcommunity to thrive, contributing to greaterspecies richness and community evenness.

Tidal SwampA total of 226 plant species, representing142 genera and 66 families have beenreported from Cruger Island Neck and theBig Bend Swamp at the Tivoli Bays. Themost common tree species are green ash,black ash (Fraxinus nigra), and red maple.Common shrubs include willow, Bell’shoneysuckle, silky dogwood, red-osierdogwood (Cornus sericea), spice-bush, andswamp-rose (Rosa palustris). Understoryvegetation is dominated by spottedjewelweed, purple loosestrife, and sensitivefern (Westad and Kiviat, 1986). A total of57 species of mosses and liverworts havebeen identified in the area (Leonardi andKiviat, 1990).

Invertebrate Communities

ZooplanktonZooplankton communities have been studiedat three of the Reserve sites. At PiermontMarsh, the summer zooplankton assemblageis dominated by copepod nauplii. Adultharpacticoid copepods and barnacle naupliiare also abundant. Spatial and temporalvariations in zooplankton distribution atPiermont Marsh are determined by variablessuch as tributary flow, tidal mixing and re-suspension, and storm events (Nemazie andDexter, 1988).

A total of 33 zooplankton taxa have beenreported from the Tivoli Bays component.The copepod Eurytemora affinis, and thecladoceran Bosmina longirostris are thedominant species. Nighttime densities are 2-5 times greater than daytime, indicating a

55

net import from the river mainstem to thebays at night (Drill and Schmidt, 1988).

A total of 22 zooplankton taxa have beenreported from the Stockport Flatscomponent. The assemblage is dominated bymicrocrustaceans (cladocerans, cyclopoidcopepods, and ostracods). Rotifers areabundant in most samples with at least sevengenera represented. Sheltered (semi-enclosed) embayments support the greatestabundance and diversity of zooplankton,relative to open waters (Campbell andDexter, 1987).

Benthic and Epiphytic InvertebratesBenthic invertebrate communities associatedwith the intertidal common reed stands atIona Island and Piermont Marsh aredominated by annelids (Tubificidae,Enchytraidae), insect larvae (Diptera) andmolluscs (Sphaeriidae and Hydrobiidae).Macroinvertebrate taxa richness is greater atIona Island Marsh relative to PiermontMarsh. Taxa richness is lowest among thecommon reed stands at Piermont Marsh, butsimilar among common reed and narrow-leaved cattail stands at Iona. Intertidalcommon reed stands in Hudson River tidalmarshes appear to support abundant anddiverse macroinvertebrate communities,indicating that this particular function maynot necessarily be impaired in intertidalwetlands experiencing invasion by commonreed (Osgood et al., in press).

The benthic and epiphytic invertebratecommunities associated with the waterchestnut beds in Tivoli South Bay have beenstudied in considerable detail. The surfacesof water chestnut leaves in Tivoli South Bayare colonized mostly by chironomids(Endochironomus, D i c r o t e n d i p e s ,Tanytarsus, Ablabesmyia, and Polypedilum),tanypodine larvae (Procladius ), andOrthocladinae (Cricotopus). Other insects

and invertebrates present include aquaticbugs (Hemiptera), beetles (Coleoptera),gastrotrichs, bryozoans (Cristatellidae andPlumatellidae), leeches (Hirudinea),amphipods (Talitridae and Gammaridae),and gastropods (Lymnaeidae, Ancylidae,Physidae, and Planorbidae) (Findlay et al.,1989; Yozzo and Odum, 1993).

Characteristic microcrustacean taxaassociated with the water chestnut beds ofSouth Bay include several common littoralcladocerans (Sida crystallina, Holopediumg i b b e r u m , Bosmina longiros t r i s ,Ceriodaphnia sp., and Alona sp.), thecyclopoid copepod Eucyclops agilis andseveral species of ostracods, includingCypridopsis vidua, Darwinula stevensoni,Candona sp., and Physocypria sp. (Yozzoand Odum, 1993). From June-August,epiphytic invertebrates in Tivoli South Bayare relatively more abundant than benthicinvertebrates, suggesting the importance ofthe summer water chestnut beds as habitatfor epifauna (Schoeberl and Findlay, 1988).

A marked decline in epiphytic invertebrateabundance (especially chironomids) occursduring July in Tivoli South Bay (Wagnerand Findlay, 1987). Possible explanationsfor this decline include predation by juvenilefishes and other invertebrates (e.g. damselflylarvae, predaceous chironomids), changes inhabitat structure and suitability resulting in areduction in available surface area forcolonization, competition among the variouschironomid species, and emergence of adultinsects. Predator exclusion experiments didnot establish an effect of juvenile fishpredation on epiphytic microcrustaceancommunities in Tivoli South Bay; however,ostracods, cyclopoid copepods, cladocerans,and early instar chironomid larvae arenumerically important prey items in the gutsof juvenile and adult banded killifish, and

56

several other resident fish species in thestudy area (Yozzo and Odum, 1993).

Oligochaetes, chironomids, Sida, and Hydraare the most common epiphyticinvertebrates found on leaves and stems ofwater celery, which also occurs in TivoliSouth Bay, primarily in deeper channelswhere water chestnut growth is sparse oralong the edges of the water chestnut beds(Lutz and Strayer, 2001).

In South Bay sediments, chironomids aremost abundant, with two dominant genera,Tanytarsus and Polypedilum. Chironomussp., Harnischia , the tanypodine midgeProcladius, and the naidid oligochaetesStylaria, Chaetogaster, and Dero are alsocommon. Additional sediment-dwellinginvertebrates include gastropods,cladocerans, and ostracods. Densities ofbenthic invertebrates in Tivoli South Bay arecomparable to infaunal densities from non-tidal freshwater habitats (Findlay et al.,1989; Yozzo and Diaz, 1999).

Reference wetland characterization studiesconducted at Tivoli North Bay havedocumented patterns of benthicmacroinvertebrate abundance anddistribution across the intertidal zone andamong seasons (Yozzo et al., 1999). Benthicmacroinvertebrate taxa richness is greatestin the mid-intertidal in July and greatest inthe upper-intertidal in September. Totalmacroinvertebrate density is greatest in thelower-intertidal zone in July and greatest inthe upper-intertidal zone in September. Totalbiomass is greatest in the lower intertidalzone in July and greatest in the upper-intertidal zone in September (Table 1,Table 2).Both sediment-dwelling and epiphyticostracods occur among a variety of habitattypes at the Stockport Flats component,including emergent low marsh, unvegetated

shallows, and water chestnut beds. Thefauna is dominated by one species(Physocypria sp.) and several other widelydistributed taxa are common (Darwinulastevensoni, Candona sp., and Cypridopsisvidua). Less common taxa include Candonacaudata, Limnocythere sp., and Ilyocyprisgibba. Although comprehensive surveys offreshwater ostracods are rare, it is believedthat ostracod faunas of freshwater tidalwetlands may be species-poor relative tothose of non-tidal freshwater habitats.(Yozzo and Steineck, 1994).

Terrestrial InvertebratesTerrestrial invertebrate communities havereceived limited attention at the Reserve.Two early studies focused on thedistribution and life history of Lepidopteraat Tivoli North Bay (Barbour and Kiviat,1986) and the ecology of the water-lily leafbeetle (Galerucella nymphaeae) in TivoliSouth Bay (Schmidt, 1986). A more recentstudy compared the distribution andabundance of terrestrial insects amongcommon reed, purple loosestrife, andnarrow-leaved cattail stands in Tivoli NorthBay (Krause et al., 1997).

Some 30 species of diurnal Lepidoptera, 25butterflies and five moths, are known fromedge habitats (e.g., road, railbed) within theTivoli North Bay - Cruger Neck area of theTivoli Bays. The most common are thecabbage butterfly (Pieris rapae) and thesilver-spotted skipper (Epargyreus clarus).A total of 27 species of nocturnal mothshave been identified in the Reserve, but onlytwo occur in large numbers: the pearly woodnymph (Eudryas unio) and the duskygroundling (Condica vecors). Nectar sourcesfor moths and butterflies in the Tivoli Baysinclude pickerel-weed, purple loosestrife,joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium spp.), dogwoods,bur-marigold (Bidens cernua), and spottedknapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii). Bird

57

Table 1: Percent abundance of dominant macroinvertebrate taxa (> 5% of the total) collected at Tivoli

North Bay sites, July and September 1997 (TNB L = lower intertidal; TNB M = middleintertidal; and TNB U = upper intertidal) (adapted from Yozzo et al., 1999).

July September

Table 2: Total number, mean density, and biomass of dominant macroinvertebrate taxa collected at

Tivoli North Bay sites, July and September 1997 (Adapted from Yozzo et al., 1999).

July September

Taxa TNB L TNB M TNB U

AnnelidaTubificidae sp. 50.1 26.7 70.4Quistadrilus multisetosus 14.8

BivalviaPisidium sp. 9.9

DipteraCeratopogonidae sp. 50.1 5.3

ChironomidaeTanytarsus sp. 11.9

Taxa TNB L TNB M TNB U

Annelida

Tubificidae sp. 51.7 39.8 42.3

Quistadrilus multisetosus 9.4

Lumbriculidae sp. 6.7

Gastropoda

Ancylidae sp. 8.8

Bivalvia

Sphaeriidae sp. 9.5

Pisidium casertanum 7.8

Amphipoda

Gammarus sp. 5.1

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae sp. 6.5 13.0 5.6

Chironomidae

Procladius sp. 6.5Tanypus sp. 5.9

Total No. Mean Density Biomass

Station Taxa No./m2 (S.E.) g/m2 (S.E.)

TNB L 32 36000 (13447) 1.01 (0.67)TNB M 38 6420 (1623) 0.07 (0.01)TNB U 30 28545 (45583) 1.51 (0.89)

23655 (13134) 0.86 (0.73)

Total No. Mean Density Biomass

Station Taxa No./m2 (S.E.) g/m2 (S.E.)

TNB L 24 14591 (2562) 0.20 (0.05)TNB M 25 9818 (2372) 0.34 (0.11)TNB U 38 16318 (5161) 2.05 (0.66)

13576 (900) 0.86 (0.59)

58

predation has been observed on tigerswallowtail (Papilio glaucus), red admiral(Vanessa atalanta), and viceroy (Limenitisarchippus) at the Tivoli Bays. Larvae of thefall webworm (Hyphantria cunea) were themost abundant. Early life stages of fivebutterflies and six moths were found,suggesting that those species are lifetimeresidents. Willow, wild black cherry(Prunus serotina), choke-cherry (P .virginiana), common elder (Sambucusc a n a d e n s i s ), spice-bush, and Bell'shoneysuckle host larval populations.Defoliation activities along the railroadright-of-way have limited plant speciesavailable to butterfly and moth larvae. Themost abundant butterfly in the area, thecabbage butterfly, is found primarily alongthe right-of-way.

The water-lily leaf beetle occurs in closeassociation with water chestnut, spatterdock,and purple loosestrife. The beetlesoverwinter under logs, moss, and leaf litter.The eggs are laid on the mature leaves of thewater chestnut. The beetles can withstandsubmersion to a certain degree, duringstorms and high tide. Red-wingedblackbirds, cedar waxwings (Bombycillacedrorum), marsh wrens, and least bitternsare known to feed on water-lily leaf beetlesin Tivoli North Bay. A damselfly, the bigbluet (Enallagma durum), is commonlyfound among water chestnut beds.

In Tivoli North Bay, at least ten insectspecies, representing seven orders(Coleptera , Diptera , Homoptera ,Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Collembola, andThysanoptera), are known to occur onpurple loosestrife, common reed, andnarrow-leaved cattail. The most abundantinsect species is the homopteran Chaetoccusphragmitis, representing 74% and 60% oftotal insect biomass on common reed inspring and summer, respectively. The

Water-lily Leaf Beetle(Galerucella nymphaeae)

lepidopteran Lymnaecia phragmitella isseasonally abundant, representing 85% and29% of total insect biomass on narrow-leaved cattail in spring and summer,respectively. Bumble bees (Bombus spp.)and honeybees (Apis mellifera) are commonamong purple loosestrife.

Fish Communities

Marsh/Estuarine Resident SpeciesMarsh resident fish species are those whichutilize intertidal marshes for most or all oftheir life history (Kneib, 1997). Examples ofmarsh residents in northeastern U.S. tidalwetlands include the various killifishes(Fundulus spp.). A number of studies in theReserve have focused specifically on theecology of marsh resident fish species.

The abundance of marsh resident species atPiermont Marsh and Iona Island Marsh hasbeen estimated using intertidal lift nets.Nekton densities have been related tocontinuous measurements of tidal hydrologyon the marsh surface and observations of

59

marsh geomorphic properties at the marshedge and interior locations. Marsh residentspecies at Iona Island include the ubiquitousmummichog; while at Piermont marsh,mummichogs and dagger-blade grass shrimpcomprise the majority of the resident nektoncommunity, although densities are generallylow in the dense common reed stands(Hanson et al., 2002; Osgood et al., inpress).

Dagger-blade Grass Shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio)

At Iona Island Marsh, a comparison of larvaland juvenile mummichog distributionamong cattail, and large vs. small patchsizes of invasive common reed, foundsignificantly fewer mummichog YOYwithin the large common reed patchesrelative to the narrow-leaved cattail, butdiscerned no significant difference inabundance between cattail vs. the smallercommon reed patches. A positive correlationwas observed between YOY abundance andintertidal flooding depth. In addition, largenumbers of YOY were observed tocongregate in shallow intertidal pools in theadjacent creek beds. It is hypothesized thatcommon reed invasion may alter YOYdistribution patterns with fish selectingcreek bed refugia over intertidal marshsurfaces, which have converted fromnarrow-leaved cattail to common reed(Harm et al., 2003).

White Perch(Morone americana)

Differences in the transient fish populationsof tidal creeks draining common reed andnarrow-leaved cattail stands have beenobserved within the Reserve. At Iona IslandMarsh, creeks draining common reed standsare characterized by reduced lightpenetration in the water column and sparsegrowth of SAV. Creeks draining narrow-leaved cattail stands support more luxuriantgrowth of SAV. A recent comparison of twotidal creeks at Iona Island (common reed vs.narrow-leaved cattail) yielded a total offourteen fish species from the common reedcreek, while the narrow-leaved cattail creekyielded only five species. Total abundanceof fish collected was similar between bothcreeks. The most common resident species,mummichog, represented 84% of total fishcollected and was equally abundant betweenboth creek types. White perch and blue crabwere also common in both creeks. Gutfullness was comparable among fishforaging in both creeks, but preycomposition differed. Aquatic worms,insects and grass shrimp were the mostcommon food items in fish guts from thecreeks draining common reed. Worms,insects, amphipods, and fish were the mostcommon food items in creeks drainingnarrow-leaved cattail stands (Lewis, 2001).

