ML20087P558
| ML20087P558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek, 05000363, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1979 |
| From: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087P554 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404090160 | |
| Download: ML20087P558 (385) | |
Text
_ . _ . _
e L
d e ,.
3 l
~ .
t i
E $
h -
F13fMW nu service PM MC . . U Nuclear l
l l
- m
- ,
- ^,'9 *1%Y... . i f,-
l ' ', , 5 vet j t..
(
1' '
.. ' '[
. $ - . ,k 1 *
, ' f " ej
^N : [ # k, * ' I:E* .
L' ODOLAL PLSLC UTUTES -
8404090160 840402 PDR ADOCK 05000219 PDR R
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR STATION ANNUAL REPORT MARCH 1978 - FEBRUARY 1979 Submitted to GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICE CORPORATION f0P JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY by TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS, INC.
PHOENIX, NEW YORK l
l September 1979 a
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BASELINE TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY (PHASE I, PART A) 2 A. FLORA 2
- 1. SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 2 Cover Map and General Community Description 2 Vegetation Sampling 4 Aquatic Vascular Plants 4 Endangered or Threatened Species of Plants 7
- 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 7 Cover Map and General Community Description 7 Vegetation Sampling 16 Aquatic Vascular Plants 42 Endangered or Threatened Species of Plants 44 3
SUMMARY
48 B. HERPETOFAUNA 52
- 1. SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 53
- 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 53 Salamanders 60 l Toads and Frogs 60 Turtles 83 Lizards 86 Snakes 87 Endangered or Threatened Species of Herpetofauna 90 5
3
SUMMARY
96 9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - -~ -- - - - - -'
PAGE C. AVIFAUNA 91
- 1. SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 98 Spring 98 Summer 100 Fall 100 Winter 102
- 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 102 Spring - Nocturnal Census 102 Spring - Strip Counts 103 Summer - Breeding Bird Censuses 112 Summer - Strip Counts 126 Fall - Strip Counts 134 Winter - Nocturnal Census 145 Winter - Strip Counts 146 Winter - Plot Censuses 152 Incidental Sightings 160 Endangered or Threatened Species of Birds 160 Game Species 162 Community Summaries 162 I
l Site Summary 166 D. MAMMALS 175
- 1. SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 175 Sherman Trapping 175 Box Trapping 177 Cage Trapping 177 Weasel Trapping 177 Fox Calling 178
PAGE Deer Survey 178 Bat Sampling 178 Incidental Observations 179
- 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 179 Species Status 179 Mammalian Ecology 215 Endangered or Threatened Species of Mammals 219
- 3.
SUMMARY
220 III. MONITORING PROGRAM (PHASE I, PART B) 222 A. FLORA 222
- 1. SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 222
- 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 224 Qualitative Transect Data 224 Qua'ntitative Transect Data 227 Areas of Impact 227 3 RECOMMENDATIONS ~ 234 Control Erosion 234 Limit Disturbance Around Potentially Listed Species 236 Limit Future Disturbance to Lowland Communities 236 Increase Monitoring During any Major Construction Activity 236 Discontinue Dewatering Activity When Feasible 236 l Provide Additional Drainage 237
- 4.
SUMMARY
237
PAGE B. FAUNA 240
- 1. HERPETOFAUNA 240
- 2. AVIFAUNA 242 3 MAMMALS 244
- 4.
SUMMARY
244 REFERENCES CITED 246 APPENDICES (Under Separate Cover) f APPENDIX A - BASELINE VEGETATION DATA APPENDIX B - VEGETATION MONITORING DATA OF CONSTRUCTION AREA PERIPHERY
) ~ E 1 J1 LIST OF TABLES 4F-w PAGE i_
...r_
Table IIA-1. Acreage by Plant Community / Land Use Type 11 h-3Y Table IIA-2. Dominant Species of the Overstory, da Understory, and Shrub Layers, Pitch Pine- "?-
Oak Forest, Summer 18 i-5 Table IIA-3 Dominant Ground Layer Species, Pitch Pine- II Oak Forest, Spring and Summer 19 -1 Table IIA-4. Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory, and Shrub Layers, Pitch Pine -;m-Lowland Forest, Summer 22 ag
=
Table IIA-5 Dominant Ground Layer Species, Pitch Pine I Lowland Forest, Spring and Summer 23 -
l Table IIA-6. Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory, and Shrub Layers, Cedar Swamp Forest, Summer 26 .
Table IIA-7 Dominant Ground Layer Species, Cedar T-Swamp Forest, Spring and Summer 27 _p5 C
Table IIA-8. Dominant Species of the Understory and T Shrub Layers, Cedar Swamp Shrub Community, ?E Summer 30 ys
.E-Table IIA-9 Dominant Ground Layer Species, Cedar Swamp -?
Shrub Community, Spring and Summer 31 ;;
=-
Table IIA-10. Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory,- _m and Shrub Layers, Upland Shrub Community, $a Summer 34 s=
Table IIA-ll. Dominant Ground Layer Species, Upland Shrub $6 Community, Spring and Summer 35 ;
.w Table IIA-12. Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory, 9-and Shrub Layers, Lowland Shrub Community, F; 37 /
Summer 5 u
Table IIA-13. Dominant Ground Layer Species, Lowland Shrub 95 Community, Spring and Summer 39 .
Table IIA-14. Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory, _h and Shrub and Ground Layers, Sedge Savanna .
Community, Fall 41 y[
A bx -
=
N
~
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) PAGE Table IIB-1. Herpetofauna Sampling Methods Used, by Cover Type- 55 Table IIB-2. Operational Dates for Drift Fences 56 Table IIB-3 Summary of Amphibian and Reptile Observations by Cover Type 57 Table IIB-4. Drift Fence Captures, by Location 61 Table IIB-5 Drift Fence Captures, by Month 62 Table IIB-6. Artificial Cover Grid Captures, by Location 77 Table IIB-7. Artificial Cover Grid Captures, by Month 78 Table IIB-8. Endangered, Threatened, and Status Undetermined Herpetofauna Species Observed 91 Table IIC-1. Total Sightings and Birds per Man-hour by Plant Community, May ' 104 Table IIC-2. Incidental Sightings of Birds Not Recorded in Strip Counts, April-May 108 Table IIC-3 Estimated Breeding Bird Pairs, Pitch Pine-Oak Plots 113 Table IIC-4. Estimated Breeding Bird Pairs, Cedar Swamp Community Plot 116 Table IIC-5 Estimated Breeding Bird Pairs, Lowland Shrub and Upland Shrub Plots 118 Table IIC-6. Incidental Species Seen During the Breeding Bird Census Period 121 Table IIC-7 Avian Population Diversity Values for the Breeding Bird Census Plots 125 Table IIC-8. Total Sightings and Birds per Man-hour by Plant Community, August 127 Table IIC-9 Incidental Sightings of Birds Not Recorded in Strip Counts, June-August 131
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
PAGE Table IIC-10. Total Sightings and Birds per Man-hour by Plant Community, September 135 Table IIC-11. Incidental Sightings of Birds Not Recorded in Strip Counts, September 140 Table IIC-12. Total Sightings and Birds per Man-hour by Plant Community, Winter 147 Table IIC-13 Incidental Sightings of Birds Not Recorded in Strip Counts, Winter 150 Table IIC-14. Estimated Number of Wintering Birds, Pitch Pine-Oak Plots. 153 Table IIC-15 Estimated Number of Wintering Birds, Cedar Swamp Plot 154 Table IIC-16. Estimated Number of Wintering Birds, Upland and Lowland Shrub Plots 155 Table IIC-17 Avian Population Diversity Values for the Winter Bird Census Plots 156 Table IIC-18. Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species of Birds Observed 161
, Table IIC-19 Summary Data for Avian Sampling 164 Table IIC-20. Summary of the Bird Species Observed 167 Table IID-1. Trapping Data of Medium-sized Mammals 184 Table IID-2. White-footed Mouse: Seasonal Summary 189 of Captures by Trap Line Table IID-3 White-footed Mouse: Seasonal Summary l of Captures by Plant Community Types 190 Table IID-4. Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of Captures by Trap Line 195 Table IID-5 Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of Captures by Plant Community Types 196 Table IID-6. Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of Sex Data by Trap Line 200 Table IID-7 Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of Sex Data by Plant Community Types 201
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
PAGE Table IID-8. Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of Age Data by Trap Line 203 Table IID-9 Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary c' Age Data by Plant Community Types 204 Table IID-10. Red-backed Vole: Spatial Distribution of Captures Within Trap Lines 205 Table IID-11. Red-backed Vole: Spatial Distribution of Captures Within Trap Lines by Plant Community Types 206 Table IID-12. Deer Track Transect Data 213 Table IID-13. Mammal Species List and Seasonal Distribution of Observations 216 m ei a -
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure IIA-1. Tree Coring Locations 3 Figure IIA-2. Quantitative Sampling Locations of Vegetation Communities 5 Figure IIA-3 Sampling Locations of Vascular Aquatic Plants 6 Figure IIA-4. Approximate Locations of Soil Types 8 Figure IIA-5 Vegetation Cover Map 10 Figure IIA-6. Stations of Curly Grass Fern and Calamovilfa brevip111s 45 Figure IIB-1. Herpetofaunal Sampling Locations 54 Figure IIB-2. Locations of Observations, Eastern Mud Salamander 63 l Figure IIB-3 Locations of observations, Fowler's Toad 64 Figure IIB-4. Locations of Observations, Northern Spring Peeper 65 Figure IIB-5 Locations of Observations, Pine Barrens Treefrog 66 Figure IIB-6. Locations of Observations, New Jersey l Chorus Frog 67 I
Figure IIB-7. Locations of Observations, Green Frog 68 Figure IIB-8. Locations of Observations, Wood Frog 69 Figure IIB-9 Locations of Observations, Southern Leopard Frog 70 Figure IIB-10. Locations of observations, Common Snapping Turtle 71 Figure IIB-ll. Locations of Observations, Spotted Turtle 72 Figure IIB-12. Locations of Observations, Eastern Box Turtle 73
l I
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
PAGE Figure IIB-13 Locations of Observations, Eastern Painted Turtle 74 Figure IIB-14. Locations of Observations, Northern Fence Lizard 75 Figure IIB-15 Locations of observations, Snakes 76 Figure IIC-1. Locations of Strip-count Transects 99 Figure IIC-2. Locations of Breeding and Winter Bird Census Plots 101 Figure IIC-3 Areas of Use by Large Flocks of Mourning Doves 144 Figure IID-1. Mammal Sampling Locations 176 Figure IIIA-1. Locations of Qualitative Monitoring Transects for Vegetation 223 Figure IIIA-2. Locations of Additional Quantitative Transects for Construction Area Monitoring 225 Figure IIIA-3 Fercent Cover of the Ground Layer of Qualitative Assessment Transect No. 117 226 Figure IIIA-4. A Hypothetical Situation Illustrating a Reduction in Cover in a Given Transect from 1978 to 1979 as a Result of Impact 228 Figure IIIA-5 Areas of Impact, Forked River Site, 1978 230
I. INTRODUCTION This First Annual Report on the Terrestrial Environmental Program at the site of the Forked River Nuclear Station in Ocean County, New Jersey, encompasses the period of March 1978 through February 1979. This report, and the accompanying appendix tables in a separate volume, contain data for the entire year, including the data previously presented in the Quarterly Reports. Discussion and interpretation of the data are more comprehensive than in the Quarterly Reports. Summaries of the sampling activities are also presented, but more detailed methodology for the baseline studies is contained in the Procedures Manual, as amended.