Recent examination of the resident fishcommunity associated with common reedstands in Tivoli North Bay suggest thatwhile utilization of common reed habitat by

60

resident fishes was still comparable toadjacent narrow-leaved cattail habitat, thesestands will eventually expand in area andaccrete vertically, thereby decreasingflooding frequency, depth and duration andrestricting fish access (Yozzo and Cianciola,2002).

Recently, several new distribution recordsfor the spotfin killifish (Fundulus luciae)were reported in the northeastern U.S.,including Piermont Marsh (Yozzo andOttman, 2003). This represents the firstcollection of this species in the HudsonRiver drainage, although they are known toinhabit high intertidal marshes along theAtlantic coast from southeasternMassachusetts (Narragansett Bay drainage)to Georgia (Jorgenson, 1969; Hartel et al.,2002). Spotfin killifish may not necessarilybe rare, but their cryptic lifestyle andpreference for high salt and brackishmarshes may have precluded their collectionin previous studies.

Freshwater SpeciesThe fish assemblages in the Tivoli Bays aredetermined primarily by vegetation type andwater depth. The water chestnut mats inSouth Bay support many species of larvaland juvenile fish. Three common species(golden shiner, carp, and banded killifish)represent 95% of the larval fish community.The dense vegetation provides protectivecover from bird and fish predators and hostsa diverse assemblage of small invertebratessuch as chydorid cladocerans, harpacticoidcopepods, and chironomid midge larvae(Sidari and Schmidt, 1990; Yozzo andOdum, 1993). Dense areas of the waterchestnut beds typically support greaternumbers of larval and juvenile fish and aremore diverse than sparse cover (Andersonand Schmidt, 1989). However, greater fishbiomass (e.g., larger individuals) is found

Banded Killifish(Fundulus diaphanus)

along the edges of the beds (Frenzel andLimburg, 2004).

The edge areas of the water chestnut matsare inhabited by different species includingwhite sucker (Catostomus commersoni),juvenile spottail shiner, and tessellateddarter. Unvegetated shallows in South Bayare occupied by cyprinids, white perch, andjuvenile striped bass (Gilchrest and Schmidt,1998). Fourspine stickleback are commonamong water chestnut in South Bay in someyears and seemingly rare in others(Pelczarski and Schmidt, 1991; Gilchrestand Schmidt, 1998; Kelley and Schultz,2003).

South Bay does not appear to be a source ora sink for alewife or white perch larvae,although the two species may feed in thebay. Alewife larvae are most abundantduring diurnal flood tides; carp and bluegill(Lepomis macrochirus) larvae are abundantduring nocturnal ebb tides; white perchlarvae are not correlated with any particulartidal or diel stage (Bohne and Schmidt,1989).

Common carp are an important componentof the fish community of Tivoli South Bay(Gilchrest and Schmidt, 1998). Carp feed ondetritus, chironomid midges, and snails.South Bay is used primarily by adult carp asa spawning site, and larval carp emigrate tothe main channel on the ebb tides. Adultcarp can often be observed rising to thesurface in South Bay, moving their mouthsand making popping noises, possibly

61

gasping for oxygen (Montgomery andSchmidt, 1993).

Tivoli North Bay is also regarded as animportant nursery area for fish. Water celeryand European water-milfoil beds in NorthBay, and in shallow subtidal channelsbehind Magdalen and Cruger Islands,support a variety of species, includinggolden shiner, redbreast sunfish, goldfish(Carassius auratus), and largemouth bass.Banded killifish, spottail shiners, whiteperch, and tessellated darters prefer shallowintertidal areas within North Bay, whileherrings (blueback herring, alewife, andAmerican shad) are found in deeperchannels (Schmidt, 1986; Schmidt andKiviat, 1988).

Banded killifish are one of the mostcommon species present in Tivoli North Baythroughout the year. They have beendescribed as “the freshwater ecologicalequivalent of the saltwater mummichogs”(Richard and Schmidt, 1987), although thetwo species co-occur in North Bay and inHudson River tidal wetlands south of theTivoli Bays. Evidence of hybridizationbetween these two fundulids has beendocumented in the freshwater tidal HudsonRiver (Mugue and Weis, 1995). Importantprey items for small killifish, which forageon the flooded marsh surface at high tide,include cladocerans and copepods; as theygrow larger, ostracods and chironomidlarvae constitute more of their diet. Killifishserve as an important trophic link in the foodweb of North Bay, as they are preyed uponby larger piscivorous fish and wading birds(e.g., great blue heron (Ardea herodias),green-backed heron, and least bittern).

Tessellated darters are common in theintertidal shallows and among the watercelery beds of North Bay (Hankin andSchmidt, 1992). Juvenile tessellated darters

Spottail Shiner(Notropis hudsonius)

feed on chironomid larvae, cladocerans, andcopepods. As the YOY darters growthroughout the summer, the relativeimportance of the different invertebrate preychanges, with chironomids becoming moreimportant to larger fish. Almost all darterscollected in North Bay are juveniles,indicating possible movement of mature fishinto the main channel (Duryea and Schmidt,1987).

Goldfish were once abundant throughout thefreshwater tidal Hudson, but experienced adecline during the 1980s and 1990s. Recentresults of the Reserve’s fish monitoringprogram suggest that this species may be onthe increase in the Tivoli Bays (Schmidt etal., 2002a; 2002b; 2004).

Passive hydroacoustic technology hasrecently been employed to furthercharacterize the fish communities of theTivoli Bays (Anderson et al., 2004). During2003, a total of eighteen distinct soundswere recorded in the Tivoli Bays, five ofwhich were considered fish sounds(although no specific species could beidentified) and eight additional unidentifiedbiological sounds. Potential soniforousspecies occupying the Tivoli Bays includechannel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) andbrown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus).

Black bass (largemouth bass andsmallmouth bass) populations haveincreased in the Hudson River Estuary inrecent years. This has been attributed in partto an increase in the spatial extent of

62

vegetated littoral habitat as a result of thezebra mussel invasion of the early 1990s(Strayer et al., 1999). The majority oflargemouth bass present in the Hudson Riverare either produced in the mainstem of theriver or enter the mainstem very early indevelopment (Hopkins and Green, 1989). AtStockport Flats, bass prefer protected areassuch as bays, pools, impoundments, andcreek outlets (Nack and Cook, 1987).Submerged vegetation is an importantdeterminant of nest site selection (Green etal., 1988). Most bass nests are found in areaswith at least some vegetative cover. Shallowriver shorelines, subject to strong wave,wind, or current action, are not likely to beused as nest sites. Many of the largemouthbass that winter in tidal creek mouths willmove into the main channel during spring aswater temperature increases.

Drift of smallmouth bass fry from StockportCreek suggests potamodromy (migration forreproduction within freshwater) in thispopulation (Schmidt and Stillman, 1998).The estimated magnitude of the drift is largeenough to be a significant addition to theestuarine smallmouth bass population in theHudson River mainstem. Other speciesknown to be potamodromous in the HudsonRiver include white sucker, spottail shiner,yellow perch, and white perch (Schmidt andStillman, 1994).

Migratory SpeciesThe life history and trophic dynamics ofvarious herring species (alewife, Americanshad, and blueback herring) have beenstudied within the Reserve and within themainstem of the Hudson River. Thesemigratory fish represent an importanttrophic link between the semi-isolated tidalwetlands and embayments and the openwaters of the Hudson River mainstem. Allthree species migrate up into the freshwatertidal portion of the estuary to spawn in early

Alewife(Alosa pseudoharengus)

spring and the larvae are commonlyencountered in the shallow backwaters andbays throughout the summer. However, thealewife is the only herring species thatconsistently spawns in Hudson Rivertributaries in substantial numbers (Schmidtand Lake, 2000). Alewife spawning runshave consistent temporal patterns andtributaries in the upper reaches of theestuary have unimodal runs with a mid-Maymaximum.

Larval alewife and blueback herring feed oncladocerans, copepods, ostracods, rotifers,protozoa, and phytoplankton in Tivoli Northand South Bays. Juvenile shad feed on avariety of arthropods including midges, ants,beetle larvae, and copepods. Juvenileblueback herring feed primarily onmicrocrustaceans, specifically thecladoceran Bosmina longirostis (Limburgand Strayer, 1988).

Hudson River herring populations haveexperienced a dramatic decline within thepast several years, and it is feared the causeof this decline may be related to increasedzebra mussel filtration of zooplankton foodsources for juvenile herring and otherpelagic fish species in the Hudson (Schmidtet al., 2002a; 2002b; 2004). Preservingwater and habitat quality of the tributaries iscritical to maintaining the integrity of thesepopulations and Hudson River fisheriesscientists have recommended installation offish ladders on significant spawning

63

tributaries to help manage and enhance thestock.

Striped bass have ben intensively studies inthe mainstem (Rathjen and Miller, 1957;McLaren et al., 1981; Waldman et al.,1990), but have received little attentionwithin the Reserve. Juvenile striped bass areknown to occur within each of thecomponent sites and during certain times ofthe year (e.g., late spring – early summer)can be particularly abundant, especiallyamong the deeper channels and pools ofTivoli South Bay. The Hudson River stockis the northernmost of the three mainmigratory stocks (along with ChesapeakeBay and Delaware River) that support anintensive recreational fishery along thenortheastern U.S. coastline. Striped bassspawn in the mid to upper reaches of theestuary (above the salt front) from earlyMay through June, and are regarded as themost popular gamefish in the Hudson RiverEstuary (Waldman, 2005).

American eels (Anguilla rostrata) arecatadromous, spawning offshore in theSargasso Sea. Larvae (leptocephali) migrateinto estuaries, including the Hudson duringearly Spring. Eels are an importantcomponent of the Hudson River fishcommunity and have been observed atdensities greater than 13,000 ind./ha in themouths of some tributaries (Petersson andSchmidt, 2004). The total annual run ofYOY American eels (elvers) in the Saw Killis estimated to range from 850-10,000 YOYeels (Schmidt and Lake, 2003; 2004).

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus)and the endangered shortnose sturgeon (A.brevirostrum) rarely enter tributaries tospawn, preferring deep, freshwater tidalmainstem habitats. Atlantic sturgeon are

Striped Bass(Morone saxatilis)

currently protected under a fishingmoratorium that may extend until 2038.Shortnose sturgeon have been protectedsince the U.S. Endangered Species Act(ESA) of 1973; however, the Hudson Riverpopulation appears to be recovering and maybe a candidate for de-listing under the ESA(Waldman, 2005). Shortnose sturgeon aresometimes encountered by anglers in thevicinity of the Tivoli Bays.

Other than alewife, the only diadromousspecies currently known to spawn in HudsonRiver tributaries is the sea lamprey(Petromyzon marinus); however, adultspecimens or ammocoetes are only rarelyencountered in surveys, and none have beencollected in tributaries within the Reserve(Waldman, 2005). Rainbow smelt (Osmerusmordax) were once abundant in manyHudson River tributaries and supported anintensive recreation net fishery. Thepopulation declined rapidly during the late1900s, with the last significant tributary runsoccuring in 1979. Rainbow smelt are nowconsidered to be extinct in the Hudson RiverEstuary (Waldman, 2005).

American Eel(Anguilla rostrata)

64

Wildlife

Reptiles and AmphibiansFew studies of reptile and amphibianpopulations have been conducted inestuarine habitats and the environmentalfactors that control their abundance anddistribution in tidal habitats are notparticularly well understood. Salinity, icescouring, and water level fluctuation aresome of the factors that may limit reptile andamphibian populations in estuarine wetlands(Rubbo and Kiviat, 1999). For amphibians,the most important breeding habitat infreshwater tidal marshes are supratidal poolswhich may occur at the marsh/terrestrialinterface. These ephemeral habitats supportbreeding populations of amphibians such asAmerican toad, spring peeper (Hylacrucifer), Northern leopard frog (Ranapipiens), spotted salamander (Abystomam a c u l a t u m ), and red-spotted newt(Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens).

Only fourteen reptile and amphibian species,of the nearly 50 species known to occur inthe Hudson Valley, have been recorded inthe freshwater intertidal wetlands of TivoliBays. Thirteen of these species areconsidered rare to absent, and only thesnapping turtle is commonly encounteredamong the Reserve marshes (Rubbo andKiviat, 1999), with the exception ofPiermont Marsh, where this species may belimited by high salinity (Kiviat, 1998). Adultsnapping turtles become active in the TivoliBays from mid-April to early-May and feedupon resident fish, especially killifish, aswell as on benthic invertebrates and plants.Nesting activity begins in mid-late June. Asuitable nest site needs soft soil and amplesunlight and many snapping turtles lay theireggs along the railroad embankmentsseparating the tidal marshes from theHudson River mainstem. There are typically20 to 50 eggs in a clutch. Bioturbation by

Snapping Turtle(Chelydra serpentina)

snapping turtles can be significant. Kiviat(1980) estimated that snapping turtles inTivoli North Bay disturbed up to 1% of themarsh substrate to a depth of 15 cm byburrowing and 20-25% to a depth of 2-7 cmby treading.

Along with the snapping turtle, the wood

turtle (Clemmys insculpta) occurs at theTivoli Bays and Stockport Flats Reservecomponents (New York Natural HeritageProgram, 1996a; 1996b). The first reportdocumenting the wood turtle in freshwatertidal wetlands of the Hudson River includedtwelve occurrences at four sites, two ofthose within the Reserve (Kiviat andBarbour, 1996).

The Hudson River has the only documentedestuarine population of the map turtle(Graptemys geographica). Interestingly, thisspecies is not generally found in non-tidalwaters in the Hudson Valley. Other (non-tidal) New York locations for this speciesinclude the Susquehanna River, Lake Erie,Lake Ontario, and Lake Champlain (Kiviat,1998). In the Hudson River, map turtlesoccupy broad, open shallows, containingexposed logs, rocks, or other suitablebasking sites. Elsewhere, map turtles feedupon molluscs and crayfish, and it ispresumed that they exhibit similar feedinghabits in the Hudson River. Map turtlesmove into tidal marshes and females nest onthe rail embankments and on islands (Kiviat,1998).

65

The diamondback terrapin has been thefocus of recent research within the Reserve.Diamondback terrapins were hunted to nearextinction at the turn of the last century andare beginning to show signs of populationrecovery in the Hudson River and othernortheastern estuaries. At Piermont marsh,terrapins are subject to drowning in crabtraps, and their eggs and young may bepreyed upon by raccoons.

A preliminary population survey conductedduring the summer of 1997 identified eightterrapins (six males, two females) atPiermont Marsh. Although diamondbackterrapins were utilizing the marsh system, itwas unclear whether or not they werenesting in the Reserve; dense stands ofcommon reed might reduce the availabilityof suitable nesting areas at Piermont Marsh(Simoes and Chambers, 1998). A follow-upstudy (Wiktor and Chambers, 2001)determined that the Piermont Marshterrapins were not genetically distinct fromother populations sampled in Connecticut,Rhode Island, and New Jersey, as indicatedby Inter-Sample Sequence Repeat (ISSR)analysis.