The major effort during the first year of the program was the description of baseline terrestrial ecology at the site. However, construction activities were underway at this time; therefore,some construction impacts could be monitored or identified. Monitoring activities distinct from the baseline investigation during the first year of the program consisted mainly of assessments of the construction area periphery.
2 II. BASELINE TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY (PHASE I, PART A)
A. FLORA
- 1. SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 1
Activity during 1978 concerning the flora aspect of the .
terrestrial ecology study consisted of: vegetation mapping
- ' general community description; establishment of sample EEEfjk plots and quantitative sampling of all strata in each ,
h);[;-if community; the gathering and ccmp11ation of vascular aquatic j ';{#I plant data; and literature accumulation, contacts with fc4gp-;
authorities, and field searches for plant species of concern ! I,l in the State of New Jersey, including those under review for ^ A jj inclusion in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 General }j3{fjg methods utilized during the vegetation study are presented in ip4 fig the Procedures Manual. .. q:
- .,f-I.-;.
Cover Map and General Community Description Vegetation cover types were preliminarily mapped on existing aerial photographs before the initiation of formal sampling activities. Ground reconnaissance was performed throughout the site. Vegetation cover types were more accurately mapped with the use of stereo aerial photography taken on June 25, 1978. A final cover map was produced and acreages were determined for each cover type.
To aid in the description of each community, age and height information were collected. Height information was #
obtained for each vegetation layer in each major plant community. Age data were obtained in each forest community.
Two or three of the largest trees were cored in representative forest areas. The age of each tree was determined by counting the annual growth rings in the core. The heights of the trees were determined using a clinometer. The forest areas sampled are presented in Figure IIA-1. _
E
1%ee.e..
=
" . .s 4.g*
=
I h %,**
j o ',
%g i: :
r3 a /4 I :
[!
[ 8 r> = @ -
1
\\
/ j a -
Q l M l :n
} .
, 1.- h-l i
l i
/ bl MC
. i f P/ 3 !
. M..e#
.w
- g.g y.-
- n A l.i oy 8/} .
R.v.
l {' &'. l.
I @
- 0 9 5 se.l'.F
{! %) [ow 9 l bb?
LEGEND e
g I
! ex
.jg', , , s,..
6P1TCHPINE-0AKFOREST ! m [
f$[ [~.)
g-. ::
QPITCHPINELOWLANDFOREST)*
@CEDARSWAMPFOREST "
a
% $l.
4, eh77.-
$. U'
- s %{ . .$ ..
't g
):gi ' i f(h
= #. e
- oO l
- W q 5 );tW E
e...l.Y FIGURE IIA-1. TREE CORING LOCATIONS, FORKED RIVER SITE, SUMMER, 1978. _?hh s R.e. s.*m . 5 %.y/
4 Vegetation Sampling Quantitative vegetation sampling was performed during the spring, summer, and fall seasons in each major plant community on the Forked River site. Sampling was performed according to the specifications in the Procedures Manual. Sampling locations are indicated on. Figure IIA-2. During the month of May quantitative sampling plots were established in each major plant community in a north-south orientation and were marked with metal conduit poles. Spring ground layer vegatation was sampled in each plot during the weeks of May 15 and 22, 1978. During the months of June and July, summer quantitative sampling was performed in each major plant community using the plots established during the spring sampling effort. The overstory and understory layers were sampled between June 19 and June 26. The shrub and ground layers were sampled during the period from July 11 to July 25 Fall quantitative sampling was performed in September in each major plant community in the same plots used during previous efforts. The shrub and ground strata were sampled during the period of September 19-24. The small sedge savanna area was also sampled during the fall. Sampling was performed in accordance with the specifications in the Procedures Manual as amended. Aquatic Vascular Plants During summer and fall, species and abundance information was gathered for aquatic vascular plants from ten locations on or immediately adjacent to the Forked River site. The sampling effort concentrated on Oyster Creek and South Branch Forked River. Sampling locations are presented on Figure IIA-3 Both quantitative vegetation sampling locations and aquatic sampling locations are shown in greater detail in the Procedures Manual.
.!.D.Gk wo si kfk
.$Af
- _. . Y
, *e'e f W.
[" k - U
$US i ) >
>& - l e CS i . E l
jq r0 u
,9 l LEGEND E l %l bD l 3
I 5 PO PITCH PINE -OAK FOREST ~g [ L E PL PITCH PINE LOWLAND FOREST {* CF CEDAR SWAMP FOREST CS CEDAR SWAMP SHRUB C US UPLAND SHRUB j 3 g k LS LOWLAND SHRUB "
@ SAMPLING LOCATION =
( % O E f
- ,,,,. : f FIGURE IIA-2. QUANTITATIVE SAMPLING LOCATIONS OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
oc ;I
- H -
l)l! 1 {ca i51
<W 9(i n: /!
- i i
i I f- ' I ! ja
! '% 0 3
% D D
[
) !'
I i t* ,. P e , \
~
8' - sooo-FIGURE IIA-3. SAMPLING LOCATIONS (1-10) 0F VASCULAR AQUATIC PLANTS, FORKED RIVER SITE, SUMMER AND FALL, 1978.
L r Endangered or Threatened Species of Plants
. Literature information was accumulated on plant species proposed to be protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 -Information on synonyms, habitat, distribution, and key traits was accumulated. State ~ agencies were contacted for'possible lists of plants protected by the State of New Jers'ey. Searches were made in habitats that could potentially contain endangered, threatened, or rare species.
2.- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Cover Map and General Community Description The Forked River site is within the Atlantic Slope
'Section of.the Oak-Pine Forest Region of the eastern United States-(Braun 1950). It is on the Outer Coastal Plain of New Jerseyc(Robichaud and Buell 1973). This area is generally referred;to as the " Pine Barrens" or simply the " Barrens".
-The occurrence and distribution of community types on the~ Forked River site are influenced by topographic relief
- and soil types. The site is generally flat to slightly sloping.: Elevations range from approximately 40 feet above sea
' level in.the upland areas to about 10 feet above sea level in the low-lying areas along South Branch Forked River and Oyster-Creek.. Much of the central portion of the site has been leveled for construction purposes. Soil types as mapped by
~
~SCS-(1977) are presented in Figure IIA-4. The three major soils on the site are Lakehurst sands, Atsion sands, and Manahawkin muck.- Lakehurst soils are moderately well or
.somewhat poorly drained soils, with'a summer water table that is normally belowL5 feet (SCS 1977). On the site, Lakehurst soils occurred in slightly. higher areas that usually supported a pitch' pine-oak fcrest or an upland shrub community. Atsion-soils ~are sandy-throughout their profile and have a seasonally high water _ table (SCS-1977). Atsion sands occurred primarily
.in the west central portion of the site and usually supported
S E & N-
, *41(?e , _
S LhA " m
=-
thA 4 w3 m WW = 6, VI . _ k- :: gg 5 MU fii:"" k "'E / 5 I
)E
/} rc
=
5e gililWLil:' (s, l
. A
< D t +._ 6 <
- --2@
#+f, LhA m MU 3 4' g t_
m LhA @ g
- l g
- p: -
- l. MU 4l V n'\ --
!g Q.-Q. n_.w , ; w, ,m -'
%. u */. -',,a tp . . , - .,
y y f. ;,f g,;,.n'rc t :*., my + . emm/n' 1 Q d.,., .. e_ .~ ..--wgg X.em..Dm g.' i ,9 %,.s, y% < :;,. q-SHRUB 3u. . COMMUNITY . _. n m o u. .
;w.
. mw gg , .
^O COMMUNITY q..< >
e
. ~: .,..,z
%%:~~ *gtw ., lANN "
r = ' e N gf J;ch :d.
- 7. . m w D BARREN .A- O. ,
^
r O
.o c
.ts r:s .
- A ,/ sn -
a _ n,
, m vc 3.m
- u. ,. .
m,;- .. .
-~ w -
g %. 3,.n .. s, ,-
- o,.
a1. (>,u-- - r g t. e_ ,. -,. -,- 4 , 4 .w_ %. y . ,- -.
, , . .: ~
..{ ,<..4 t -
p -
.V n. .,e i
( ,2 c. n.. p%..; g.,g. ; . a w;q ., u h . s 3 - s
- .. .gsw ' o . .y ~ g ; .r ; < , w . .
w _ 7 , y. .
"[ ,
! h *** '
, ~'.
i .
o us ..s . <n <.
. s, ; yj ,,. ,.-'. ? ,O~ C Q ~ ; L ,' + --
yn; , 9 NflQ .y +, Lqf 77' "'*lw, wen.a 3. f=,a*" w r,. w : .. a. - Q ,cr, ~ ._
.e< .. .% - j..e.-, , Q5.R, .- . ,yfy/
y t3 ,,,, ,
.,,_. e c ..
a 5/ go '
.,
- jr y! [ '
? Q, R. .yp[.'. / - ,?.' r-h j<
s y pQ sgy
...' s,
_ WVy-%.f%,8
- ~
N L 9pg -
.p o) w " . g'pp my p .: v e; m ~'j-JF 4 ? v
.,0 *:*i ,l
~{ '
A ~ ^M
.< m n o -
e f4' :n:. h* ~-% Mc p a , i"c -cc.
.pc .=' ..g;,r'G. V 'Mffd ,OPO?'- .
g.s .; wpw c ,-
,~
.. ' 1; - - ,(u.
' @m , .y .. e ~w.( ,, aw <
'3 .%< *gL. . f f~/
W e s' +*- . O- - c * ' 3 yy
.., .-um. ,t. . . ,
s
.s v,.c.pl. "
..f. 4w.%awcm.o ...sv2. .
d.e ..
..' poa.
4
- s. # w.. .
,c
~,
b 2, y3 , .,~ e , r.g $ b 5y.
.er p
.f.
e . PO: < o, % ' ,
.s . :r O
s n i ,i t R ', . s c!tu .w.W ^
- m. C- 'c.;
i.: .a m.,w 3x v .m- .%'s .'w.M-w us b o :. - ~ m x -- ,.- .~,, o. oe , , 7,.
.~ m u - g.
c a u '. CREEK
- < T, 'g' U;M. s .~ ' ' iM '
-i ,*
nSITE ' po . . E w-a.m..r. w.re/.. ~ c /.) A
.po m .*, L.
- ,g - . r, - - wr .
o' g .
,a pc -o A :af > f %ef _- ,aQw L .
d o
- ~R ,
. ~ . . g .
l '; WA-$. - ah;[u.f p, k 4. 4 ( < ,;
- y'~N
-- C.;_ o I*
.a p, Q *
~Vj.g < -ge o .. : 7. oP,,! ~ N.,
k-@Cp e
.c' ';o.; . .nA
.y.
oc p'. p ; %'.4 p. S pp.,
,. . ie f'f.:%.
/ g4 Nd. .
1
,A. J-*
s /w
-~ a .,o o .
C %..
' v .
W A)yt?s..W $&dkN;:.l' ;- lh PO a a ~ ^ I 's @w! .c w.m XA.e.w- :w r 5.Po a e
- g
;5 , ts m
s-n a Ty'n.JQf lQ C -Y lb '
- r?. ' FL. -,;'T
^
m..a2 .- . . m . {
's
^ j - j '
.. w - u s .dh 0 *
,a fgV_; 'e l US. , ~ ,
. . n r. a pg. , y ~ .; ~
en.
"f , .l >;D 'l ~L g **
88((% Y r ,.W: m;+q. V < ins. aussa'napsse8, . w' . . 3 wa C.=wr' =- n g~.c r , f',-[ x h'. u a[ a h :.y as as hn.hN m [2 : ; rp m 1 a. Barre 1 by s.,.,[N A eg:j *.'6F;.c e; s -e
;G w ;f <a l ?, Q y : g w ?)Q?,,s.~ V G n.o
' H"e y' f ' ~ c,a
[ r Q C. . e* 'n.qf
.s y*, ~~ ,,Ty,~ f
, ,,y,f
.,n w i
-:v '
a
. jc
.Cf '
'W-W *l. ~%
s Q '
+ e.., w n> -. 2 p , n~.:,%: m Q s5.b<&~O:
m Q;;:xw :nWM M . Q..*%f*yi ",:A:$ ., % )4 pg y
- W l,<%sy :
g a U * ,* '. \
+,4.
a s,,
>.)< .~.h 7">~ c o . .s .. .fy N Ym
<=jm: - - .,>
$ [%o N bl~ . PO # 2, !
W[f;E& &
,M . .
V ]Q:.,.4q - + ff
;;pg@g W..eet.W=Ys.4yy
. &, ~
, , v, J s == .,+; P :
f'%:fW%n(,[(g&&&&& 5 ' ^ ~
;mw w mR && wn
~ wl S,}
%l '
qb-}w-l.l~l%y(k.R v, W;E5; ,T.&}. 49M.,f m. [.%gQ w *fg.
***y; '.
- e. 3%s,k,y '3;
- f. t B}h.o~-lfye~u,., .
v et.ra.m ~*d s.-, g.
>$- ,J . g
- 9vc , - -- - -
*g b, b k [ .
9
- k. 1, , ,
hI - M
l Table IIA-1 Acreage by Plant Community / Land Use Type, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978
% of "Natur % Of Total Community / Land Use Type _ AcreJ g Communities" g) Site Acreage Developed / Barren 369 0 48.0 Pitch Pine Forest 214.4 62.4 27.9 l Pitch Pine-Oak 140.0 40.7 18.2 Pitch Pine Lowland 74.4 21.7 9.7 Cedar Swamp Community 69.6 20.3 9,1 Cedar Swamn Forest 42.1 12.3 5.5 Cedar Swamp Shrub 27.5 8.0 3.6 Water 35.2 4.6 Lowland Shrub Community 29.7 8.6 3.9 Upland Shrub Community 29.1 8.5 3.8 '
Open Field Community 20.4 2.6 Sedge Savanna 0.8 0.2 0.1 Total 768.2 100.0 100.0
- a. Excluding developed / barren, water and open field community.
. 12 I portions of the site (Figure IIA-5). Pitch pines (Pinus [ rigida) dominated the forest with mixtures of oaks. The trees were generally about 60 years old and averaged about 10 meters (33 feet) in height (Appendix Table A-1). In the lower layers
- bear oak (Quercus ilicifolia), black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), and low blueberry (Vaccinium vacillann) dominated. . - ..
j Bear. oak generally averaged about 2 meters in height I while black huckleberry and low bluebarry covered the lower shrub layer (approximately 0 5 meters). Small shrubs, tea-J berry (Gaultheria procumbens) and bracken fern (Pteridium .
- aquilinum) were abundant in the ground layer.
[ The pitch pine lowland forest occurred on the Atsion f soils in the western portion of the site and on the lowlying . areas of Manahawkin muck soil along Oyster Creek (Figure IIA-5). f E The pitch pine lowland forest is'very similar from a I physiognomic standpoint to the pitch pine-oak forest. [ McCormick and Jones (1973) differentiate the lowland forest i types (including cedar swamp community) from the uplcnd l' forests by the level of the water table. Taey stated that the water table in the lowland forests generally remains within 1 feet of the ground surface. Pitch pine dominates each - E community, but the associates are different. The associates [ of pitch pine in the lowland forest include red maple (Acer .. E rubrum) and tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica). Oaks generally do not . y occur in the pitch pine lowland forest. The pitch pine [ averaged 75 years old and were about 12 meters in height, ,4 2 although some stands were considerably younger. The understory-g sized trees, mainly tupelo and red maple, averaged 4.5 to 6.5
- meters in height. The shrub layer appeared to be denser in the pitch pine lowland forest than in the pitch pine-oak n
{ y forest. Dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondesa) and varying mixtures of sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), black { [. huckleberry, and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) dominated this stratum. The tallest shrubs averaged 1.5 to ,y i 2.5 meters in height. g :C .. F -t A < p a*: k EMBE 2 ~ F M .
13 The age data indicate that the pine forests of the Forked River site, as most of the forested areas in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, were probably cut for the various early industries characteristic of the region. Pines were clear cut for lumber, cordwood, and charcoal production throughout Ocean County as late as the 1890's (McCormick 1955). The fire history of the Forked River site.is not known, but it is probable that the pine forests have burned during this century. The presence of large-sized pines and less fire-tolerant oak species could possibly indicate that portions of the pine-oak forest on the northern part of the site had escaped a devastating burning since the time of industrial clearing. On the Forked River site the cedar swamp community occurs primarily along South Branch Forked River on Manahawkin duck soil (Figures IIA-4 and IIA-5). The community occupied approximately 70 acres or 9 percent of the total site (Table
; IIA-1). The cedar swamp community is dominated by Atlantic
! white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). The community can be divided into mature areas (cedar swamp forest) and develop-mental areas (cedar swamp shrub community). These two sub-communities are dominated by Atlantic white cedar in the upper layers, but the two communites exhibit a different overall structure and species composition in the lower layers.