Map Turtle(Graptemys geographica)

Wood Turtle(Clemmys insculpta)

Diamondback Terrapin(Malaclemys terrapin)

BirdsThe bird communities of the Reserve havereceived considerable attention, withsurveys dating back to the early 1970s. Moststudies have focused on characterization ofbreeding habitat, threatened and endangeredspecies, and the effects of ecosystemalteration resulting from the proliferation ofinvasive plants on nesting and foraginghabitat.

The freshwater tidal wetlands of TivoliNorth Bay provide valuable habitat for adiverse avifauna, with over 135 speciesdocumented (New York Natural HeritageProgram, 1996a). Least bittern, Virginia rail,and marsh wren nest among the dense standsof narrow-leaved cattail. Purple loosestrifeand shrub vegetation provide habitat for red-

66

winged blackbird, American goldfinch,swamp sparrow, song sparrow, willowflycatcher (Empidonax traillii), yellowwarbler (Dendroica petechia), and commonyellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). Treeswallows, bank swallows, Europeanstarlings, red-winged blackbirds, andcommon grackles feed in uplands by dayand roost in North Bay at night. Avian foodresources present in the bay include seeds ofwild rice, rice cut-grass, water-millet(Echinochloa walteri), and knotweed, aswell as water celery, larvae of the cattailmoth (Lymnaecia phragmitella), water-lilyleaf beetles, snails, goldfish, and killifish.

The freshwater tidal wetlands and mudflatsof the Stockport Flats component alsoprovide valuable habitat for a diverseavifauna. Belted kingfisher, American blackduck (Anas rubripes), Canada goose,common tern (Sterna hirundo), great blueheron, house wren (Troglodytes aedon),song sparrow, tree swallow, willowflycatcher, marsh wren, red-wingedblackbird, swamp sparrow, and yellowwarbler are present in the freshwater tidalmarshes. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)and spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia)frequent both the intertidal mudflats and theintertidal gravel shores.

A completed bald eagle nest was identifiedoff Gay's Point (Stockport Flats) in 1995(New York Natural Heritage Program,1996b). Selectivity of perch and forage sitesby two pairs of bald eagles known to bebreeding within the Reserve (Stockport Flatsand Tivoli Bays) was monitored in springand summer 1999 (Thompson andMcGarigal, 2000). The eagles preferentiallyselected forested areas adjacent to marshesor tidal flats that were exposed during lowtide with minimal human disturbance.

Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Breeding bird surveys conducted atStockport Marsh, Tivoli North Bay, andIona Island Marsh in 1986 identified 22species considered likely to breed in HudsonRiver marshes (Swift, 1987; 1989).Breeding birds can be grouped on the basisof habitat use: those which nest in the deeplyflooded marsh interior (e.g., marsh wren,least bittern), those which nest in openmarsh with some purple loosestrife orwoody vegetation present (e.g., willowflycatcher, red-winged blackbird, Americangoldfinch, song sparrow), and those whichprimarily use tidal swamp or upland edgehabitat and occasionally stray into theintertidal marsh [e.g., gray catbird(Dumetella carolinensis), rose-breastedgrosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus)]. Afourth category, waterfowl, could beconsidered; however, nesting activities ofwaterfowl are limited by tidal flooding. Themost common species of waterfowlobserved in the marshes and tidal shallowsof the Reserve are mute swan, Canadagoose, mallard, American black duck, woodduck, green-winged teal (Anas crecca), andblue-winged teal (Anas discors). Commonmerganser (Mergus merganser) andcanvasback (Aythya valisneria) also occurwithin the Reserve, but are much lesscommon. The ten most abundant species inSwift’s study, accounting for almost 95% ofall sightings, included marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, swamp sparrow, Virginia

67

rail, yellow warbler, song sparrow, willowflycatcher, common yellowthroat, leastbittern, and American goldfinch. Bothwoody vegetation and purple loosestrifestands supported a relatively large numberof species and total number of birds.

Among non-passerine birds, Virginia rail,least bittern, and mallard are the most likelyto nest in Hudson River marshes. Virginiarails were observed more often in thevicinity of narrow-leaved cattail stands inclose proximity to uplands, while terrestrialpasserine species preferred upper intertidalareas with woody emergent vegetation.Least bittern and marsh wren were morecommonly associated with regularly floodedcattail stands.

An observed decline in species richness, andin the numbers of least bittern, Virginia rail,marsh wren, and swamp sparrow wasdocumented at Iona Island Marsh during are-survey conducted in 2004. Red-wingedblackbird populations have doubled, asnarrow-leaved cattail stands have beenreplaced by common reed. Additionalspecies known to nest in common reedstands in the Hudson Reserve include barnswallow, tree swallow, bank swallow, andEuropean starling. Although theproliferation of common reed was a likelycause of the decrease in avian speciesrichness, it may not represent the onlyfactor. Behavioral interactions betweenspecies such as marsh wren and red-wingedblackbird may have also played a roll in thedecline (LMS Engineers, 2005).

An interesting and somewhat unique nestinghabitat occurs primarily at the StockportFlats Reserve site. Eroding scarps of olddredged material deposits support largenesting populations of bank swallows andbelted kingfishers (Kiviat et al., 1985).

Osprey(Pandion haliaetus)

Great Blue Heron(Ardea herodias)

68

Least Bittern(Ixobrychus exilis)

MammalsSeveral mammal species are conspicuousresidents of the Reserve marshes. A primeexample is the muskrat, known for itsburrowing, feeding, and lodge buildingactivity. Muskrats are the primary vertebrateconsumer of intertidal marsh vegetation.While muskrat grazing does not appear tomarkedly affect plant species composition orrichness, it does increase soil nitrificationrates through increased aeration (Connors etal., 2000). Additionally, muskrat lodgeconstruction contributes to the structuralcomplexity of the intertidal marsh surface,providing nesting and feeding habitat formarsh birds and other vertebrates at all fourReserve component sites. Other mammalspecies, such the meadow vole (Microtuspennsylvanicus), may be present but rarelynoted due to their cryptic lifestyles. Beaver(Castor canadensis) populations appear tobe increasing at the Reserve sites since the1980s. Only a handful of studies havefocused on the ecology of mammalpopulations at the Reserve.

The proliferation of invasive plant species,including common reed and purpleloosestrife, may affect the distribution and

abundance of mammal species in TivoliNorth Bay; however, data to support thiscontention is lacking. One common smallmammal, the white-footed mouse(Peromyscus leucopus) , shows nopreference for either common reed, purpleloosestrife, or cattail habitats (McGlynn andOstfeld, 2000).

Muskrat(Ondatra zibethicus)

69

ROLE OF THE HUDSON RIVER

RESERVE IN REGIONAL HABITAT RESTORATION

The habitat restoration program at theHudson River Reserve focuses on severalkey priorities: These include:

• Restoration of migratory fish passagewithin Hudson River tributaries;

• Development of an understanding ofthe functional shifts associated withmanaging invasive common reed;

• Softening of hardened shorelinesalong the estuary;

• Conversion of dredged materialuplands to intertidal and subtidalfreshwater wetlands;

• Developing a reference set ofwetlands and data to guidefreshwater tidal wetland restoration;and

• Determining the limiting factorscontrolling the establishment anddistribution of SAV in freshwatertidal habitats.

Restoration Planning, Information

Transfer, and Regional Science

Coordination

In June 1998, the Reserve sponsored the firstHudson River Restoration Round Table,held at the Norrie Point EnvironmentalCenter in Staatsburg, NY. Attending were35 participants representing state andFederal agencies, non-governmentalorganizations, and consultants. The roundtable was co-hosted by NYSG and theNYSDOS. At this meeting the workinggroup began to form the elements of a

comprehensive Hudson River EstuaryRestoration Plan and achieved consensus ondefining the goals and objectives of the plan,which identified restoration science andeducational programs as key elements.

In July 2000, a restoration coordinator washired with the support of the Hudson RiverEstuary Program. The position is primarilyresponsible for authoring the “Hudson RiverEstuary Restoration Plan.” The Plan willdetail a science-based restoration anddecision making process that will strive tocoordinate restoration efforts throughout theestuary toward a set of specific ecosystemgoals. Additionally, through this position,the Hudson River National EstuarineResearch Reserve (HRNERR) providestechnical support for local, state and Federalrestoration planning and implementation.The program also manages several researchinitiatives, both inside and beyond Reserveboundaries, intended to provide valuableinformation to improve the quality ofrestoration projects throughout the estuary.

The Reserve sponsored an AdvancedHabitat Restoration Training course in June1998. The participants included 24 stateagency staff involved with implementingaquatic habitat restoration under the NYSBond Act. The participants received trainingin determining habitat restoration goals andobjectives, incorporating an ecologicalperspective in restoration planning,development of restoration monitoringprograms, and applying the principles ofadaptive management to habitat restorationprojects.

70

Hudson River Habitat Restoration

(HRHR) Project

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NewYork District (USACE-NYD), incooperation with NYSDEC, NYSDOS,OPRHP, and the Nature Conservancy,proposes to restore intertidal freshwaterwetlands within the Hudson River Estuaryas part of a comprehensive Hudson Riverhabitat restoration progam. The project iscurrently in the feasibility/planning stages.Two proposed sites are located onSchodack-Houghtaling Island, anisland/wetland complex in the upper HudsonRiver Estuary, some 12 miles south ofAlbany, NY. The third site is a largefreshwater tidal wetland located along MillCreek, a Hudson River tributary, nearStuyvesant, NY. The islands were created byfilling in tidal wetlands and shallows fornavigation channel construction andmaintenance during the early to mid 20th

century.

The HRHR project focuses on removingdredged material fill to restore intertidal andshallow subtidal habitat. Areas of existingintertidal wetlands are to be the basis of therestoration. Existing wetland habitats will beenhanced, increasing ecosystem function.The goals of the project are toimprove/provide bird and fish habitat,provide corridors for wildlife, improve waterquality, and provide habitat for threatenedand endangered species. A USACE-NYDreconnaissance study evaluated the potentialfor restoration of Hudson River tidalwetlands and determined the ecologicalsignificance of such restoration. Factors inthe site selection process included:anthropogenic stress, functions lost,need/availability of habitats within theregion, cost/benefit studies, and logistics,such as proximity to active dredged materialplacement areas and land ownership.Specific restoration activities may involve

re-grading of upland dredged materialdeposits to intertidal elevations,removal/control of invasive plant species(e.g., common reed, purple loosestrife),removal of derelict bulkheading, andexcavation of silted-in channels to increasetidal exchange.

Baseline environmental data (vegetation,fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, soilchemistry) were collected at project andreference sites (including Tivoli North Bay)during 1997-98. These data documentedexisting conditions at project and referencesites and provided project managers withinformation needed to specify target rangesfor select ecological variables. Projectfunding sources include the New York StateClean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, andFederal funds made available to theUSACE-NYD, under the Water Resourcesand Development Act (WRDA).

Fish Passage Restoration

The Sleepy Hollow dam is located on thePocantico River, at the historic estate ofPhilipse Manor, in Sleepy Hollow, NY. Thisworking mill dam has been identified as abarrier to the upstream migration ofanadromous fish, specifically river herring(Alosa spp.). The herring species most likelyto be encountered in the Pocantico River isthe alewife. This species enters HudsonRiver tributaries from approximately lateMarch through May. Other herring species,which may be present in the study area,include American Shad, blueback herring,and possibly hickory shad (A l o s amediocris). Reserve staff have been workingwith the site to identify fish passagesolutions which could restore the fisheryresource while minimizing the impact on thehistoric site. Recent fisheries surveyscorroborated anecdotal reports by workers atthe mill dam of river herring migrating to

71

the base of the dam, unable to reachupstream spawning areas.

Because the mill is currently functional, andlocated at a site of historical/culturalsignificance, it is not feasible to remove thedam or permanently alter its appearance.Therefore , a l ternat ives to damremoval/modification are being evaluated.The Reserve is currently evaluating theinstallation of a removable fish ladder, suchas a steeppass or denil fishway, at the dam tofacilitate migration of herring to upstreamspawning areas.

Functional Assessment of Freshwater

Tidal Wetlands

The Hudson River Reserve participated inthe development of a functional assessmentprocedure for evaluating the success of

freshwater tidal wetland restoration projectsbased on the USACE’s Hydrogeomorphicapproach (Brinson, 1993; Smith et al., 1995;Shafer and Yozzo, 1998). Fifteen referencewetlands, representing a gradient of severelydisturbed to relatively undisturbed habitats,were sampled to develop a reference datasetfor the evaluation of a suite of ecosystemfunctions during 1997-1998. The data wereused to develop a set of functional capacityindices (FCIs), which can be used to assesspre-project condition and post-projectoutcomes. This project has direct applicationto restoration science in the Hudson RiverEstuary, and elsewhere, by providing ameans of evaluating and prioritizingpotential restoration projects, as well as ameans of determining the success ofongoing and completed projects (Findlay etal., 2002; Mihocko et al., 2003).

72

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND MONITORING

For more than 20 years, the research andmonitoring conducted at the Reserve hascontributed greatly to our understanding ofthe Hudson River Estuary ecosystem. Thework supported by the reserve hasaugmented that done by other researchinstitutions and together this knowledge hasaided the coastal management community inbetter protecting and managing the naturalresources of this system. However, as withany large natural system much still needs tobe understood to address ongoing and newcoastal management information needs. It isdifficult to predict what research will needto be done in the future but we have a goodunderstanding of what additionalinformation is needed at the time of thispublication. For example, there are gaps inour knowledge on restoration methods andecosystem responses to restoration, temporaland spatial variability of habitats andspecies, driving forces of change in theestuary, and long-term effects ofdevelopment and global climate change.

It is a priority of the Reserve to continue themonitoring programs focusing on long-termchange and short-term variability. Theseinclude marsh plant community mapping,the SAV and water chestnut inventory, long-term water quality and meteorologicalmonitoring, marsh breeding bird monitoring,rare and threatened plant surveys, and theresident and transient fish monitoring atTivoli Bays. All of these programs havecontributed greatly to our understanding ofthe estuary and have also been instrumentalin identifying coastal management issuesrequiring our immediate attention.

In the next few years, the Reserve willexpand components of the SWMP programto the other sites, especially Iona Island andPiermont Marsh. Improvements to

hydrological models for Tivoli Bays willenable us to better predict the effect of themarshes on water-borne nutrients andcontaminants. Better coordination of ourmonitoring efforts with other state andFederal agencies will improve the ability ofcoastal managers to observe and predictestuarine conditions. The resident fishmonitoring program should be expanded tothe other Reserve sites, especially PiermontMarsh were the population of spotfinkillifish could be threatened by thecontinued expansion of common reed.

Earlier in this document, we identifiedspecific research and monitoring needs foreach site. The following list summarizesthese and includes additional generalresearch needs:

• Expand ongong paleoecologicalstudies to all Reserve sites;

• Identify sources of chloride anddetermine the causes of increase insurface water concentrations;

• Determine the ecological effects ofcommon reed expansion and removalon nutient cycling, carbon anddetrital cycling, and vertebrate andinvertebrate communities;

• Develop and maintain landuse/landcover digital databases forthe Reserve watersheds;

• Continue to monitor plantcommunities every 5-10 years usingaerial photography or othercomparable remote sensing method;

73

• Determine why higher vertebrates(i.e, muskrat, mink, river otter,harbor seal, some marsh birds) areeither absent or declining in theHudson River Estuary;

• Determine what factors drive thelarge variability in resident marshfish populations (i.e., four-spinesticklebacks);

• Determine and predict the responseof Hudson River estuarine aquatichabitats to invasions of non-indigenous species;

• Characterize the terrestr ialinvertebrate communities associatedwith the emergent macrophyte stemsand litter (including common reed,cattail, other species);

• Determine the role marsh mammalcommunities have on limiting orcausing spread of invasive plantspecies (e.g., common reed, purpleloosestrife); and

• Survey marsh breeding birdpopulations every five years at allReserve sites.

Addressing these information needs willrequire the commitment and support offunding organizations, legislators,government and local officials and resourcemanagers. Given the economic, recreational,and commercial value of the Hudson RiverEstuary and it’s natural resources, we needto continue to educate and remind all of thekey constituents of the need to betterunderstand, manage, and protect the HudsonRiver ecosystem through research andmonitoring programs such as those beingconducted at the Hudson River Reserve.

74

LITERATURE CITED

Able, K.W. and S.M. Hagen. 2000. Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion onmarsh surface macrofauna: Response of fishes and decapod crustations. Estuaries 23: 633-646.

Able, K.W., S.M. Hagan, and S.A. Brown. 2003. Mechanisms of marsh habitat alteration due toPhragmites: response of young-of-the-year mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to treatmentfor Phragmites removal. Estuaries 26:484-494.

Anderson, A.B. and R.E. Schmidt. 1989. A Survey of larval and juvenile fish populations inwater-chestnut (Trapa natans) beds in Tivoli South Bay, A Hudson River Tidal Marsh. SectionVI in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson RiverNational Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1988. Hudson River Foundation, New York,NY.

Anderson, K.A., R.R. Rountree, and F. Juanes. 2004. The distribution and behavior of soniferousfishes in the Hudson River: focusing on striped cusk-eel, Ophidion marginatum. Section VI inW.C. Nieder and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar FellowshipProgram, 2003. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Angradi, T. R., S. M. Hagan, and K. W. Able. 2001. Vegetation type and the intertidalmacroinvertebrate fauna of a brackish marsh: Phragmites vs. Spartina. Wetlands 21:75-92.

Austin, H.K. and S.E.G. Findlay. 1989. Benthic bacterial biomass and production in the HudsonRiver Estuary. Microbial Ecology 18:105-116.

Barbour, J.G. and E. Kiviat. 1997. Introduced purple loosestrife as host of native Saturniidae(Lepidoptera). Great Lakes Entomologist 30(3): 115-122.

Barbour, S. and E. Kiviat. 1986. A survey of Lepidoptera in Tivoli North Bay (Hudson RiverEstuary). Section IV in J.C. Cooper (ed.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson RiverNational Estuarine SanctuaryProgram, 1985. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Benoit, G., E.X. Wang, W. C. Nieder, M. Levandowsky, and V. T. Breslin. 1999. Sources andhistory of heavy metal contamination and sediment deposition in Tivoli South Bay, HudsonRiver, New York. Estuaries 22:167-178.

Benoit, L.K and R.A. Askins. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution ofbirds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19:194-208.

Blossey, B, and V. Nuzzo. 2004. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Biological ControlMonitoring program for the Lower Hudson River Valley. pp. 1-44 in Ecology andManagement of Invasive Plants Program. Department of Natural Resources, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, NY.

75

Blossey, B., L.C. Skinner, and J. Taylor. 2001. Impact and management of purple loosestrife inNorth America. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1787-1807.

Bohne, C. and R.E. Schmidt. 1989. Larval fish flux between a Freshwater Tidal Marsh and theHudson River Estuary. Section VII in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Polgar FellowshipReports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1988. HudsonRiver Foundation, New York, NY.

Boyce Thompson Institute. 1977. An Atlas of the Biologic Resources of the Hudson Estuary.Prepared by the Estuarine Study Group, the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc.,Yonkers, NY.

Brown, M.P., M.B. Werner, R.J. Sloan, and K.W. Simpson. 1985. Polychlorinated biphenyls inthe Hudson River. Environmental Science and Technology 19:656-661.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands – Final Report. TechnicalReport WRP-DE-4. Wetlands Research Program, U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiement Station,.Vicksburg, MS.

Buerge, I.J., T. Poiger, M. Mueller, and H.R. Buser. 2003. Caffeine, an anthropogenic marker forwastewater contamination of surface waters. Environmental Science and Technology 37:691-700.

Campbell, M. and B.L. Dexter. 1987. Identification, distribution and abundance patterns ofaquatic algae and herbivores in marshlands of the Hudson River National Estuarine ResearchReserve (Stockport Flats Component). Section VI in E.A. Blair and J.C. Cooper (eds.), PolgarFellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1986.Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Caraco, N.F. and J.J. Cole. 2002. Contrasting impacts of a native and alien macrophyte ondissolved oxygen in a large river. Ecological Applications 12:1496-1509.

Caraco, N.F., J.J. Cole, S.E.G. Findlay, D.T. Fischer, G.G. Lampman, M.L. Pace. and D.L.Strayer. 2000. Dissolved oxygen declines in the Hudson River associated with the invasion ofthe zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorhpa). Environmental Science and Technology 34:1204-1210.

Connors, L.M., E. Kiviat, P.M. Groffman, and R.S. Ostfeld. 2000. Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)disturbance to vegetation and potential net nitrogen mineralization and nitrification rates in afreshwater tidal marsh. American Midland Naturalist 143:53-63.

Cooper, J.C., F.R. Cantelmo, and C.E. Newton. 1988. Overview of the Hudson River Estuary.American Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 11-24.

76

Drill, S. and R.E. Schmidt. 1988. The composition of the Summer zooplankton community inTivoli Bays, Hudson River, New York. Section II in J.R. Waldman and E.A. Blair (eds.),Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research ReserveProgram, 1987. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Duryea, M. and R.E. Schmidt. 1987. Feeding biology of the Tessellated Darter (Etheostomaolmstedi atromaculatum) at Tivoli Bay North, Hudson River, NY. Section III in E.A. Blair andJ.C. Cooper (eds.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson River National EstuarineResearch Reserve Program, 1986. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Fell, P. E., R. S. Warren, J. K. Light, R. L. Rawson, and S. M. Fairley. 2003. Comparison of fishand macroinvertebrate use of Typha angustifolia, Phragmites australis, and treated Phragmitesmarshes along the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries 26: 534-551.

Fell, P. E., S. P. Weissbach, D. A. Jones, M. A. Fallon, J. A. Zeppieri, E. K. Faison, K. A.Lennon, K.J. Newberry, and L. K. Reddington. 1998. Does invasion of oligohaline tidalmarshes by reed grass, Phragmites australis, affect the availability of prey resources for themummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology222:59-77.

Findlay, S.E.G., S. Dye, and K.A. Kuehn. 2002. Microbial growth and nitrogen retention in litterof Phragmites australis compared to Typha angustifolia. Wetlands Vol. 22, No. 3, September2002, pp. 616-625.

Findlay, S., K. Howe, and H. Kay Austin. 1990. Comparison of Detritus Dynamics in Two TidalFreshwater Wetlands. Ecology 71: 288-295.

Findlay, S.E.G., E. Kiviat, E.C. Neider, and E.A. Blair. 2002. Functional assessment of areference wetland set as a tool for science, management and restoration. Aquatic sciences 64(2002) 107-117.

Findlay, S., K. Schoeberl, and B. Wagner. 1989. Abundance, Composition and Dynamics of theInvertebrate Fauna of a Tidal Freshwater Wetland. Journal of the North AmericanBenthoogical Society 8: 140-148.

Frenzel, J. and K. Limburg. 2004. Waterscaping water chestnuts: A test of improving habitat forfish. Section IV in W.C. Nieder and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. PolgarFellowship Program, 2003. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Gilchrest, W.R. and R.E. Schmidt. 1998. Comparison of fish communities in open and occludedfreshwater tidal wetlands in the Hudson River Estuary. Section IX in J.R. Waldman and W.C.Nieder (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1997. Hudson RiverFoundation, New York, NY.

77

Goldhammer, A. and S. Findlay. 1988. Estimation of suspended material flux between a Trapanatans stand and the Hudson River Estuary. Section VIII in J.R. Waldman and E.A. Blair(eds.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research ReserveProgram, 1987. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Goldman, M.B. and P. Groffman. 1994. The effects of ammonium and sulfate additions onmethane fluxes in two tidal freshwater wetlands of the Hudson River Estuary. Section III inJ.R. Waldman and E.A. Blair (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program,1993. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Gould, K.I. and S. Findlay. 1991. Changes in intersitial water chemistry along a salinity gradientin the Hudson River. Section II in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of theTibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1990. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Green D.M., S.B. Nack, and J.L. Forney. 1988. Identification of Black Bass Spawning andNursery Habitats in the Hudson River Estuary. Final Report to the Hudson River Foundation.

Hankin, N. and R.E. Schmidt. 1992. Standing crop of fishes in water celery beds in the tidalHudson River. Section VIII in J.R. Waldman and E.A. Blair (eds.), Final Reports of the TiborT. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1991. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Hanson, S. R., D.T. Osgood, and D.J. Yozzo. 2002. Nekton use of a Phragmites australis marshon the Hudson River, New York. Wetlands 22:326-37.

Hartel, K.E., D.B. Halliwell, and A.E. Launer. 2002. Inland Fishes of Massachusetts.Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA. 325 pp.

Harm, L., E. Salak, and D. Osgood. 2003. Effects of Phragmites australis on the early life stagesof Fundulus heteroclitus at Iona Island Marsh, Hudson River, New York. Section IV in J.R.Waldman and W.C. Nieder (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Progam,2002. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Hopkins, D. and D.M. Green. 1989. Evaluation of potential sources of recruitment of largemouthbass to the Hudson River. Section VIII in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), PolgarFellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1988.Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

HREP. 2002. Hudson River Estuary action plan 2001. The Hudson River Estuary Program, NewY o r k S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s e r v a t i o n .www.dec.state.ny.us/website/hudson/hrep.html

Jorgenson, S.C. 1969. A Georgia record for the cyprinodontid fish Fundulus luciae. ChesapeakeScience 10:65.

78

Junkins, R. and J.S. Levinton. 2003. Cadmium resistance in Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri in FoundryCove following a Super Fund cleanup. NY. Section III in J.R. Waldman & W.C. Nieder (eds.),Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2002. Hudson River Foundation,New York, NY.

Kelley, J. and E. Schultz. 2003. Distributions, abundance and reproductive season of sticklebacks(Gasterosteidea) in the Hudson River Marsh Preserves. Section V in J.R. Waldman and W.C.Nieder (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2002. Hudson RiverFoundation, New York, NY.

Kiviat, E. 1980. A Hudson River tidemarsh snapping turtle population. Transactions of theNortheast Section, the Wildlife Society 37: 158-168.

Kiviat, E. 1996. American goldfinch nests in purple loosestrife. Wilson Bulletin 108(1): 182-186.

Kiviat, E. 1998. Where are the reptiles and amphibians of the Hudson River? Part 2. News fromHudsonia 13.

Kiviat, E. 2005. What reed (Phragmites) ecology tells us about reed management. Part 1:Confirming Reed’s lurid reputation. News from Hudsonia 20.

Kiviat, E. and J.G. Barbour. 1996. Wood Turtles, Clemmys insculpta, in the Fresh-tidal HudsonRiver. Canadian Field-Naturalist 110: 341-343.

Kiviat, E. and E. Beecher. 1991. Vegetation in the Fresh-tidal habitats of Tivoli Bays, HudsonRiver. Hudsonia Ltd., Bard College Field Station, Annandale, NY.

Kiviat, E. and M. Hummel. 2004. Review of world literature on water chestnut with implicationsfor management in North America. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 42: 17-28.

Kiviat, E. and K. MacDonald. 2004. Biodiversity Patterns and Conservation in the HackensackMeadowlands, New Jersey. History, Ecology and Restoration of a Degraded Urban Wetland.Urban Habitats: A Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Biology of Urban Areas 2: 3-35

Kiviat, E., R.E. Schmidt, and N. Zeising. 1985. Bank swallow and belted kingisher nest indredge spoil on the tidal Hudson River. The Kingbird, Winter 1985.

Kneib, R.T. 1997. Early life stages of resident nekton in intertidal marshes. Estuaries 20: 214-230.

Knutsen, A.B., P.L. Klerks, and J.S. Levinton. 1987. The fate of metal contaminated sedimentsin Foundry Cove, New York. Environmental Pollution 45:291-304.

79

Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T.Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones and other organic waste and contaminants in U.S.streams in 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology36:1202-1211.

Krause, L.H., C. Rietsma, and E. Kiviat. 1997. Terrestrial insects associated with Lythrumsalicaria, Phragmites australis, and Typha augustifolia in a Hudson River tidal marsh. SectionV: 35 pp. in W.C. Neider and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. PolgarFellowship Program, 1996. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Lampman, G.G., N.F. Caraco and J.J. Cole. 1999. Spatial and temporal patterns of nutrientconcentration and export in the tidal Hudson River. Estuaries 22: 285-296.

Lathrop, R.G., L. Windham, and P. Montesano. 2003. Does Phragmites expansion alter thestructure and function of marsh landscapes? Patterns and processes revisited. Estuaries 26:423-435.

Leck, M.A. and R.L. Simpson. 1987. Seed bank of a freshwater tidal wetland: turnover andrelationship to vegetation change. American Journal of Botany 74: 360-370.

Leonardi, L. and E. Kiviat. 1990. The bryophytes of the Tivoli Bays freshwater tidal swamps.Section III in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. PolgarFellowship Program, 1989. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Lewis, J. 2001. Does Phragmites expansion influence nekton habitat utilization within tidalcreeks? M.S. Thesis, the University of New Haven, West Haven, CT.

Lickus, M.R. and P.K. Barten 1991. Hydrology of a tidal freshwater marsh along the HudsonRiver. Section I in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. PolgarFellowship Program, 1990. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Limburg, K.E. 1986. PCBs in the Hudson. pp. 83-130 in Limburg, K.E., M.A. Moran, and W.H.McDowell, (eds.), The Hudson River Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Limburg, K.E. and M.A. Moran. 1986. The Hudson River Ecosystem pp. 6-39 in Limburg, K.E.,M.A. Moran, and W.H. McDowell, (eds.), The Hudson River Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag,New York.

Limburg, K.E. and D. Strayer. 1988. Studies of young-of-the-year river herring and Americanshad in the Tivoli Bays, Hudson River, New York. Section VII in J.R. Waldman and E.A. Blair(eds.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research ReserveProgram, 1987. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

LMS Engineers. 2005. Breeding bird survey at Iona Marsh, Spring 2004. Final Report to theNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Palisades Interstate ParkCommission. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl River, NY.