1 Atlantic white cedars of tree size occur in the cedar swamp - forest. The cedars form a very dense canopy layer. They hhkc: averaged about 77 years old and 12 meters in height (Appendix h$ Table A-1). Nearly every cedar stand in the Pine Barrens was TQ: cut two to three times between 1700 and 1900, with the wood . being used mainly for lumber, barrel hoop poles, and shingles (McCormick 1955). The cedars on the Forked River site were @@gl j.g j , probably last cut around the turn of the century. QQ.. . , Dangleberry, sweet pepperbush, and Atlantic white cedar *(T:};.5 dominated the shrub layer in the cedar swamp forest. The k J;%j , h
14 taller shrubs grew to a height of about 2 to 3 meters. The deciduous shrubs usually exhibited a spindly growth form due to the dense canopy overhead. Eecause of the low incident solar radiation reaching the ground surface, the ground layer was sparse. C.'nnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) grew to a height of approximately 30 cm. and was the most abundant species in this layer. The cedar swamp shrub community presently exists in cedar swamp forest areas that were clear cut. The community occurred primarily in the northwestern portion of the site near the Garden State Parkway and in wet areas beneath the transmission line (Figure IIA-5). As indicated by some coring information, the area near the Parkway was probably cut about 15 years ago. If left undisturbed, this community will l eventually succeed to a cedar swamp forest. Shrub-sized individuals dominated the cedar swamp shrub 1 community, but some understory-sized individuals also occurred. Atlantic white cedars and an occasional gray birch (Betula populifolia) were present in the understory layer, reaching a height of up to 3 5 meters. The shrub layer of this community was more dense than any other community. Atlantic white cedar was the dominant species and averaged roughly 1.5 meters in . height. The ground layer was dense and was found to be . , - - nummme usually dominated by coast sedge (Carex excilis) and beak-rush zg g7 (Rhynchospora alba). Cinnamon fern was also abundant. f% % i The upland shrub community occurred on the site in areas that were probably originally occupied by a pitch pine-oak forest. These areas were disturbed or cut and are presently in a shrub stage that will probably eventually succeed into a pitch pine-oak forest. It occupied appro.ximately 29 acres or 4 percent of the site, making it the smallest of the major
" natural" communities (Table IIA-1). The upland shrub community occurred primarily in the cleared areas in the southwestern portion of the site and around the metereological N
4
15 tower in the northern portion of the site (Figure IIA-5). It was dominated by a number of shrub species, although pitcP pines 2 to 3 meters tall of overstory and understory size occurred. Shrub species included black huckleberry, low blueberry, and bear oak. The tallest shrub species were pitch pines and bear oaks reaching about 1 meter in height. Blueberries and huckleberries grew to about a 0.5 meter level. The ground layer was dominated by low blueberry and other shrubs. The lowland shrub community occurred primarily along Oyster Creek just west of the Fire Pond (Figure IIA-5). It oEcupied~approximately 30 acres or 4 percent of the site (Table IIA-1). This community will probably eventually ,. ,.. succeed nto'a. pitch pine lowland forest or a swamp hardwood jf. r b forest,. - It was dominated by a dense shrub layer containing p];y. ;2 leafy-b,racted huckl'eberry (Gaylussacia dumosa), leatherleaf E=.0$ $. (ChamE6daphne calyculata), and inkberry (Ilex glabra). The $9.Jf' avera'.6e height of this stratum was about 1 meter. Areas
$$h)k.;-
pa i-y adjoining Oyster Creek supported a thick growth of nearly /P.J .:
. , .r : . :, -
pure leatherleaf. Understory-sized individuals of pitch ef'J :t ping', red maple and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) were common, and usually reached heights of 3 to 4 meters. The [$f 1NS$2m ground layer was dominated by big wetladd. sedge (Carex scabrata,
-Carex walteriana-) and; coast sedge. Small shrubs and sphagnum
',Eass(Sph(gnumspp.)comprisedthemajorityoftherestof othis layer. '
There are,two relatively minor cover types on the Forked
/ -
/ -
-River site. These' minor cover types are the open field community and the sedge savanna.
The open fie,ld, community o'ecupied approximately 20 acres or 3 percent of the site . (Table IIA-1) . It occurred in small patches within,or adjacent to the developed / barren area and adjacent to the Oyster Creek station (Figure IIA-5). The open
'l field community was not generally a natural community , but ;
o 4 4 4 _ e# , e mumm e--m
16 I 3 5 N.. consisted of areas that have resulted from seeding efforts to ] control erosion. Various grasses have been utilized in these a seeding efforts and generally dominated the community. 2 Rushes and sedges were sometimes prevalent in the wet portions of these areas. Open sand was usually common between patches I of vegetation. ] The sedge savanna is a very small area (about 0.8 acres) located in the west-central portion of the study area. There j had been standing water in this area since the beginning of 3 the terrestrial ecology study in the spring of 1978. The area f has the general appearance of a shallow pond. The water level probably varies seasonally and from year to year. During ; initial field visits in August of 1977 this area was completely } dry. According to McCormick (1970) these areas are common I a throughout the coastal plain of New Jersey where they are known locally as " dry ponds". This area is dominated by 3
+
sedges (Carex spp.) to a height of 0.5 meters. - a Vegetation Samuling j Quantitative sampling of all strata was performed (overstory, understory, shrub layer, and ground layer) in each major community to establish baseline information for the Forked River site. Tables that present the results of $ the sampling effort are included in Appendix A. Representative ' summary tables are included throughout the following discussion. j The discussion and appendix tables are presented in the following order: pitch pine-oak forest, pitch pine lowland ; forest, cedar swamp forest, cedar swamp shrub community, l upland shrub community, lowland shrub community, and sedge savanna. _ Pitch Pine-Oak Forest 5 Complete data for the pitch pine-oak forest are presented in Appendix Tables A-2 through A-8. The overstory i
[ w 17 m s andunderstoryknt'hspitchpine-oakforestwasdominatedby pitch pine (Table IIA-2). Post oak (Quercus stellata) and blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica) were the next most important species in both laye'rs. The shrub layer was dominated-by black' huckleberry (Table IIA-2). Four other species, low blueberry, bear oak, dangleberry and blackjack oak were also common in the shrub layer. The ground layer was dominated by low blueberry. Other common species were teaberry, black: huckleberry, bracken fern and turkeybeard
.(Xerophy11um asphodeloides) (Table IIA-3).
TheLspecies composition of the pitch pine-oak forest found on'the Forked River site was very similar to that described by H'arshberger-(1916), Buell and cantion (1950), g McCormick.(1955, 1970), Stephenson (1965) and Little (1973). The upper layers of the pitch pine-oak forest on the site
.were dominated by pitch pine. This species alone accounted for over 90. percent of the overstory and 70 percent of the understory tota 1'importance values. Pitch pine'has been ' described ~as the most abundant tree and characteristic species i of'the Pine Barrens'(Robichaud and Buell 1973). Oaks do not ' form a major part of the overstory and understory of the pitch
[ pine forest on the Forked River' site, although post oak and blackjack oak were encountered and were abundant-in certain , areas. . These two oak species are reported by Harshberger ~ (1916) to be the two most important secondary trees of the flat Pine Barrens. Post oak was more abundant in the pitch pine-oak forest in the southwestern portion of-the site. .
. Blackjack oak was more common in the elevated Lakehurst sand area'justwestofthe.qackparkinglot.
The shrub layer ~of the pine-oak forest was quite dense. Three members of the heath family, black huckleberry,
' low blueberry,.and dangleberry were among the dominant species, with black huckleberry dominating the shrub layer. This species ?alone accounted for about' 50~ percent of the total ~
y
?
1 A
,y b , . ~ , _ _ , . _ . _._. _ . . ___ . _ _ _ . _ .. _____ _ _.
Table IIA-2 . Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory, and Shrub Layer, Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, Forked River Site, Summer,1978(3)
% of Total Import 9pge Species ValuetDJ Overstory Pinus rigida Pitch pine 90 Understory Pinus rigida Pitch pine 72 Quercus stellata Post oak 10 Quercus marilandica
-Blackjack oak 9 Shrub Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 50 Vaccinium vacillans Low blueberry 13 Quercus ilicifolia Bear oak 8 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 7
- a. See Appendix A for complete data tables.
- b. Indicates relative importance of a species, with a total of 100 percent for .each layer.
Table IIA-3 ; Dominant Ground Layer Species, Pitch Pine-Oak Votest, Forked River Site, Spring and Summer, 1978(aj
% of Total Importance Species Value(b)
Spring Vaccinium vacillans Low blueberry 37 Gaultheria procumbens , 28 Teaberry Gaylussacia.frondosa, G. baccata Dangleberry, black huckleberry 16 Xerophyllum asphodeloides - Turkeybeard 6 Summer Vaccinists vacillans Lew 6fueberry 25 Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 24 i Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 21
'Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern 9 i
- a. See Appendix A for complete data tables.
b.= Indicates relative importance of a species, with a total of 100 percent for each season. l l s I
- z. ,
20 t importance value. Bear oak was also among the dominant shrub species. All of these shru'b species have been indicated by !
.several authors as being common components of the shrub layer of the pitch pine-oak forest. Bear oak ranked second in total dominance, but it had'a relatively low density value. This ~
l would be expected since it has a larger growth form and fewer stems than the heaths. It generally dominates the upper portion of the shrub layer while the heaths dominate the lower portion. i Bear oak is also primarily a crown-sprouting species and tends to be clumped while the heath shrubs spread by means
- of rhizomes and tend to be more uniformly distributed (Stephenson and Buell 1965). This is evidenced by the much lower. frequency value of bear oak in comparison to the frequency. values of the heath shrubs. Bear oak and blackjack oak also had proportionately higher importance values in fall
'when frequency was based on dominance than in summer when frequency was based on density (Appendix Tables A-4 and A-5).
-This proportionate change resulted because frequency based on dominance tends to give a higher frequency value (and thus !
l importance value) to species, such as these.two oaks, that ! have clumped, few-stemmed growth forms and spreading crowns. The ground layer vegetation of the pitch pine-oak forest I was-quite homogeneous. As in the shrub layer, heaths were very abundant, accounting for 70 percent of the total importance_value in the fall. Low blueberry was the dominant i~ species, although black huckleberry was very abundant. Low . blueberry and black huckleberry were major constituents of - l the shrub layer-and their.importance in the ground layer reflects their low growth form. Teaberry was also very abundant. Teaberry is a very small evergreen plant. It is generally less than 10 cm (4 inches) tall, and therefore
~
dominates that portion of the ground layer closest to the ground. This substratum was shared with moss, and much less frequently, with false heather (Hudsonia ericoides) and pixie 1 I
21 ; moss -(Pyxidanthera barbulata), both of which are characteristic of the Pine Barrens.
.There was little seasonal variation in the vegetation of the pine-oak forest, although some differences did occur in the. ground layer. Spring sampling was performed before the leaves of shrub species in this stratum were fully expanded. 14d.s resulted in a higher relative importance value for some herbaceous species. In the spring, turkeybeard ranked highly. It was not very uniformly distributed but it was abundant where it was found. This was evidenced by the very low frequency value, but relatively high dominance value (Appendix Table A-6). This species is characteristic of the Pine Barrens and r3 aches the northern limit of its range in New Jersey (McCormick 1970). Bracken fern gained in importance after its main growth period in late spring. It was a dominant species of the pitch pine-oak community in - the summer and fall seasons. It had an extremely low density value for a dominant species, but its rather large growth '
i form accounted for-a relatively high dominance value. - h Pitch Pine Lowland Forest . b d: Complete data for the pitch pine lowland forest are ij
. presented in Appendix Tables A-9 through A-15 Pitch pine Yi dominated the overstory of the pitch pine lowland forest g (Table IIA-4). Tupelo and red maple also occurred in the - overstory and dominated the understory (Table IIA-4). Pitch j pine was third in importance value'in the understory. The 1 t
shrub layer was. dominated by dangleberry (Table IIA-4). Black huckleberry, sweet pepperbush, highbush blueberry, and swamp _
' honeysuckle'(Rhododendrum viscosum) were also' common
. The ground layer of the pitch pine-lowland forest was dominated by teaberry and cinnamon fern (Table IIA-5). Several other species ~were also common including swamp honeysuckle,
- dangleberry, red maple, and bracken fern.
e
l Table IIA-4 Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory, and Shrub Layers, Pitch Pine Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(a)
% of Total Importance Species Value(b)
Overstory Pinus r h da , Pitch pine 68
. Understory Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 38 Acer rubrum Red maple 28 Pinus rigida Pitch pine 25 Magnolia virginiana Sweet bay 5 Shrub Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 34 Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 16 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush- 10 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 7 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 6 'a. -See Appendix A for complete data tables.
- b. Indicates relative importance of a species, with a total of 100 percent for each layer.
Table IIA-5 DominantGroundLayerSpecies,PitchPineLowlanpa}orest, Forked River Site, Spring and Summer, 1978
% of. Total Importqnge Species Value(b)
Spring Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 52 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 8 Kalmia angustifolia ~ Sheep laurel 7 , Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 6 Summer Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 33 Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 18 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle- 8 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 7
-Acer rubrum Red maple 5 Pteridium aquilinum-Bracken fern 4 a., See Appendix A for complete data tables.
- b. Indicates relative importance of a species, with a total of 100 percent for each season.
24 As indicated previously, a water table within 1 feet of the ground surface is reported to be characteristic of the lowland communities (McCormick and Jones 1973). The pitch pine lowland forest is regarded as a transitional stage between the lowland and upland vegetation types (McCormick 1970). The overstory of the pitch pine lowland forest was comprised almost solely of pitch pine, although tupelo and red maple did occur in the overstory and dominated the under-story. Tupelo and red maple are characteristic species of the lowland forests in the Pine Barrens. They.were also common constituents of the other lowland communities (cedar swamp and lowland shrub) that occurred on the Forked River site. Tupelo frequently formed small clumps throughout the pitch pine lowland forest on the site. Oaks were noticeably lacking in this forest community probably because of the high water table. None were recorded in the sampling plots. The shrub layer of the pitch pine lowland forest was rather dense in most portions of the community. Dangleberry was found to be the most important species in the shrub layer. D,angleberry was a dominant or common plant in every major plant community on the Forked River site. Although Stone (1911) described its habitat as " dry woodland", its presence in even the wettest communities indicates its ubiquitousness. Sweet pepperbush was also common in most areas of the Forked River site. Black huckleberry persisted in both the pitch pine-oak and pitch pine lowland forest. Other shrub species more characteristic of lowland communities, such as highbush blueberry, swamp honeysuckle, and sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia) were more common in the pitch pine lowland forests than in the pitch pine-oak forests. The ground layer of the pitch pine lowland forest was dominated by teaberry,.which was also a dominant component of.the pitch pine-oak forest. Cinnamon fern was common in the ground layer in the spring and later exhibited an almost
25 threefold ~ increase in importance by the summer after it had attained' full growth. Cinnamon fern and teaberry were not evenly distributed throughout the pitch pine lowland forest. Teaberry was abundant in the pitch pine lowland areas west of the parking lot. In contrast, cinnamon fern dominated the ground layer of the pine lowland forest along Oyster Creek. In:this area temberry and bracken fern were absent. This area, although categorized as pitch pine lowland, was somewhat different in other layers also. There were more hardwoods in the upper layers, and the. shrub layer. was taller and more open than in other pitch pine lowland areas. These differences-may be the result of soil types and associated water levels. The soils along Oyster Creek were primarily Manahawkin muck composed'of organic matter with a water table usually at the surface. The soils in other pitch pine lowland areas were Atsion sands.and had a seasonally high water table. Cedar Swamp Forest Complete data for the cedar swamp forest are presented in Appendix Tables A-16 through A-22. The overstory and understory of the' cedar swamp forest were dominated by Atlantic white cedar (Table IIA-6). This species alone accounted for 89 andL72 percent of the total importance values in the over-story.and understory, respectively. The shrub layer was dominated;by a number of species with relatively similar importance values. One species with the highest importance
- - values included dangleberry, sweet pepperbush, Atlantic white cedar, swamp; honeysuckle, highbush blueberry, and leafy-bracted
~
huckleberry (Table IIA-6). A number of the same species
. dominated the ground layer including cinnamon fern, swamp honeysuckle, leafy-bracted huckleberry, sweet pepperbush, f -and dangleberry (TE.ble IIA-7).
,~ LThe cedar swamp' forest was comprised of dense stands L
-offAtlantic white. cedar.- This community fringes many Pine l
w .
A Table IIA-6 Dominant Species of. the Overstory, Understory, and Shrub Layers, Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer 1978(a)
~
% of Total Importance Species Value(b)
Overstory Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 89 Un'derstory Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 72 Shrub Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry d 20 Clethra alnifolia O! ' Sweet pepperbush '- ij 15
.i Chamaecyparis thyoides V Atlantic white cedar y, 15 Gaylussacia dumosa ft Leafy-bracted huckleberry
12 Rhododendron viscosum 'r Swamp honeysuckle J 9 Vaccinium corymbosum ii Highbush blueberry i 7 , f ( M
.a. See Appendix A for complete data tables.
- b. Indicates relative _importance of a species, with a total of 100 percent for each layer l'
Table IIA-7 Dominant Ground Layer Species, Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Spring and Summer, 1978(a)
% of Total Importance Species Value(b)
Spring Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 19 V'accinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 14 Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 14 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush , 11 Carex collinsii Wide-leaved sedge 9 Carex sp. Filiform-leaved sedge 3 Summer Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 24 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 17 Gaylussacia dumosa L Leafy-bracted huckleberry 12 l l Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 9 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 8 Chamaedaphne calyculata e Leatherleaf 6
- a. See Appendix A for complete data tables.
- b. Indicates relative importance of a species, with a total of 100 percent for each season.
28 Barren streams and occurred on the Forked River site primarily along the South Branch Forked River. The cedar forests on the site typified descriptions cf this community presented by Harshberger (1916), Little (1950), and Mecormi:k (1955, 1970). The overstory and understory were rather homogeneous, with Atlantic white cedar being the prevalent species. The cedar swamp forest contained trees that were among the tallest on the Forked River site. The tall trees
.were straight and very dense, and thus formed a closed canopy
, that allowed little light to reash the lower layers. The closed canopy and moist conditions also created a forest that was generally cooler and more moist than the surrounding pitch pine forests.
~
Dangleberry was the dominant species in the shrub layer. Other common. shrubs included fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa), black alder (Ilex verticillata), and leafy-bracted huckleberry. Atlantic-white cedar was the dominant tree species in the shrub layer. Less frequent tree species in the shrub layer were red maple, sweet bay, gray birch and tupelo. Except for gray birch, all these tree species are fairly shade-tolerant (Harshberger 1916) and thus able to become established in the dense shade of a cedar forest. Robichaud and Buell (1973) described encroachment by these species as the first step toward succession to a southern swamp forest community dominated by these deciduous. trees. In general, the ground layer vegetation of the cedar swamp forest was sparse. Of all communities sampled, this community had the lowest total actual dominance and the lowest ! total number of species (species richness) in the ground layer. The sparse ground layer was probably the result of the low amount of incident solar radiation that reached the ground surface. The ground' layer in the cedar swamp forest was dominated by species with relatively little difference among. the importance values. Differences were, however, more l
.l - -- -- . - . - . . . , - ,.
29 pronounced later in the season after herbaceous plants (especially cinnamon fern) had become fully grown. Cinnamon fern was the dominant ground layer species in this community during the summer and fall. The remainder of this layer was dominated by small shrubs. Moss, mostly sphagnum, covered much of the ground surface. Cedar Swamp Shrub Community Complete data for the cedar swamp shrub community are presented in Appendix Tables A-23 through A-28. No overstory-sized individuals were recorded-in the sampling plots of the cedar swamp shrub community. Atlantic white cedar dominated the understory.and shrub layer.(Table IIA-8). Dangleberry, swamp. honeysuckle, sweet pepperbush, and leafy-bracted huckleberry were also abundant. The ground layer was dominated by coast sedge, beak-rush, and cinnamon fern. Several species were common and the total number of species was high (Table IIA-9). The cedar swamp shrub community is the developmental stage of the cedar swamp forest. It occurred on the Forked River site primarily in areas that were probably clear-cut from a cedar swamp forest. In many areas the community had a dense shrub layer and a sparse understory dominated by Atlantic white cedar. The cedar swamp shrub community beneath the transmission lines had a mare open shrub layer separated by patches dominated by sedges and sphagnum moss. This community,especially the area beneath the transmission line,is important because it offers prime habitat for curly Brass fern-(Schizaea pusilla) (See Threatened or Endangered Species of Plants). One small clump of curly grass fern was recorded in one of the sampling plots (Appendix Table A-27). It was also recorded in several other areas beneath the transmission line.