80

Lutz, C. and Strayer, D. 2001. Macroinvertebrates associated with Vallisneria americana andTrapa natans in Tivoli Bay South. Section III in J.R. Waldman and W.C. Nieder (eds.), FinalReports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2000. Hudson River Foundation, NewYork, NY.

McCarron, E. and S. Findlay. 1989. Sediment metabolism at Tivoli South Bay and a VallisneriaBed in the Hudson River. Section I in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Polgar FellowshipReports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1988. HudsonRiver Foundation, New York, NY.

McGlynn, C.A. and R.S. Ostfeld. 2000. A study of the effects of invasive plant species on smallmammals in Hudson River Freshwater Marshes. Section VIII in W.C. Nieder and J.R,Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1999. HudsonRiver Foundation, New York, NY.

Mclaren, J.B., J.C. Cooper, T.B. Hoff, and V. Lander. 1981. Movements of Hudson River stripedbass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:158-167.

Merrill, J.Z. 1999. Tidal freshwater marshes as nutrient sinks: particulate nutrient burial anddenitrification. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Meyerson, L.A., K. Saltonstall, L. Windham, E. Kiviat, and S. Findlay. 2000. A comparison ofPhragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America.Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:89-103.

Mihocko, G., E. Kiviat, R.E. Schmidt, S.E.G. Findlay, W.C. Nieder and E. Blair. 2003.Assessing Ecological Functions of Hudson River Fresh-Tidal Marshes: Reference Data and aModified Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach. Hudsonia, Ltd. Annandale, NY.

Montgomery, C. and R.E. Schmidt. 1993. Aspects of carp biology in Tivoli South Bay, AHudson River tidal freshwater marsh. Section VIII in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.),Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1992. Hudson River Foundation,New York, NY.

Mugue, N., and J.S. Weis. 1995. Population genetics of Fundulus heteroclitus in the HudsonRiver and North New Jersey Estuaries: Evolution of subspecies boundary and hybridizationwith F. diaphanus. Section VII in J.R. Waldman, E.A. Blair and W.C. Nieder (eds.), FinalReports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1994. Hudson River Foundation, NewYork, NY.

Nack, S. and W. Cook. 1987. Characterization of spawning and nursery habitats of largemouthbass (Micropterus salmoides) in the Stockport Component of the Hudson River NationalEstuarine Research Reserve. Section IV in E.A. Blair and J.C. Cooper (eds.), PolgarFellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1986.Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

81

Nadeau, R.J. and R.A. Davis. 1976. Polychlorinated biphenyls in the Hudson River (HudsonFalls – Fort Edward, New York State). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination andToxicology 16:436-444.

Nemazie, D. and B.L. Dexter. 1988. Summer zooplankton ecology of Piermont Marsh. Section Iin J.R. Waldman and E.A. Blair (eds.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson RiverNational Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1987. Hudson River Foundation, New York,NY.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 1996. Tivoli Bay Wildlife Management Area: BiodiversityInventory Final Report. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham, New York.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 1996. Stockport Flats: Biodiversity Inventory FinalReport. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham, New York.

Nieder, W.C., E. Barnaba, S.E.G. Findlay, S. Hoskins, N. Holochuck, and E.A. Blair. 2004.Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation and Trapa natans in the HudsonRiver Estuary. Journal of Coastal Research 45:150-161.

Odum, W.E. 1988. Comparative ecology of tidal freshwater and salt marshes. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 19:147-176.

Odum, W.E., T.J. Smith, III, J.K. Hoover and C.C. McIvor. 1984. The Ecology of TidalFreshwater Marshes of the United States East Coast: A Community Profile. FWS/OBS-87/17.Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the interior, Washington, D.C.

Osgood, D.T., D.J. Yozzo, R.M. Chambers, D. Jacobson, T. Hoffman, and J. Wnek. 2003. Tidalhydrology and habitat utilization by resident nekton in Phragmites and non-Phragmitesmarshes. Estuaries 26:522-533.

Osgood, D.T., D.J. Yozzo, R.M. Chambers, S. Pianka, J. Lewis, and C. LePage. In Press.Patterns of habitat utilization by resident nekton in Phragmites and Typha marshes on theHudson River Estuary, New York. in: J. Waldman, K. Limburg, and D. Strayer, (eds.), HudsonRiver Fishes And Their Environment. American Fisheries Society.

Pace, M.L., S.E.G. Findlay, and D. Fischer. 1998. Effects of an invasive bivalve on thezooplankton community of the Hudson River. Freshwater Biology 39:103-116.

Pelczarski, K. and R.E. Schmidt. 1991. Evaluation of a pop net for sampling fishes from water-chestnut beds in the tidal Hudson River. Section V in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.),Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1990. Hudson River Foundation,New York, NY.

82

Peller, P. and R. Bopp. 1986. Recent sediment and pollutant accumulation in the Hudson RiverNational Estuarine Sanctuary. Section VII in J.C. Cooper (ed.), Polgar Fellowship Reports ofthe Hudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, 1985. Hudson River Foundation,New York, NY.

Petersson, R. and R.E. Schmidt. 2004. Movements of American eel (Anguilla rostrata) in theSaw Kill, a Hudson River tributary. Section VII In W.C. Nieder and J.R. Waldman (eds.),Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2003. Hudson River Foundation,New York, NY.

Raichel, D.L., K.W. Able, and J.M. Hartman. 2003. The influence of Phragmites (common reed)on the distribution, abundance and potential prey of a resident marsh fish in the HackensackMeadowlands, New Jersey. Estuaries 26:511-521.

Raphael, B. and S. Findlay. 1996. Sources and characterization of dissolved organic carbon inthe Tivoli Bays freshwater tidal wetlands. Section I In J.R. Waldman, W.C. Nieder and E.A.Blair (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1995. Hudson RiverFoundation, New York, NY.

Rathjen, W.F., and L.C. Miller. 1957. Aspects of the early life history of the striped bass (Roccussaxatilis) in the Hudson River. New York Fish and Game Journal 4:42-60

Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. Prepared by New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation: Natural Heritage Program, Latham, NY.

Richard, E. and R.E. Schmidt. 1987. Feeding ecology of the banded killifish (Fundulusdiaphanus) at Tivoli North Bay, Hudson River, New York. Section II in E.A. Blair and J.C.Cooper (eds.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine ResearchReserve Program, 1986. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Rooth, J.E. and J. C. Stevenson. 2000. Sediment deposition patterns in Phragmites australiscommunities: Implications for coastal areas threatened by rising sea-level. Wetlands Ecologyand Management 8:173-183.

Rozycki, C. and E. Kiviat. 1996. A low density, tidal marsh, painted turtle population. SectionVII in J.R. Waldman, W.C. Nieder and E.A. Blair (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. PolgarFellowship Program, 1995. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Rubbo, M.J. and E. Kiviat. 1999. A herpetological survey of Tivoli Bays and Stockport Flats.Section VIII in W.C. Nieder and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. PolgarFellowship Program, 1998. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmitesaustralis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99:2445-2449.

83

Saltonstall, K., P.M. Peterson, and R.J. Soreng. 2004. Recognition of Phragmites australissubsp. americanus (Poaceae: Arundinoideae) in North America: Evidence from morphologicaland genetic analyses. Sida, Contributions to Botany: 683-692.

Schmidt, K.A. 1986. The life history of the chrysomelid Beetle Pyrrhalta nymphaeae(Galerucinae) on water chestnut, Trapa natans (Hydrocariaceae), in Tivoli South Bay,Hudson River, NY. Section V in J.C. Cooper (ed.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the HudsonRiver National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, 1985. Hudson River Foundation, New York,NY.

Schmidt, R.E. 1986. Fish Community Structure in Tivoli North Bay, a Hudson River FreshwaterTidal Marsh. NOAA Technical Report OCRM/SPD, 47 pp.

Schmidt, R.E. and T.R. Lake. 2000. Alewives in Hudson River tributaries, two years ofsampling. Final Report to the Hudson River Foundation. 74 pp.

Schmidt, R.E. and T.R. Lake. 2003. Young of year American eel (Anguilla rostrata) in HudsonRiver tributaries – Year 1. Final Report to Hudson River Estuary Program, New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation.

Schmidt, R.E. and T.R. Lake. 2004. Young of year American eel (Anguilla rostrata) in HudsonRiver tributaries – Year 2. Final Report to Hudson River Estuary Program, New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation.

Schmidt, R.E., and E. Kiviat. 1988. Communities of Larval and Juvenile Fish Associated withWater-chestnut and Water-celery in the Tivoli Bays of the Hudson River: A Report to theHudson River Foundation. Hudsonia Ltd., Bard College Field Station, Annandale, NY.

Schmidt, R.E. and T. Stillman. 1994. Drift of early life stages of fishes in Stockport Creek andsignificance of the phenomenon to the Hudson River Estuary. Final Report to the HudsonRiver Foundation. Hudsonia, Annandale, NY.

Schmidt, R.E. and T. Stillman. 1998. Evidence of potamodramy in an estuarine population ofsmallmouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 13:155-163.

Schmidt, R.E., W.E. Chandler and D. Strayer. 1995. Fishes consuming zebra mussels in the tidalHudson River. Section IV in E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T.Polgar Fellowship Program, 1994. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Schmidt, R.E., E.G. Eck, and R. Petersson. 2002. Monitoring Fish Populations in the Tivoli BaysHudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Year Two. Final Report to the HudsonRiver Estuary Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

84

Schmidt, R.E., E. Griffin-Noyes and A. Lavine. 2002. Monitoring Fish Populations in the TivoliBays Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Year One. Final Report to theHudson River Estuary Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.New Paltz, NY.

Schmidt, R.E., A. Lang, and E. Leibu. 2004. Monitoring Fish Populations in the Tivoli BaysHudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Year Three. Final Report to the HudsonRiver Estuary Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Schoeberl, K.L. and S. Findlay. 1988. Composition, abundance and dynamics ofmacroinvertebrates in Tivoli South Bay, with emphasis on the Chironomidae (Diptera). SectionV in J.R. Waldman and E.A. Blair (eds.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson RiverNational Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1987. Hudson River Foundation, New York,NY.

Shafer, D.J. and D.J. Yozzo. 1998. National Guidebook for Application of HydrogeomorphicAssessment to Tidal Fringe Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-16. Wetlands ResearchProgram, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,

Sidari, M. and R.E. Schmidt. 1990. Larval fish foods in water-chestnut beds. Section VI in J.R.Waldman and E.A. Blair (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program,1989. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Simoes, J.C. and R.M. Chambers. 1998. A Population study of diamondback terrapins ofPiermont Marsh, Hudson River, NY. Section I in J.R. Waldman and W.C. Nieder (eds.), FinalReports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1997. Hudson River Foundation, NewYork, NY.

Sloan, R.J., K.W. Simpson, R.A. Schreder and C.W. Barnes. 1983. Temporal trends towardstability of Hudson River PCB contamination. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination andToxicology 3:377-385.

Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for AssessingWetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands andFunctional Indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9. Wetlands Research Program, U.S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Smith, R.M., P. O’Keefe, D. Hilker, S. Connor and E. Posner. 1996. An assessment ofpolychlorinated dibenzo-P-dioxin and polychlorinated dibenzofuran historical loading toHudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve sediment: The influence of direct andindirect atmospheric contributions. Report to NOAA-OCRM, HUD-93RF-017, New YorkState Department of Health, Albany, NY.

Squires, D.F. 1992. Quantifying anthropogenic shoreline modification of the Hudson River andEstuary from European contact to modern time. Coastal Management 20: 343-354.

85

Stevens, G. (ed.) 2001. Natural resource/human use inventory of six state-owned properties onthe Hudson River in Columbia and Greene counties. Prepared for New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation by Hudsonia, Ltd, Annandale, NY.

Stevenson, K.A., R. Armstrong and W.R. Schell. 1986. Chronological determination of mercury,lead, and cadmium in two Hudson River freshwater tidal marshes. Section VIII in J.C. Cooper(ed.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary Program,1985. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Strandberg, B., N.G. Dodder, I. Basu, and R.A. Hites. 2001. Concentrations and spatialvariations of polybrominated dephenyl ethers and other organohalogen compounds in GreatLakes air. Environmental Science and Technology 35:1078-1083.

Strayer, D.L. and L.C. Smith. 1996. Relationships between zebra mussels (Dreissenapolymorpha) and unionid clams during the early stage of the zebra mussel invasion of theHudson River. Freshwater Biology 36:771-779.

Strayer, D.L., K.A. Hattala, and A.W. Kahnle. 2004. Effects of an invasive bivalve (Dreissenapolymorpha) on fish in the Hudson River Estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and AquaticSciences 61:924-941.

Strayer, D.L., L.C. Smith, and D.C. Hunter. 1998. Effects of the zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha) invasion on the macrobenthos of the freshwater tidal Hudson River. CanadianJournal of Zoology 76:419-425.

Strayer, D.L, N.F. Caraco, J.J. Cole, S. Findlay, and M.L. Pace. 1999. Transformation offreshwater ecosystems by bivalves. Bioscience 49:19-27.

Swift, B. 1987. An analysis of avian breeding habits in Hudson River tidal marshes. Final Reportto the Hudson River Foundation. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,Albany, NY.

Swift, B. 1989. Avian breeding habits in Hudson River tidal marshes. Final Report to the HudsonRiver Foundation. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Templer, P., S. Findlay, and C. Wigand. 1998. Sediment chemistry associated with native andnon-native emergent macrophytes of a Hudson River marsh ecosystem. Wetlands 18:70-78.

Thompson, C. and K. McGarigal. 2000. Impacts of scale on breeding bald eagles (Haliaeetusleucocephalus) along the Hudson River, New York. Section VII in W.C. Nieder and J.R,Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1999. HudsonRiver Foundation, New York, NY.

Tsuchiya T. and T. Iwakuma. 1993. Growth and leaf life-span of a floating leaved plant, Trapanatans L., as influenced by nitrogen influx. Aquatic Botany 46: 317-324.

86

USACE. 1995. Hudson River Habitat Restoration, Hudson River Basin, New York.Reconnaissance Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.

USEPA. 2002. Record of Decision, Hudson River PCBs Site, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, New York, NY.

USFWS. 1997. Significant habitats and habitat complexes of the New York Bight watershed.Southern New England – New York Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Charlestown, RI.

Wagner, B. and S. Findlay. 1987. Colonization of artificial substrate by the Chironomidae(Diptera) of Tivoli South Bay. Section VII in E.A. Blair and J.C. Cooper (eds.), PolgarFellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 1986.Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Waldman, J.R. 2005. The diadromous fish fauna of the Hudson River: Life histories,conservation concerns, and research avenues. In: J.S. Levinton and J.R. Waldman, (eds.), TheHudson River Estuary. Cambridge University press.