Table IIA-8 i 1 Dominant Species Swamp Shrub of the Understory Community, and Site, Forked River Shrub Layers,1978(a Summer, Cedar)
% of Total Species Importpgge Value 1
Understory i Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 90 Shrub Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 28
~
Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 17 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 9 l Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 8 Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 8
- a. See Appendix A for complete data tables.
- b. Indicates relative importance of a species, with a total of 100 percent-for each layer.
Table IIA-9 DominantGroundLayerSpecies,CedarSwampShrubCymmunity, Forked River Site, Spring and Summer, 1978
% of Total Importqnge Species Value(b)
Spring Carex excilis Coast sedge 33 Chamaecyparis.thyoides Atlantic white cedar 14 Carex scabrata, C. walteriana Big wetland sedge 8 Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry 8
;t 4
Rubus spp. 1 Brambles 6 n [ Summer
-, Carex excilis ~t Coast sedge 22 b
l Osmunda cinnamomea ! , Cinnamon fern 15 Rubus spp. Brambles 7 h l 1 Carex scabrata, C, walteriana 1 Big wetland sedge 7 [ ! $ Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 7 Rhododendron viscosum l l -Swamp honeysuckle 6
)
- a. See Appendix A for complete data tables.
)
i
- b. Indicatss relative importance of a species, with a
- total of 100 percent for each season. ,
i l l l l
32 The shrub layer was dominated by.the same species that occurred in the cedar swamp forest, although Atlantic white cedar was much more prevalent in the shrub layer in the cedar swamp shrub community. This community had more shrub species than any of the other communities sampled. 'Dangleberry was 4 abundant. Leafy-bracted huckleberry, sweet pepperbush, swamp honeysuckle, highbush blueberry, and bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) were common. As in other wet communities, the cedar swamp shrub community exhibited distinct autumnal color changes.- Maples were red colored and heaths took on hues of 4 crimson and purple. Bright red berries of black alder were conspicuous. Due to the rather open characteristics of the community, the ground layer was well developed. Total actual dominance of the ground layer of this community was higher than any other community sampled at the Forked River site. The ground layer of the cedar swamp shrub community had the highest . species richness, the most non-woody plants, and the highest actual dominance value for moss of all the communities sampled. 1 The moss cover was mostly comprised of sphagnum. Sphagnum is I . characteristic of wet swampy areas and often occurs in boggy
- l. areas present throughout this community. Herbaceous plants dominated this layer, with coast sedge, beak-rush, and cinnamon' fern ranking highest in importance. Coast sedge was a' striking dominant in the spring. Cinnamon fern gained importance in the summer and fall, as it had in other I- communities. Beak-rush exhibited similar growth in the fall.
l Big wetland sedge, Atlantic white cedar, brambles (Rubus spp.), l and swamp honeysuckle were about equally common. Round- ! 1 leaved boneset-(Eupatorium rotundifolium) and bog aster ! (Aster nemoralis) were. conspicuous fall-flowering plants in , L .the_more open areas of this-community. l' L-i;
- - , ~ , _ . _ .__ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . , , . . _ . _ . . , . , , . . _ _ _ _ _
33 Upland Shrub Community Complete data for the upland shrub community are presented in Appendix Table A-29'through A-35 Pitch pine I was the only species recorded in the overstory and understory of this community (Table IIA-10). Only one individual was recorded in the sampling plots in each layer. In the shrub
' layer black huckleberry, low blueberry, bear oak, dangleberry, sawbrier.(Smilax glauca), and sweet pepperbush had the highest importance values (Table IIA-10). Low blueberry also dominated the ground layer (Table IIA-11). Sever'al other species had relatively high importance values including black huckleberry, broom beardgrass (Andropogon scoparius), sawbrier,
; panic grass (Panicum spp.), false heather, teaberry, and bracken fern.
The upland shrub community is the developmental stage of the pitch pine-oak forest and occurred on the site in areas that were probably originally occupied by a pitch pine-oak forest. It is an open community dominated primarily by shrub-sized individdals, with-patches of barren sand scattered zmong clumps of vegetation. Although overstory and understory-sized individuals were extremely sparse in the upland shrub community, pitch pine was the dominant. species as it was in the pitch pine-oak forest. The similarity of these two communities in species composition is reinforced by the shrub layer data. In both the summer and fall the dominant shrub layer. species were
- 'thefsame and in the same order for these two communities.
The shrub layer dominant was black huckleberry. Bear oak, L ' low blueberry, sweet pepperbush and post oak were common. Of all the communities sampled, the shrub layer of the upland shrub community had the lowest species richness. It also had the' highest importance and actual dominance values for a vine, sawbrier.- Sawbrier is characteristic of southern habitats.
Table IIA-10 Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory, and Shrub ayers, Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978 a1
% of Total Importance Species Value(b)
Overstory Pinus rigida Pitch pine 100 Understory Pinus rigida Pitch pine 100 Shrub Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry- 30 Vaccinium vacillans Low blueberry 16 Quercus ilicifolia Bear oak 13 Gaylussacia frondosa l Dangleberry 9 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 8 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 7 l l
- a. See Appendix A for complete data tables,
- b. Indicates relative importance of a species,with a total of 100, percent for each layer.
l
\
[ i
Table IIA-11 Dominant Ground Layer Species, Upland Shrub Co unity, Forked River Site, Spring and Summer, 197
% of Total Species Import 9gge Valuet /
Spring Vaccinium vacillans Low blueberry 26 Hudsonia ericoides False heather 15 Polygonella articulata Jointweed 15 Gaylussacia frondosa, G. baccata Dangleberry, black huckleberry 14 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 7 Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 7 Summer Vaccinium vacillans Low blueberry 25 Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 14 Andropogon scoparius Broom neardgrass 12 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 8 Panicum spp. Panic grass 8 Hudsonia ericoides False heather 8
- a. -See Appendix A for complete data tables.-
- b. Indicates relative importance of a species.with a total of 100 percent for each season.
36 F
-In some locations in both the shrub and ground layers, sawbrier grew very. vigorously, often overtopping small shrubs.
.The-ground layer of the upland shrub community was composed chiefly of woody plants and grasses. Low blueberry was;the dominant species. ' Black huckleberry was quite abundant. These two species were also important in the shrub layer.- Broom beardgrass, sawbrier, false heather, teaberry, and sheep laurel accounted for over 70 percent of the .
remaining total importance-value in the fall. Jointweed (Polygonella articulata) was an abundant species in the
' spring. With the exception of false heather and jointweed, these same species were also characteristic of the pitch pine-oak forest. False heather and jointweed were more common in open areas that are characteristic of the upland shrub community, but they did not appear to persist under the canopy of pitch pine. False heather is "the characteristic if species in patches of open white sand" (Stone 1911) and was covered by abundant starry yellow blossoms in June. Bracken fern had begun to die back during the period of fall sampling,
~
hence its domin'ance value for that season was lower than in E the summer. i Lowland Shrub Community Complete data for the lowland shrub community are presented in Appendix Tables A-36 through A-42. In this L shrub-community pitch pine dominated the overstory and [ o
'understory: (Table IIA-12) . Red maple and sweet bay were also recorded in the understory layer. . Several species had L .relatively.high importance~ values in the shrub layer,
- including leafy-bracted huckleberry, leatherleaf, inkberry, swamp honeysuckle, highbush blueberry, red maple, and sweet E
t I r - w , d 5, ov.,,..,,, , . , , - - , , . , . , , - .,,--.,,,,..,mme,v,--[
, , , ,.--vr+--v--,,
Table IIA-12 DominantSpeciesoftheOverstory,Understory,andShrub{gyers, Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978
% of Total Importance Species Value(b)
Overstory 1 Pinus rigida Pitch pine 100 Understory Pinus rigida Pitch pine 66 Shrub Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 23 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf 13 Ilex glabra Inkberry 13 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 6 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 6 Acer rubrum Red maple 6
- a. See Appendix A for complete data tables.
- b. Indicates relative importance of a species,with a total of 100 percent for each layer.
1 J
38 t r pepperbush'(Table IIA-12). The ground layer was dominated . .i i by big wetland sedge, cinnamon fern, leatherleaf, coast [ sedge,'and;1arge cranberry'(Vaccinium macrocarpon) (Table IIA-13). The icwland shrub community occurs on the Forked River site almost entirely along Oyster Creek juct west of the Fire Pond. The. lowland shrub community probably resulted from cutting of the' lowland forest that originally occupied this area. It is probably the developmental stage of the
; swamp hardwood forest reported as a commonly occurring stream-course forest in the Pine Barrens (McCormick 1970).
This forest community is highly variable. ; The lowland _ shrub community on the Forked River site had a sparse overstory layer and an understory layer that was beginning to develop. Pitch pine dominated both layers, but red maple and sweet bay were common in the understory layer. i The shrub layer was extremely dense. It was the densest shrub layer sampled at the Forked River site. Leatherleaf'and inkberry were dominant species in the shrub l layer probably because of the wet conditions that occur in _this community. There were five tree species found in this 7 layer: red maple, sweet bay, pitch pine, tupelo, and Atlantic white cedar.- Autumnal color changes were evident in red maple, huckleberries, and tupelo. The ground layer was relatively dense. The dominant , species previously mentioned are characteristic of wet open areas in_the Pine Barrens region (Harshberger 1916). Many of these same species were common constituents of the cedar
- swamp shrub community. As in other wet communities, cinnamon fern.was noted to have a large increase in importance later in the growing season.
I
> P l
Table IIA-13 Dominant Ground Layer Species, Lowland 3hrub Ccmmunity, Forked" River Site, Spring and Summer, 1978(e)
% of Total ;
Species Import Value gqe 1 Spring Carex scabrata, C_. walteriana Big wetland sedge 27 Carex excilis Coast sedge 23 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf 20
' Vaccinium macrocarpon Large cranberry 9 Ilex glabra Inkberry 8 Summer Carex scabrata, C. waiteriana !
Big wetland sedge 17 .} Osmunda cinnamomea ' Cinnamen fern 14 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf. 13 i Carex excilis ! Coast sedge 12 Vaccinium macrocarpon Large cranberry 7
-a. See Appendix A for complete data tables.
- b. Indicates relative _importance of a~ species with a
-total of 100 percent for.each season. .
e-ee3 e- 'e *--*s e r - w yy a '-'-* -f- e ere-w- p e wy &-- -1 -1gg1-we m--- ? ->7*P-w-9My y- Tw*m*-M
40 s Sedge Savanna The sedge savanna is a minor community, but because . it.is an interesting natural community that was completely ! different from other communities, it was sampled during the fall season. Complete data for the sedge savanna are presented in Appendix Tables A-43 through A-45 Overstory and understory-sized individuals of pitch pine were present on.the low rise surrounding'the body of the savanna (Table IIA-14). A red maple of understory size was also present, although it did not occur in the transects. The shrub layer , was composed mostly of highbush blueberry. Fetterbush and common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) were the only other , abundant species. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) grew in the open, wetter areas (Table IIA-14). The ground layer;of the sedge savanna was domi'nated by a sedge (Carer sp.). I Fetterbush and stagger-bush (Lyonia mariana) were abundant
-(Table IIA-14).
As mentioned earlier this area had the general
. appearance of a shallow pond.
~
The water. level was variable. i It was completely dry in August, 1977 In the spring of 1978 there was standing water about 3 feet deep, covering most of the-savanna. During the-fall sampling period the savanna was mostly dry except for a small pool about 8 feet in diameter, which had a depth of about 1 foot.
-The general appearance of the sedge savanna was that of a low flat plain of. sedges, dotted with an occasional clump l of shrubs. Surrounding this was an area of slightly higher elevation with tal1~ shrubs and trees.
p Shrub growth in the sedge savanna proper consisted of l an occasional buttonbush. Leatherleaf was also found, although it was not represented in the transects. The ground l layer consisted entirely of moss and a sedge. Species determinstion of.this sedge was not possible because it was not. fruiting'during visits to this community. McCormick l
e Table IIA-14 Dominant Species of the Overstory, Understory, and Shrub and Ground Layers, Sedge Savanna Community, Forked River Site, Fall,1978(a)
% of Total Importance Species Value(D)
Overstory Pinus rigida Pitch pine 100 Understory Pinus rigida' Pitch pine 100 Shrub Carex sp. Sedge 55 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 21 Lyonia mariana Stagger-bush 12 Ground Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 60 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 17 Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbrier 15
- a. See Appendix A for complete data tables, b.. Indicates relative importance of a species,with a total of 100 percent for each layer.
42 (1955) described a savanna area in Lebanon State Forest, Ocean County, New Jersey, as being composed of a nearly pure growth of Carex bullata. It is possible that this is the species on the Forked River site. The area encircling the savanna was characterized by an occasional overstory or understory-sized pitch pine, a dense shrub layer, and a very sparse ground layer. Highbush blueberry grew in very thick, bushy clumps. It accounted for over 60 percent of the importance value of the shrub layer. Fetterbush was also common. Many bushes were overgrown with common greenbrier. The ground layer was mainly composed of small shrubs. Fetterbush and stagger-bush were the most abundant. Less common herbaceous species included switch grass (Panicum virgatum) and roundleaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia). Aquatic Vascular Plants Plant species that are classified as aquatic by some botanists may not be considered as such by others. As a result there is no well-defined group of vascular plants that can be called " aquatic". In this report, plants listed as aquatic were generally those growing in the water or on the immediate wet area or bank surrounding the water bodies. The main water bodies examined on the Forked River site were Oyster Creek and South Branch Forked River. Sampling locations are indicated in Figure IIA-3 Species and abundance levels observed during summer and fall are presented in Appendix Tables A-46 and A-47, respectively. The dominant stream-inhabiting species in Oyster Creek was water club-rush (Scirpus subterminalis). This plant grew profusely in portions of this creek, its leaves and stems swaying with the current. It was described by Stone (1911) as "a characteristic species of the dark brown waters of the Pine Barrens". Bushy pondweed (Najas sp.), tape-grass I l
_. .. _. __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ __m
-_ 7 -
. e . . .
. ~ 43 y . < 4 .c
~
,~
. , , . 5^' , ,
'r s , e- ,,
4 . iVallisneria. americana), and bladderworts-(Utricularia spp.) were submerged species that ranged from sparce to locally abundant. Pondweed and tape-grass are important food for waterfowl (Fairbrothers and Moul n.d.,)'. The only abundant floating. species was water lily (Nymphaea'odorata), which was present in small coves along the shore in. slow moving water. Emergent aquatics and species gro' wing at the water's i
. edge or along the banks were mairily' rushes and sedges.
Toad rush (Juncus bufonius), spike rushes (Eleocharis flavescens and E. tuberculosa),' beak-rush and three-way sedge (Dulichium arundi'naceum) were- the most' abundant. Leatherleaf was the dominant .s'nf u'b a'long thie Oyster Creek - 7 . bank., A yery dense and nearly pure growth of this shrub
~
was found n5ar sampling' area #3 (Figure IIA-5). The most
' common plants in the Fire Pond were tape-grass and water club-rush. $ur-reed (Sparganium ame'ricanum), spike rushes, and toad rush were the most abundant spe'ciEs along the banks'of the Fire Ponal Little. seasonal vegetation change
.was.noted. [ ,
! Ihe miiture of prominent, aquatics in South Branch "
. Forked River wac somewhat different than in Oyster Creek. ,
- Water club-rush kas locally dominant, as was ten-angled .
pipewort (Eriocaulon decangulare) and bushy pondweed. The dense,st growth of submergents was ;around sample area #9
.where the stream was narrow and mdved more slowly. In areas i
where'the_ water moved rapidly and there was a sandy, gravelly (- bottom, vi$ually no plants grew iri the stream.. Toad rush, bayonet arid jointed rushes (Juncus militaris, J_. articulatus),
' beak-rush,' and large cranberry were the most abundant' species
'along the banks and edges.. Here, as in Oyster Creek, little seasonal change.was.evid5nt.
~
i r
'_ ~
' ** k g #
l A < .. i
)
c.
~
%/ i
, -[]
n } l'
.- z_ y
1 44 Endangered or Threatened Species of Plants Literature and personal contacts with authorities provided information on plant' species under review, proposed to be included,.or listed'under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (USDI 1975, USDI 1976, USDI 1979). None of the listed or proposed endangered plant species have been reported in the Forked River region. Three plant species under review (but not as yet proposed) have been reported in the Toms River - Forked River region, including Schizaea pusilla, Calamovilfa brevipilis var. brevipilis, and Juncus caesariensis. Two .; others_(Platanthera flava and P. integra) have been recorded from Ocean County. All of these species generally occur in wet areas. Schizaea pusilla, curly grass fern, is reported from Newfoundland, Ontario, Nova Scotia, the.aPine Barrens of New Jersey (Fernald 1950, Gleason 1952) and Long Island, New
~
York (Cobb 1963, Cheviak,pers. comm.)[ Although it has been
~
reportedfromanumberofstationsinfthePineBarrens (Stone
'1911), this species has a very limited range in the United L States.with only one report outside of the State of New Jersey. . ,1
[ L A small colony of curly grass. fern was found during the spring of 1978 within the transdIssion line right-of-way in'the. cedar swamp shrub community on'the northern side of the Forked River site. Additional stations (particular i localities of a given' plant spec'ies) were found in the same generel area during the summer. In Nome of the areas curly x grass fern was quite abundant. All of the stations found are l indicated on Figure IIA-6.- The plants appeared healthy and l .many were sporulating during fall. The plants showed no sign of-impact due to construction activity. Curly grass ! fern commonly occurs in the acidic soils of sphagnum, cranberry bogs, and cedar swamps. The habitat presently fl be'ing occupied by curly grass fern is not'" typical habitat" l l l 4 e --
--n-g, , m, r w w --y, s-- -
-,m , , - -n -- ,en -on e-rw.--w-,--,
\
46 y 1 m 4 as'reportsd in-the literature. Of the two common associates of curly grass fern, Lycopodium carolinianum and Drosera
. filiformis, only the latter was encountered ut some of the stations. The habitat?where curly grass fern occurred on site has.resulted from the clearing performed during the construction of>the'Eransmission line. Had this area not been-cleared, it is doubtful that curly grass fern would exist in these areas. All of the stations recorded from the site have'been found in the cedar swamp shrub community. This
. community offers 'the best conditions for future finds,
. -although Schizaea may also occur in the cedar swamp forest. i Calamovilfa brevipilis var. brevipilis has been
~
l reported from New Jersey, southeastern Virginia, North Carolina,.and South Carolina (Gleason 1952). It was designated by Gleason (1952) as' rare except in New Jersey. I In New Jersey it has been reported-from Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, and Cape May Counties (Fairbrothers
. -pers. comm.). The Academy of Natural Sciences of
' Philadelphia has specimens from thirty localities in the New: Jersey Pine Barrens (Schuyler pers. comm.). It has been collected just-northwest of the site b'eneath the same
-transmission-linecthat crosses the site. It commonly occurs in swamps and sandy bogs. ccording to Cooper et al. (1977) this species is dependent on fire or_ management for its
' continued existence in the Carolinas.