Waldman, J.R., D.J. Dunning, Q.E. Ross, and M.T. Mattson. 1990. Range dynamics of HudsonRiver striped bass along the Atlantic coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society119:902-919.

Wang, X. and G. Benoit. 1993. Chronological variations in concentrations of heavy metals insediments of the Tivoli South Bay: A study using 210Pb dating methodology. Section II in E.A.Blair and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program,1992. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Weinstein, M. P. and J. H. Balletto. 1999. Does the common reed, Phragmites australis, affectessential fish habitat? Estuaries 22:793-802.

Westad, K.E. and E. Kiviat. 1986. Flora of freshwater tidal swamps at Tivoli Bays, HudsonRiver National Estuarine Sanctuary. Section III in J.C. Cooper (ed.), Polgar FellowshipReports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, 1985. Hudson RiverFoundation, New York, NY.

Wiktor, D., M. Hill, and R.M. Chambers. 2001. Genetic diversity of diamondback terrapins(Malaclemys terrapin) from Piermont Marsh, Hudson River, NY. Section VIII in J.R.Waldman & W.C. Nieder (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program,2000. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Windham, L. and R. G. Lathrop. 1999. Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) invasionon aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, NewJersey. Estuaries 22:927-935.

87

Winogrond, H.G. and E. Kiviat. 1997. Invasion of Phragmites australis in the Tidal Marshes ofthe Hudson River. Section VI in W.C. Nieder and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of theTibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1996. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Wirgin, I.I. and J.R. Waldman. 1998. Organismic responses to contaminated aquatic systems:Four case histories from the Hudson River. pp. 1563-1579 in W.H. Rom (ed.), Environmentaland Occupational Medicine, Third Edition. Lippincott-Raven, Philidelphia, PA.

Wong, J. and Peteet, D. 1999. Environmental History of Piermont Marsh, Hudson River, NY.Section III in W.C. Nieder and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. PolgarFellowship Program, 1998. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Yozzo, D.J. and M.M. Cianciola. 2002. Phragmites australis control experiment: Fishcommunity characterization. Report to New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation, Annandale, NY. Prepared by Barry. A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., Kingston, NY.

Yozzo, D.J., and R.J. Diaz. 1999. Tidal freshwater wetlands: invertebrate diversity, ecology andfunctional significance. in: Batzer, D., R. Rader, and S. Wissinger, eds., Invertebrates inFreshwater Wetlands of North America: Ecology and Management. John Wiley and Sons.

Yozzo, D.J. and W.E. Odum. 1993. Fish predation on epiphytic microcrustacea in Tivoli SouthBay, a Hudson River tidal freshwater wetland. Hydrobiologia 57:37-46.

Yozzo, D.J., and F. Ottman. 2003. New distribution records for the spotfin killifish (Fundulusluciae Baird) in the lower Hudson River Estuary and adjacent waters. Northeastern Naturalist.10:399-408.

Yozzo, D.J. and P.L. Steineck. 1994. Ostracoda from tidal freshwater wetlands at Stockport,Hudson River Estuary: Abundance, distribution, and composition. Estuaries 17:680-684.

Yozzo, D.J., C.M. Way, T.R. Martin, J.M. Rhoads, and S.L. Paulus. 1999. Hudson River HabitatRestoration Study: Baseline biological data collection at project and reference Sites. U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY.

Zelewski, L.M. and D.E. Armstrong. 1997. Mercury Dynamics in Sediments of Tivoli BaySouth, Hudson River, NY. Section II in W.C. Nieder and J.R. Waldman (eds.), Final Reportsof the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1996. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX APlant Community and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Maps

N

Tidal Wetland Plant Communities of the Hudson River


Piermont Marsh 1997

Data Source: NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation's Hudson River Research Reserve

400 0 400 800 1200 Meters

0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Miles

Open Water/Tidal Channels

Phragmites australis

Wetland Areas- Non Phragmites

Unvegetated Flats

Upland/Non-WetlandSubmerged Aquatic Vegetation

Panne

Roads and BuildingsRailroadsShoreline

200 0 200 400 600 800 Meters


0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Miles

N




Unvegetated Flats

Upland/Non-Wetland

Wooded swamp

Roads and BuildingsRailroadsShoreline

Tidal Wetland Plant Communities of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve

Iona Island 1991

200 0 200 400 600 800 Meters

0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Miles

N





Unvegetated Flats

Upland/Non-Wetland

Wooded swamp

Roads and BuildingsRailroads

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Shoreline


Iona Island 1997



Tivoli Bays 1997North

North

South

Tivoli Bays Site Index

N

0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles

200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Meters





Unvegetated Flats

Upland/Non-Wetland

Wooded swamp


Submerged Aquatic VegetationTrapa natansScrub/Shrub

Lythrum salicaria

Shoreline



Tivoli Bays 1997South


200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Meters

0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles




Unvegetated Flats

Upland/Non-Wetland

Wooded swamp



Lythrum salicaria

Shoreline

North

South

Tivoli Bays Site Index

N

N


Stockport Flats 1997North

North

South

Stockport FlatsSite Index

0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 Miles

400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 Meters





Unvegetated Flats

Upland/Non-Wetland

Wooded swamp



Lythrum salicaria

Shoreline

N

0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Miles

400 0 400 800 1200 1600 Meters




Stockport Flats 1997South




Unvegetated Flats

Upland/Non-Wetland

Wooded swamp



Lythrum salicaria

Shoreline

North

South

Stockport FlatsSite Index

APPENDIX BList of Plants, Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, Birds, and Mammals

Occurring in the Reserve

Liverworts and Mosses Stockport Tivoli Iona Piermont

Amblystegiaceae

Juratzk's Amblystegium Moss Amblystegium juratzkanum X

Hydroamblystegium Moss Hygroamblystegium tenax X X

Streamside Leptodictyum Moss Leptodictyum riparium X

Tributary Moss L. trichopodium X

Anomodontaceae

Anomodon Moss Anomodon attenuatus X X

Anomodon Moss A. minor X

Anomodon Moss A. rostratus X

Aulacomniaceae

Ribbed Bog Moss Aulacomnium palustre X

Bartramiaceae

Philonotis Moss Philonotis muehlenbergii X

Brachytheciaceae

Cedar Moss Brachythecium oxycladon X

Cedar Moss B. rutabulum X

Cedar Moss B. salebrosum X

Cedar Moss B. turgidum X

Beautiful Beaked Moss Eurhynchium pulchellum X

Steerecleus Moss Rhynchostegium serrulatum X

Appendix B: List of plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals occurring in the Reserve. Major sources of information include: Kiviat and Beecher (1991), Leonardi and Kiviat (1989), Lewis (2001), LMS (2005), New York Natural Heritage Program (1996a, 1996b), Osgood et al. (in press), Schmidt (1986), Schmidt et al. (2001), Schmidt et al. (2002a, 2002b), Schmidt et al. (2003), Senerchia-Nardone et al. (1986), Stevens (2001), Swift (1987, 1989), USDOC (1984), Westad and Kiviat (1985), Westad (1987), and Yozzo et al. (1999). Vascular plant species names follow Gleason and Cronquist (1991).


Bryaceae

Silver Moss Bryum argenteum X

Dry Calcareous Bryum Moss B. caespiticium X

Common Green Bryum Moss B. pseudotriquetrum X

Pohlia Moss Pohlia sp. X

Rose Rhodobryum Moss Rhodobryum roseum X

Climaciaceae

Tree Moss Climacium americanum X

Dicranaceae

Silky Fork Moss Dicranella heteromalla X

Montane Dicranum Moss Dicranum montanum X

Ditrichaceae

Burned Ground Moss Ceratodon purpureus X

Entodontaceae

Sedusctive Entodon Moss Entodon seductrix X

Fissidentaceae

Plume Moss Fissidens adianthoides X

Bryoid Fissidens Moss F. bryoides X

Fissidens Moss F. fontanus X

Fissidens Moss F. taxifolius X X

Hypnaceae

Callicladium Moss Callicladium haldanianum X

Lindberg's Hypnum Moss Hypnum lindbergii X

Platygyrium Moss Platygyrium repens X

Taxiphyllum Moss Taxiphyllum taxirameum X X


Leskeaceae

Bryohaplocladium Moss Bryohaplocladium microphyllum X

Bryohaplocladium Moss Haplocladium microphyllum X X

Leskea Moss Leskea gracilescens X X

Leskea Moss L. polycarpa X

Lindbergia Moss Lindbergia brachyptera X

Mniaceae

Rhizomnium Moss Mnium punctatum X

Woodsy Moss Plagiomnium cuspidatum X X

Orthotrichaceae

Ohio Orthotrichum Moss Orthotrichum ohioense X

Orthotrichum Moss O. pumilum X

Orthotrichum Moss O. sordidum X

Stellate Orthotrichum Moss O. stellatum X

Plagiotheciaceae

Plagiothecium Moss Plagiothecium cavifolium X

Polytrichaceae

Spine Leaf Moss Atrichum undulatum X

Polytrichum Moss Polytrichum commune X

Pottiaceae

Barbula unguiculata X

Obtuse Leaf Desmatodon Moss Desmatodon obtusifolius X

Thuidiaceae

Delicate Thuidium Moss Thuidium delicatulum X

Cyrto-hypnum Moss T. minutulum X


Brynia novae-angliae X

Aneuraceae

Aneura pinguis X

Conocephalaceae

Great Scented Liverwort Conocephalum conicum X

Geocalycaceae

Lophocolea heterophylla X X

Jubulaceae

Frullania eborocensis X

Porellaceae

Porella pinnata X

Leafy Liverwort P. platyphylla X

Ricciaceae

Slender Riccia Riccia fluitans X

Trichocoleaceae

Trichocolea tomentella X

Vascular Plants Stockport Tivoli Iona Piermont

Aceraceae

Boxelder Acer negundo X X

Red Maple A. rubrum X X X

Silver Maple A. saccharinum X X

Sugar Maple A. saccharum X

Acoraceae

Sweet Flag Acorus calamus X X X

Adiantaceae

Northern Maidenhair Fern Adiantum pedatum X

Alismatacae

Southern Water-plantain Alisma subcordatum X X X

Arrowhead Sagittaria sp. X X X

Common Arrowhead S. latifolia X X X X

Sessile-fruited Arrowhead S. rigida X X

Spongy Arrowhead S. calycina ssp. spongiosa X X

Hudson Sagittaria S. subulata X X X X

Amaranthaceae

Tidewater Hemp Amaranthus cannabinus X X X X

Anacardiaceae

American Smoketree Cotinus coggygria X

Squaw-bush Rhus aromatica X

Smooth Sumac R. glabra X

Staghorn sumac R. typhina X X

Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans X X

Poison sumac T. vernix X


Apiaceae

Purplestem Angelica Angelica atropurpurea X

Bulb-bearing Water-hemlock Cicuta bulbifera X X

Common Water-hemlock C. maculata X

Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis X

Lilaeopsis Lilaeopsis chinensis X

Bland Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza claytonii X

Atlantic Mock Bishop-weed Ptilimnium capillaceum X

Black Snakeroot Sanicula marilandica X

Water-parsnip Sium suave X X X X

Aquifoliaceae

Winterberry Ilex verticillata X X

Araceae

Green Dragon Arisaema dracontium X

Jack-in-the-pulpit A. triphyllum X

Goldenclub Orontium aquaticum X X

Arrow-arum Peltandra virginica X X X X

Skunk-cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus X X X

Araliaceae

Wild Sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis X

Aristolochiaceae

Wild Ginger Asarum canadense X

Asclepiadaceae

Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata X X

Common Milkweed A. syriaca X

Black swallow-wort Vincetoxicum nigrum X


Aspleniaceae

Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina X

Marginal Woodfern Dryopteris marginalis X

Marsh Fern Thelypteris palustris X X X

Asteraceae

Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida X

Aster Aster sp. X X

Bristly Aster A. puniceus X

Annual Saltmarsh Aster A. subulatus X

Beggar-ticks Bidens sp. X X

Southern Estuarine Beggar-ticks B. bidentoides X X X

Bur-marigold B. cernua X X

New England Estuarine Beggar-ticks B. eatonii X

Devil's Beggar-ticks B. frondosa X

Northern Estuarine Beggar-ticks B. hyperborea X

Showy Bur-marigold B. laevis X X

Spotted Knapweed Centaurea biebersteinii X

Ox-eye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum X

Fireweed Erechtites hieraciifolia X X

Annual Fleabane Erigeron annuus X

Philadelphia Daisy E. philadelphicus X

Spotted Joe-pye-weed Eupatorium maculatum X

Boneset E. perfoliatum X X

Purple-node Joe-pye-weed E. purpureum X

Common Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale X X X

Jerusalem-artichoke Helianthus tuberosus X

Maritime Marsh-elder Iva frutescens X

Climbing Hempweed Mikania scandens X X X

Marsh-fleabane Pluchea purpurascens X X

Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta X


Asteraceae

Cut-leaf Coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata X

Heart-leaved Groundsel Senecio aureus X

Goldenrod Solidago sp. X X X

Common Goldenrod S. altissima X

Smooth Goldenrod S. gigantea X

Common Flat-topped Goldenrod S. graminifolia X

Seaside-goldenrod S. sempervirens X

Common Dandelion Taraxacum officinale X

Common Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium X

Balsaminaceae

Touch-me-not Impatiens sp. X

Jewelweed I. capensis X X X X

Berberidaceae

Japaneese Barberry Berberis thunbergii X

Common Barberry Berberis vulgaris X

May-apple Podophyllum peltatum X

Betulaceae

Speckled Alder Alnus rugosa X

Smooth Alder A. serrulata X X X

Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis X

Cherry Birch B. lenta White Birch B. papyrifera X

Grey Birch B. populifolia X

Swamp Birch B. pumila X

Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana X X

American Hazel-nut Corylus americana X

Hop-hornbeam Ostrya virginiana X


Bignoniaceae

Southern Catalpa Catalpa bignonioides X

Northern Catalpa C. speciosa X

Boraginaceae

Blue-weed Echium vulgare X

Forget-me-not Myosotis sp. X X X

Smaller Forget-me-not M. laxa X

Brassicaceae

Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata X

Yellow Rocket Winter-cress Barbarea vulgaris X

Northern Winter-cress B. orthoceras X

Spring cress Cardamine rhomboidea X

Salt-marsh Bittercress C. longii X

Pennsylvania Bittercress C. pensylvanica X

Cuckoo-flower C. pratensis X

Toothwort Dentaria spp. X

Dame's Rocket Hesperis matronalis X X

Marshcress Rorippa palustris X X

Caesalpiniaceae

Northern Wild Senna Cassia hebecarpa X

Honey-locust Gleditsia triacanthos X

Callitrichaceae

Water starwort Callitriche sp. X

Water starwort C. verna X


Caprifoliaceae

Bell's Honeysuckle Lonicera X bella X X

Common Elder Sambucus canadensis X X X

Dockmackie/ Flowering Maple Viburnum acerifolium X

Arrow-wood V. dentatum X X X

Nannyberry V. lentago X

Guelder-Rose V. opulus X

Black Haw V. prunifolium X

Campanulaceae

Marsh-bellflower Campanula aparinoides X

Cannabaceae

Hops Humulus lupulus X

Caryophyllaceae

Giant Chickweed Stellaria aquatica X

Celastraceae

Oriental Bittersweet Celastrus orbiculata X

American Bittersweet C. scandens X

Ceratophyllaceae

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum X X X

Chenopodiaceae

Spearscale Atriplex patula X

Goosefoot Chenopodium sp. X

Pigweed C. album X


Clethraceae

Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia X

Clusiaceae

Marsh St. John's-wort Triadenum virginicum X

Commelinaceae

Common Day-flower Commelina communis X X

Convolvulaceae

Hedge Bindweed Convolvulus sepium X

Cornaceae

Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum X X X

Flowering Dogwood C. florida X

Northern Swamp Dogwood C. racemosa X

Red-osier Dogwood C. sericea X

Cucurbitaceae

Bur-cucumber Echinocystis lobata X

Star-cucumber Sicyos angulatus X

Cupressaceae

Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana X

Northern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis X X

Cuscutaceae

Dodder Cuscuta sp. X

Buttonbush Dodder C. cephalanthi X

Common Dodder C. gronovii X


Cyperaceae

Bebb's Oval Sedge Carex bebbii X

Craford's sedge C. crawfordii X

Fringed sedge C. crinita X

Gray's Sedge C. grayii X

Necklace Sedge C. hormathodes X

Porcupine Sedge C. hystericina X

Common Lake Sedge C. lacustris X

Shallow Sedge C. lurida X

Fernald's Sedge C. merritt-fernaldii X

Rosy Sedge C. rosea X

Deflexed Bottle-brush Sedge C. rostrata X

Common Fox Sedge C. stipata X X

Straw Sedge C. straminea X

Common Tussock Sedge C. stricta X X

Awl-fruited Oval Sedge C. tribuloides X

Galingale Cyperus rivularis X X

Yellow Flatsedge C. flavescens X

Schweinitz's Flatsedge C. schweinitzii X

False Nutsedge C. strigosus X

Three-way Sedge Dulichium arundinaceum X

Dwarf Hairgrass Eleocharis acicularis X

Blunt Spike-rush E. ovata X X

Spike-rush E. diandra X X X

Common Spike-rush E. palustris X X X

Little Spike-rush E. parvula X

Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus X X

Olney-threesquare S. americanus X X X X

Black Bulrush S. atrovirens X

Saltmarsh-bulrush S. cylindricus X X

Wool-grass S. cyperinus X


Cyperaceae

River Bulrush Scirpus fluviatilis X X X

Alkali-bulrush S. maritimus X

Common Threesquare S. pungens X X

Saltmarsh Bulrush S. robustus X X

Bluntscale Bulrush S. smithii X X X

Softstem-bulrush S. tabernaemontani X X X X

Dennstaedtiaceae

Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum X

Dioscoreaceae

Wild yam Dioscorea villosa X

Elantinaceae

Waterwort Elatine triandra X X

Equisetaceae

Horsetail Equisetum sp. X X

Field horsetail E. arvense X

Water horsetail E. fluviatile X

Marsh horsetail E. palustre X

Ericaceae

Wintergreen Gaultheria procumbens X

Highbush-blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum X

Eriocaulaceae

Pipewort Eriocaulon parkeri X


Fabaceae

False indigo Amorpha fruticosa X X

Hog-peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata X X

Groundnut Apios americana X X

Marsh-Pea Lathyrus palustris X X

White Sweet Clover Melilotus alba X

Woolly Bean Strophostyles helvula X

Fagaceae

Chestnut Castanea dentata X

American Beech Fagus grandifolia X

White Oak Quercus alba X

Swamp White Oak Q. bicolor X X

Rock Chestnut Oak Q. prinus X

Northern Red Oak Q. rubra X

Black Oak Q. velutina X

Gentianaceae

Bottle Gentian Gentiana andrewsii X

Bottle Gentian G. clausa X

Geraniaceae

Wild Geranium Geranium maculatum X

Grossulariaceae

Eastern Black Current Ribes americanum X

Haloragaceae

European Water-milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum X X X X

Whorled Water-milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum X


Hamamelidaceae

Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana X

Sweet Gum Liquidambar styraciflua X

Hydrocharitaceae

Common Water-weed Elodea canadensis X X X

Free-field Water-weed E. nuttallii X X X X

Water celery Vallisneria americana X X X X

Iridaceae

Yellow Flag Iris pseudacorus X X X

Northen Blue Flag I. versicolor X X X

Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrhynchium sp. X

Isoetaceae

Riverbank-quillwort Isoetes riparia X

Juglandaceae

Pignut-hickory Carya glabra X

Shagbark-hickory C. ovata X

Mockernut-hickory C. tomentosa X

Butternut Juglans cinerea X

Black Walnut J. nigra X

Juncaceae

Tapered Rush Juncus acuminatus X

Small-headed Rush J. brachycephalus X

Black Grass J. gerardii X

Path Rush J. tenuis X


Lamiaceae

Northern Horse-balm Collinsonia canadensis X

Gill-over-the-ground Glechoma hederacea X

American Water-horehound Lycopus americanus X

European Water-horehound L. europaeus X

Stalked Water-horehound L. rubellus X

Virginia Water-horehound L. virginicus X

Northern Water-horehound L. uniflorus X

Mint Mentha sp. X X

Field-mint M. arvensis X

Marsh-skullcap Scutellaria galericulata X

Skullcap S. lateriflora X

Hispid Hedge-nettle Stachys hispida X

Hedge-nettle S. palustris X

American Germander Teucrium canadense X

Lauraceae

Spice-bush Lindera benzoin X X

Sassafras Sassafras albidum X

Lemnaceae

Lesser Duckweed Lemna minor X X X X

Greater Duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza X X X

Water-meal Wolffia columbiana X

Liliaceae

Onion Allium sp. X

Prairie Onion A. stellatum X

Field-garlic A. vineale X

Trout-lily Erythronium americanum X

Day-lily Hemerocallis fulva X


Liliaceae

Wild Yellow Lily Lilium canadense X

False Soloman's Seal Smilacina racemosa X

Trillium Trillium sp. X

False Hellbore Veratrum viride X

Campanulaceae

Cardinal-flower Lobelia cardinalis X X X

Great Blue Lobelia L. siphilitica X

Lythraceae

Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria X X X X

Magnoliaceae

Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera X

Malvaceae

Rose-mallow Hibiscus moscheutos X X X

Menyanthaceae

Little Floating Heart Nymphoides cordata X

Myricaceae

Sweet Fern Comptonia peregrina X

Najadaceae

Northern Water-nymph Najas flexilis X X X

Southern Water-nymph N. guadalupensis X X X

Eutrophic Water-nymph N. minor X X

Hudson River Water-nymph N. muenscheri X X X


Nymphaeaceae

Spatterdock Nuphar advena X X X

Water-lily Nymphaea odorata X

Oleaceae

Ash Fraxinus sp. X

White Ash F. americana X

Black Ash F. nigra X X

Green Ash F. pennsylvanica X X

Common Privet Ligustrum vulgare X

Onagraceae

Common Enchanter's Nightshade Circaea lutetiana X

Willow-herb Epilobium sp. X

American Willow-herb E. adenocaulon X

Easterm Willow-herb E. coloratum X

Northern Willow-herb E. glandulosum X X

Common Water-purslane Ludwigia palustris X X X

Evening-primrose Oenothera sp. X X

Onocleaceae

Ostrich-fern Matteuccia struthiopteris X

Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis X X X

Orchidaceae

Helleborine Epipactis helleborine X

Osmundaceae

Cinnamon-fern Osmunda cinnemomea X X

Interrupted Fern O. claytoniana X

Royal Fern O. regalis X X


Pinaceae

Red Pine Pinus resinosa X

Red Spruce P. rubens X

White Pine P. strobus X X

Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis X

Plantaginaceae

Heartleaf Plantain Plantago cordata X X

Plantanaceae

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis X

Poaceae

Bent-grass Agrostis sp. X

Ticklegrass A. hyemalis X

Creeping Bent-grass A. stolonifera X

Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis X

Woodreed Cinna sp. X

Common Woodreed C. arundinacea X

Salt-grass Distichlis spicata X

Barnyard-grass Echinochloa crusgalli X

Water-millet E. walteri X X X

Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus X X

Fowl-mannagrass Glyceria striata X

Rice cut-grass Leersia oryzoides X X X

White Grass L. virginica X X

Panic-grass Panicum sp. X X X

Witch-grass P. capillare X

Panic-grass P. dichotomiflorum X X

Switchgrass P. virgatum X X

Reed Canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea X X X


Poaceae

Common Reed Phragmites australis X X X X

Wood Bluegrass Poa alsodes X

Smooth Cordgrass Spartina alterniflora X

Big Cordgrass S. cynosuroides X X

Salt-meadow Cordgrass S. patens X

Prairie Cordgrass S. pectinata X X

Wild Rice Zizania aquatica X X X

Polygonaceae

Knotweed Polygonum sp. X X X

Halberd-leaved Tearthumb P. arifolium X X X

Smartweed P. cespitosum X

Japanese Knotweed P. cuspidatum X

Seaside Knotweed P. glaucum X

Water-pepper P. hydropiper X

False Water-pepper P. hydropiperoides X X

Lady's Thumb P. persicaria X

Dotted Smartweed P. punctatum X X X X

Coarse Smartweed P. robustius X

Arrow-leaved Tearthumb P. sagittatum X X X

Jumpseed P. virginianum X

Curly Dock Rumex crispus X

Dock R. salicifolius X

Water-dock R. verticillatus X

Pontederiaceae

Kidneyleaf Mud-plantain Heteranthera reniformis X X X

Pickerel-weed Pontederia cordata X X X

Water Star-grass Zosterella dubia X X X


Portulacaceae

Spring-beauty Claytonia virginica X

Potamogetonaceae

Curly Pondweed Potamogeton crispus X X X

Ribbonleaf Pondweed P. epihydrus X X

Leafy Pondweed P. foliosus X X X

Longleaf Pondweed P. nodosus X X

Sago Pondweed P. pectinatus X X X

Redhead-grass P. perfoliatus X X X X

Slender Pondweed P. pusillus X

Richardson's Pondweed P. richardsonii X X X

Flatstem Pondweed P. zosteriformis X X

Primulaceae

Fringed Loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata X X

Moneywort L. nummularia X

Bulbil-loosestrife L. terrestris X

Water-pimpernel Samolus floribundus X X

Ranunculaceae

Doll's Eyes Baneberry Actaea alba X

Red Baneberry A. rubra X X

Wild Columbine Aguilegia canadensis X

Marsh-marigold Caltha palustris X X

Virgin's Bower Clematis virginiana X X

Round-lobed Hepatica Hepatica americana X

Small-field Crowfoot Ranunculus abortivus X

Cursed Crowfoot R. sceleratus X X

Buttercup R. septentrionalis X X

Tall meadow-rue Thalictrum polygamum X X


Rhamnaceae

Common Buckthorn Rhamnus catharticus X

Rosaceae

Shadbush Amelanchier spp. X

White Avens Geum canadense X

Rough Avens G. laciniatum X

Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius X X

Wild Black Cherry Prunus serotina X

Choke-cherry P. virginiana X

Multiflora-rose Rosa multiflora X

Swamp-rose R. palustris X X

Bramble Rubus spp. X

Swamp-dewberry R. hispidus X

Meadowsweet Spiraea alba X X

Hardhack S. tomentosa X

Rubiaceae

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis X X

Rough Bedstraw Galium asprellum X

Bluntlf-bedstraw G. obtusum X

Marsh-bedstraw G. palustre X

Northern Three-lobed Bedstraw G. trifidum X

Salicaceae

Cottonwood Populus deltoides X X X X

Big-tooth Aspen P. grandidentate X

Quaking Aspen P. tremuloides X

Willow Salix sp. X X

White Willow S. alba X

Crack Willow S. fragilis X

Black Willow S. nigra X X

Basket Willow S. purpurea X

Rigid Willow S. rigida X


Saxifragaceae

Ditch-stonecrop Penthorum sedoides X

Scrophulariaceae

White Turtlehead Chelone glabra X X

Atlantic Mudwort Limosella subulata X X

False Pimpernel Lindernia dubia X X X

Nuttall's Mudwort Micranthemum micranthemoides X

Sharpwing Monkey-flower Mimulus alatus X

Allegheny Monkey-flower M. ringens X

Swamp-lousewort Pedicularis lanceolata X X

Smilacaceae

Greenbrier Smilax sp. X

Smooth Carrionflower S. herbacea X

Bristly Greenbrier S. hispida X

Solanaceae

Bittersweet Solanum dulcamara X

Sparganiaceae

Bur-reed Sparganium americanum X

Giant Bur-reed S. eurycarpum X X

Staphyleaceae

Bladder-nut Staphylea trifolia X

Taxaceae

American Yew Taxus canadensis X

Tiliaceae

Basswood Tilia americana X X


Trapaceae

Water chestnut Trapa natans X X X

Typhaceae

Narrow-leaved Cattail Typha angustifolia X X X X

Hybrid Cattail T. x. glauca X X X X

Ulmaceae

Elm Ulmus sp. X

American elm U. americana X X X

Slippery Elm U. rubra X

Urticaceae

False Nettle Boehmeria cylindrica X X

Fibrous-rooted Nettle Laportea canadensis X X

Clearweed Pilea sp. X

Clearwood P. fontana X

Clearweed P. pumila X X

Erect Nettle Urtica dioica X

Violaceae

Blue Violet Viola sp. X X

Blue Marsh-violet V. cucullata X

Vitaceae

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia X X

Grape Vitis sp. X X

Fox-grape V. labrusca X

Zannichelliaceae

Horned Pondweed Zannichellia palustris X X X X

Fishes Stockport Tivoli Iona Piermont

Acipenseridae

Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum X X X X

Atlantic Sturgeon A. oxyrhynchus X

Anguillidae

American Eel Anguilla rostrata X X X X

Atherinidae

Inland Silverside Menidia beryllina X X

Atlantic Silverside M. menidia X

Belonidae Atlantic Needlefish Strongylura marina X

Carangidae

Crevalle Jack Caranx hippos X X

Catostomidae

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni X X X X

Creek Chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus X

Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans X X

Centrarchidae

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris X

Bluespotted Sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus X X

Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus X X X X

Pumpkinseed L. gibbosus X X X X

Warmouth L. gulosus X

Bluegill L. macrochirus X X X X

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X X X

Largemouth Bass M. salmoides X X X X

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus X


Clupeidae

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis X X X

Alewife A. pseudoharengus X X X

American Shad A. sapidissima X X X X

Atlantic Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus X

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum X

Cottidae

Longhorn Sculpin Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus X

Cyprinidae

Goldfish Carassius auratus X X X

Satinfin Shiner Cyprinella analostana X

Spotfin Shiner C. spiloptera X X

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio X X X

Cutlips Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua X

Eastern Silvery Minnow Hybognathus regius X X

Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus X X

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas X X X X

Comely Shiner Notropis amoenus X

Bridle Shiner N. bifrenatus X X

Spottail Shiner N. hudsonius X X X X

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus X X

Rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus X

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus X

Fallfish S. corporalis X X

Cyprinodontidae

Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus X X X X

Mummichog F. heteroclitus X X X X

Spotfin Killifish F. luciae X

Striped Killifish F. majalis X


Engraulidae

Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli X

Esocidae

Redfin Pickerel Esox americanus X X X X

Northern Pike E. lucius X

Chain Pickerel E. niger X

Gadidae

Atlantic Tomcod Microgadus tomcod X X

Gasterosteidae

Fourspine Stickleback Apeltes quadracus X X X X

Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus X

Ictaluridae

White Catfish Ameiurus catus X X X

Yellow Bullhead A. natalis X

Brown Bullhead A. nebulosus X X X

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus X

Labridae

Tautog Tautoga onitis X

Osmeridae

Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax X X

Percichthyidae

White Perch Morone americana X X X X

Striped Bass M. saxatilis X X X X

Percidae

Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi X X X X

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X X X


Petromyzontidae

American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix X

Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus X

Pomatomidae

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix X X

Salmonidae

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X

Brown Trout Salmo trutta X X

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X

Sciaenidae

Weakfish Cynoscion regalis X

Serranidae

Black Seabass Centropristis striata X

Soleidae

Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus X X

Syngnathidae

Northern Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus X

Umbridae

Central Mudminnow Umbra limi X

Eastern Mudminnow U. pygmaea X

Reptiles Stockport Tivoli Iona Piermont

Chelydridae

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina X X X X

Colubridae

Northern water snake Nerodia sipedon X X X X

Brown snake Storeria dekayi X X

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis X X X

Eastern ribbon snake T. sauritus X

Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos X

Ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus X X

Black racer Coluber constrictor X X X

Smooth green snake Opheodrys vernalis X

Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta X

Milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum X

Emydidae

Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata X X

Wood turtle C. insculpta X X

Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina carolina X X

Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin X X

Map turtle Graptemys geographica X X

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta X

Kinosternidae

Stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus X

Iguanidae

Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus X

Skincidae

Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus X

Viperidae

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix X

Amphibians Stockport Tivoli Iona Piermont

Ambystomatidae

Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum X

Jefferson Salamander A. jeffersonianum X

Blue-spotted Salamander A. laterale X

Spotted Salamander A. maculatum X X X

Bufonidae

American Toad Bufo americanus X X X

Hylidae

Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer X X X X

Gray Treefrog H. versicolor X X X

Plethodontidae

Dusky Salamander Desmognathus fuscus X X X

Eastern Red-backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus X X X X

Slimy Salamander P. glutinosus X X X

Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum X

Red Salamander Pseudotriton ruber X

Two-lined Salamander Eurycea bislineata X X

Proteidae

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus X

Ranidae

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana X X X X

Green Frog R. clamitans melanota X X X X

Wood Frog R. sylvatica X X X X

Northern Leopard Frog R. pipiens X X

Pickerel Frog R. palustris X X

Salamandridae

Red-spotted Newt Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens X X X X

Birds Stockport Tivoli Iona Piermont

Accipitridae

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus X X X X

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis X X X X

Rough-legged hawk B. lagopus X X X X

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X X X X

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos X X X

Alaudidae

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris X X X X

Alcedinidae

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon X X X X

Anatidae

Mute swan Cygnus olor X X X

Tundra swan C. columbianus X X

Snow goose Chen caerulescens X X X X

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons X

Canada goose Branta canadensis X X X X

Brant B. bernicla X X X X

Fulvous whistling duck Dendrocygna bicolor X

American black duck Anas rubripes X X X X

Gadwall A. strepera X X X X

Mallard A. platyrhynchos X X X X

Northern pintail A. acuta X X X X

American wigeon A. americana X X X X

Eurasian wigeon A. penelope X

Wood duck Aix sponsa X X X

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata X X


Anatidae

Blue-winged teal Anas discors X X X X

Green-winged teal A. crecca X

American green-winged teal A. crecca carolinensis X X X X

White-winged scoter Melanitta deglandi X X X X

Surf scoter M. perspicillata X X X X

Black scoter M. nigra X X X

Oldsquaw Clanqula hyemalis X X X X

Canvasback Aythya valisineria X X X X

Redhead A. americana X X X

Ring-necked duck A. collaris X X X X

Lesser scaup A. affinis X X X X

Greater scaup A. marila X X X X

Common goldeneye Bucephala clanqula X X X X

Bufflehead B. albeola X X X X

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis X X X

Common merganser Mergus merganser X X X X

Red-breasted merganser M. serrator X X X X

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatis X X X X

Apodidae

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica X X X X

Ardeidae

Great blue heron Ardea herodias X X X X

Little blue heron Florida caerulea X X X X

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor X

Great egret Casmerodius albus X X X X

Snowy egret Egretta thula X X X X

Cattle egret Bulbulcus ibis X


Ardeidae

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax X X X X

Yellow-crowned night-heron N. violacea X

Green-backed heron Butorides virescens X X X X

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis X X X X

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus X X X X

Bombycillidae

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X X X X

Caprimulgidae

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor X X X X

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus X X X X

Certhiidae

Brown creeper Certhia familiaris X X X X

Charadriidae

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola X X

Lesser golden plover P. dominica X

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres X X

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus X X X

Killdeer C. vociferus X X X X

Columbidae

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X X

Rock dove Columbia livia X X X X

Corvidae

Fish crow Corvus ossifraqus X X X X

American crow C. brachynhynchos X X X X

Northern raven C. corax X X

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata X X X X


Cuculidae

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzas americanus X X X X

Black-billed cuckoo C. erythrophthalmus X X X X

Falconidae

American kestrel Falco sparverius X X X X

Merlin F. columbarius X X X

Peregrine falcon F. peregrinus X X X

Gyrfalcon F. rusticolus X

Fringillidae

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus X

Chestnut-collard longspur C. ornatus X

Northern junco Junco hyemalis X X X X

Snow bunthing Plectrophenax nivalis X X X X

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis X X X X

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra X

White-winged crossbill L. leucoptera X X

Common redpoll Acanthis flammea X X X X

Hoary redpoll A. hornemanni X

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus X X X

Purple finch C. purpureus X X X X

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator X X X

Evening grosbeak Hesperiphona vespertina X X X X

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis X X X X

Pine siskin C. pinus X X X X

Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea X

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea X X X X

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus X X X X

Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophtalmus X X X X

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis X X X X

White-crowned sparrow Z. leucophrys X X X X

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina X X X X


Fringillidae

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla X X X X

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana X X X X

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea X X X X

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus X

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum X X

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca X X X X

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X X X X

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus X X X

Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X X X X

Savanna sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis X X X X

Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii X

Sharp-tailed sparrow Ammospiza caudacuta X X

Seaside sparrow A. maritima X

Gaviidae

Common loon Gavia immer X X X X

Red-throated loon G. stellata X X X X

Gruidae

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis X

Hirundinidae

Purple martin Progne subis X X X X

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X X X X

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X X X X

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor X X X X

Rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis X X X X

Bank swallow Riparia riparia X X X


Icteridae

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X X X X

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus X

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus aler X X X X

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus X X X X

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula X X X X

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus X X X X

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna X X X X

Orchard oriole Icterius spurius X X X

Northern oriole I. galbula X X X X

Laniidae

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor X X

Loggerhead shrike L. ludovicianus X X

Laridae

Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus X X X

Iceland gull L. glaucoides X X

Herring gull L. argentatus X X X X

Ring-billed gull L. delawarensis X X X X

Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla X

Great black-backed gull Larus marinus X X X X

Laughing gull L. atricilla X X X

Bonaparte's gull L. philadelphia X X X X

Sandwich tern Sterna savicensis X

Royal tern S. maximus X X

Caspian tern S. caspia X X

Least tern S. albifrons X

Common tern S. hirundo X X X X

Forster's tern S. forsteri X

Roseate tern S. dougallii X

Black tern Chlidonias niger X X X X

Sooty tern Sterna fuscata X X X


Meleagrididae

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo X X

Motacillidae

Water pipit Anthus spinoletta X X X X

Mimidae

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum X X X X

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis X X X X

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X X X

Pandionidae

Osprey Pandion haliaetus X X X X

Paridae

Black-capped chickdee Parus atricapillus X X X X

Boreal chickadee P. hudsonicus X X X

Tufted titmouse P. bicolor X X X X

Parulidae

Northern parula warbler Parula americana X X X X

Yellow-throated warbler Dendroica dominica X

Black-throated green warbler D. virens X X X X

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea X X X

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia X X X X

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata X X X X

Black-throated blue warbler D. caerulescens X X X X

Cerulean warbler D. cerulea X X X X

Magnolia warbler D. magnolia X X X X

Yellow-rumped warbler D. coronata X X X X

Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis X X X X

Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina X X X

Chestnut-sided warbler D. pensylvanica X X X X


Parulidae

Bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea X X X X

Blackburnian warbler D. fusca X X X X

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla X X X X

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus X X X

Prarie warbler D. discolor X X X X

Palm warbler D. palmarum X X X

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus X X X X

Yellow warbler Dedroica petechia X X X X

Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus X X X

Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina X X X X

Orange-crowned warbler V. celata X X

Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla X X X X

Hooded warbler W. citrina X X X

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera X X

Nashville warbler V. ruficapilla X X X

Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis X

Mourning warbler O. Philadelphia X

Kentucky warbler O. formosus X X

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X X X X

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens X X X

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis X X X X

Louisiana waterthrush S. motacilla X X X X

Ovenbird S. aurocapillus X X X X

Phalacrocoracidae

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus X X X X

Great cormorant P. carbo X

Phasianidae

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus X X X X

Gray partridge Perdix perdix X


Picidae

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus X

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus X X X X

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus X X X X

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus X X X

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius X X X X

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens X X X X

Hairy woodpecker P. villosus X X X X

Black-backed three-toed woodpecker P. arcticus X

Ploceidae

House sparrow Passer domesticus X X X X

Podicipedidae

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus X X X X

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps X X X X

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisengena X X X

Psittacidae

Monk parakeet Myiopsitta monachus X

Rallidae

Virginia rail Rallus limicola X X X X

King rail R. elegans X X X X

Clapper rail R. longirostris X

Sora Porzana carolina X X X X

American coot Fulica americana X X X X

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus X X X X


Scolopacidae

American woodcock Philohela minor X X X X

Common snipe Capella gallinago X X X X

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus X X

Long-billed dowitcher L. scolopaceus X

Red knot Calidris canutus X

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus X

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca X X X X

Lesser yellowlegs T. flavipes X X X X

Solitary sandpiper T. solitaria X X X

Sanderling Calidris alba X X

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda X X

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos X X X

Dunlin C. alpina X X X

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia X X X X

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla X X X

Semipalmated sandpiper C. pusillus X X

Western sandpiper C. mauri X

White-rumped sandpiper C. fuscicollis X

Northern phalarope Lobipes lobatus X X

Sittidae

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis X X X X

Red-breasted nuthatch S. canadensis X X X X

Sturnidae

European starling Sturnus vulgaris X X X X

Sulidae

Northern gannet Sula bassanus X

Sylviidae

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula X X X X

Golden-crowned kinglet R. satrapa X X X X

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea X X X X


Tetraonidae

Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus X X X

Thraupidae

Summer tanager Piranga rubra X

Scarlet tanager P. olivacea X X X X

Threskiornithidae

Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus X X

Trochilidae

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris X X X X

Troglodytidae

House wren Troglodytes aedon X X X X

Winter wren T. troglodytes X X X X

Carolina wren Throyothorus ludovicianus X X X

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris X X X X

Sedge wren C. platensis X

Turdidae

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialia X X X X

American robin Turdus migratorius X X X X

Northern wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe X

Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulata X X X X

Hermit thrush C. guttata X X X X

Veery C. fuscescens X X X X

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina X X X X

Tyrannidae

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus X X X X

Western kingbird T. verticalis X

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus X X X X

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe X X X X

Eastern pewee Contopus virens X X X X


Tyrannidae

Olive-sided flycatcher Nuttallornis borealis X X

Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens X

Yellow-bellied flycatcher E. flaviventris X X

Least flycatcher E. minimus X X X X

Willow flycatcher E. traillii X X X X

Alder flycatcher E. alnorum X

Tytonidae and Strigidae

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus X X

Common screech owl Otus asio X X X X

Long-eared owl Asio otus X X

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus X X X

Barred owl Strix varia X X

Barn owl Tyto alba X

Snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca X

Saw-whet owl Aegolius arcadius X X

Vireonidae

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus X X X X

Warbling vireo V. gilvus X X X

Philadelphia vireo V. philadelphicus X X

Yellow-throated vireo V. flavifrons X X X X

White-eyed vireo V. griseus X X

Solitary vireo V. solitarius X X X X

Mammals Stockport Tivoli Iona Piermont

Canidae

Red fox Vulpes vulpes X X X

Coyote Canis latrans var. X X

Castoridae

Beaver Castor canadensis X X X X

Cervidae

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus X X X X

Cricetidae

Deer mouse* Peromyscus maniculatus White-footed mouse P. leucopus X X X

Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana X X

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus X X X

Southern bog lemming* Synaptomys cooperi

Delphinidae

Common dolphin Delphinus delphis X

Didelphidae

Common opossum Didelphis marsupialis X

Erethizontidae

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum X

Felidae

Bobcat Felis rufus X


Leporidae

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus X X X X

Muridae

House mouse Mus musculus X

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus X X

Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus X X X X

Pine vole Microtus pinetorum

Mustelidae

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata X

Ermine M. erminea X

Fisher Martes pennanti X

Mink Mustela vison X X

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X X X

River otter Lutra canadensis X X X

Procyonidae

Raccoon Procyon lotor X X X X

Sciuridae

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus X X X X

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis X X X X

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus X X X

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans X X

Woodchuck Marmota monax X X X


Soricidae

Masked shrew Sorex cinereus Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda X X

Smokey shrew Sorex fumeus X

Talpidae

Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata X X

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus X

Hairy-tailed mole Parascalops breweri X

Ursidae

Black bear Ursus americanus X X

Vespertilionidae

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus X X

Red bat Lasiurus borealis X

Hoary bat L. cinereus Little brown bat Myotis lucifuqus X X

Keen's bat M. keenii X

Indiana bat* M. sodalis Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus

Zapodidae

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius X

Woodland jumping mouse Napaeozapus insignis

Notes:

*Species identified, but location not noted due to T/E status.

Documents

Ecological Profile of the Hudson River National Estuarine ... · Ecological Profile of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve David J. Yozzo 1 Jessica L. Andersen 1