-A station of Calamovilfa brevipilis var. brevipilis was encountered on the site-in September,jl978. A group of about eight individuals _was located west of the parking lot between
' the-borrow pile and the pitch pine lowland forest, on the
~
; forest side of the hay bales.(Figure IIA-6). It appeared that the plants had invaded the recently deposited sand on -
;the forest perimeter. Calamovilfa'normally would not-be Lexpected to be'found in a pitch pine lowland community. The recently deposited' sand on-the edge of the lowland created
~ , - ~ - , - - .- ,.~en,
- gwe, e-py-,y +m y y- v w, p r- w n, ,
47 suitable growing conditions, similar to its preferred habitat of sandy bogs (Fernald 1950). Additional stations of Calamovilfa will probably be found in the area. It is expected that this station of Calamovilfa will be'present next growing season (it is a perennial and had set seed in October) unless it becomes buried too deeply in additional sand or is impacted by construction activities. Juncus caesariensis has been reported from southern New Jersey.to southeastern Virginia (Fernald 1950). In New Jersey it has been reported mainly from the eastern side of the Pine Barrens (Stone 1911) from Middlesex, Ocean, Burlington, Camden, and Atlantic Counties (Fairbrothers pers. comm.). A specimen at the Chrysler Herbarium (Rutgers University) was collected along Middle Branch Forked River just north 'of the site. No individuals have been encountered on the site. Potential habitat exists for this species along the banks of South Branch Forked River. Platanthera flava, pale green orchis, has a wide distribution mainly in the eastern United States (Fernald 1950). Although frequent in northern New Jersey, it is very rare in the southern part of the state. Stone (1911) mentioned seeing only one specimen, this in Toms River. It commonly.inhabitats swampy woods, bottomlands, and wet shores (Fernald 1950). No specimens were encountered on the site. Platanthera integra, southern yellow orchis, is distributed from Florida to Texas, and north to southern New Jersey where it'is described as very rare and nearly l extinct (Fernald 1950). It has been found in Burlington and Ocean Counties in New Jersey, but has not been found as close to the coast as Forked River (Fairbrothers pers. comm.). Its common. habitat is intensely acid, wet soils and low moist sandy pine barrens (Correll 1950). No specimens were encountered on the site.
48 l 1 l I' . l There.are no specific plant protecti'n o laws for New Jersey, other'than general laws.for landowners. These l general laws essentially state that one cannot remove or
- i. injure a plant without the written consent of the landowner.
A publication has been produced (Fairbrothers and Hough 1973) < that lists' vascular plants _ considered rare or endingered in New. Jersey. .This publication is a collaboration of information by botanists and naturalists. Although the list contains several species recorded in the general vicinity of Forked River, none were encountered on the Forked River site with the exception of Calamovilfa, which has already been discussed. 3
SUMMARY
The Forked-River. site is on the Outer Coastal Plain of New Jersey,'just within the eastern limits of the Pine Barrens.
.The site is relatively flat to gently sloping and is traversed by .two major streams, namely South Branch Forked
; River and Oyster Creek. The soils _are primarily Lakehurst and Atsion sands in the upland areas and Manahawkin muck in-the-slightly lower-lying areas along the twc streams. The
' distribution of vegetation communities on the site was affected by the soil types and slight differences in topographical relief.
Of the total 770 acre site, nearly half of it was occupied by a developed / barren cover type. This cover type ( .was comprised of' barren sand, buildings, parking areas, and
-stored construction material.
[. The largest " natural community" on the site was.a pitch pine forest. This forest type totaled approximately 214 acres, representing nearly 28 percent of the site. It was. subdivided into a pitch pine-oak forest and a pitch pine lowland forest.. The pitch pine-oak forest occurred almost exclusively on the Lakehurst sands, while the pitch pine i,
~ . - . . _- . . . ..- . -
49 lowland forest occurred on the more moist Atsion sands and Manahawkin muck. The two subtypes were physiognomically similar, both being dominated by the characteristic Pine
~ Barrens tree - pitch pine. The trees average & about 10 to 12 meters in height, and 60 and 75 years of age in the pitch pine-oak and pitch pine lowland forests, respectively. The associates of pitch pine differed between the two types, probably as a result of moisture conditions. Post oak and blackjack oak commonly occurred in the drier pitch' pine-oak !
forest, while red maple and tupelo were associates in the i pitch pine lowland forest. Bear oak and heath shrubs, such l as black huckleberry, low blueberry, and dangleberry, ; dominated the lower layers of the pitch pine-oak forest. Dangleberry and black huckleberry also occurred in the
-pitch pine lowland forest, although species characteristic of moist habitat, such as highbush blueberry and swamp honeysuckle, were more abundant. Common herbaceous species -
included teaberry, bracken fern, and cinnamon fern. A cedar swamp community occupied nearly 70 acres or ! 9 percent of the Forked River site. It occurred exclusively on the Manahawkin muck soil, primarily along the South Branch Forked' River. The community was comprised of mature areas (cedar swamp forest) and developmental stages (cedar swamp shrub community). The cedar swamp forest was dominated by relatively tall, dense stands of Atlantic white cedar. The closely spaced treec. formed a closed canopy and allowed little light to ! reach.the lower layers. The low amount of incident solar radiation reaching the lower layers resulted in sparse vegetation growth, especially in the-ground layer. The common shrub and ground layer species were: dangleberry, sweet pepperbush, Atlantic white cedar, leafy-bracted huckleberry, swamp honeysuckle, highbush blueberry, and cinnamon fern.
,---wr, ,-p r r - ,- ---w-rm- e e,< -e v -a--e ,-w-<e m,, w---m --
50 The cedar swamp shrub community is the developmental stage of the cedar swamp forest. It occupied areas where the cedar forest had been cut. This shrub community was
-dominated by a dense shrub layer with some scattered larger trees. Atlantic white cedar, dangleberry, swamp honeysuckle, sweet pepperbush, and leafy-bracted huckleberry dominated the shrub layer. The ground layer of the cedar swamp community had the highest species richness (total number of species) of any community sampled on the Forked River site.
Coast sedge, big wetland sedge, and cinnamon fern were among the dominant ground layer species. Sphagnum moss covered
, much of the ground surface.
Two additional shrub communities occurred on the Forked River site. They were classified as upland and lowland types. Each occupied about 30 acres or nearly 4 percent of the site. The upland shrub community resulted from the cutting of pitch pine-oak areas. The community was dominated by patches of shrubs interspersed with open barren areas and a few larger pitch pines. The dominant shrubs were the same as those indicated for the pitch pine-oak forest. The low]and shrub community was characterized by a !- dense shrub layer, with a few larger pitch pines, red maple,
-and tupelo trees. Leafy-bracted huckleberry and inkberry l were the dominant shrub species. Big wetland sedge, coast sedge, and cinnamon fern were abundant in the rather well-developed ground layer.
A very small sedge savanna occurred on the Forked River site. The area appeared as a small pond during wet periods, but.most of the area became dry by early fall. l An unidentified sedge dominated the area. Water bodies on the Forked River site were assessed
'for aquatic vascular plants. Water club-rush dominated the Oyster Creek stream bed. Toad rush and spike rushes dominated the adjoining banks. The stream bed of South l
l L l
51 l l i Branch Forked River was dominated by ten-angled pipewort. !
' Toad rush, bayonet rush and jointed rush were the common bank species.
None of the species presently proposed to be included in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 have been reported from the Forked River area. None were encountered on the site. Three species under review (but not as yet proposed) for . possible inclusion in this act (curly grass fern, Pine Barrens reed grass, and a rush) have been reported from the Forked River area. Curly grass fern and Pine Barrens reed grass were discovered growing on the site. Curly grass fern was rather abundant in several areas in the cedar swamp shrub community. A small colony of Pine Barrens reed grass was
.found in-an atypical habitat probably created by construction activities. No specific plant species are protected by the State of Ney Jersey. An unofficial list contains a few j' species from the Forked River area. With the exception.of a
- Pine Barrens reed grass, none of these species were *
,[
encountered on the site, j M ! ^J 1 , l-b, 4 M I i i l mm m_
52
-B.- HERPETOFAUNA Amphibians and reptiles represent an important component of!the terrestrial vertebrate fauna. Members of these two j groupsz are generally inconspicuous due to their secretive behavior, but are often very abundant locally in appropriate ,
habitat. Amphibians and reptiles can play an important role, in local food chains, as both predators and prey, and thus in the total energy dynamics of an area. Approximately 53 species of amphibians and reptiles are' reported to occur in the vicinity of the Forked River site (Conant 1975). Efforts of this survey were directed toward determining which species of amphibians and reptiles utilize the site, and to investigate the distribution and abundance of these species.
+
Amphibians and reptiles are permanent residents of an area such as the Forked River site and migratory movements are of short distance. That is, some species of salamanders, < :and most species of anurans, do. exhibit patterns of movement to breeding areasLin spring, and away after breeding activities
~
cease, but these movements are usually quite limited in p distance. sLikewise, during egg-laying for turtles and snakes, L or parturition for some species of snakes, females may move f "to areas'particularly suited for these activities. It'is assumed'that all species found on site have been breeding at
~
least in the. vicinity of the site if not actually on site. The. period of activity and degree of conspicuousness of , amphibians and reptiles varies with each species. The ;
. observation or lack of obs.ervation'of a species during a given season is dependent to a certain extent on the particular l
activities of the individual species, and not on the presence or. absence of.the~-species. Herpetofauna are discussed by taxon in this' report. Data are also summarized by plant l community,.although particular habitat features (ponds, streams, lecotonal areas, etc.) are often more important factors than the plant community. Many species move freely among various I l 1 .
53 cover types and actual locations of sightings do not necessarily typify habitat preference of the species.
- 1. SAMPLING ACTIVITIES The methodology utilized in performing the herpetofauna1 survey is described in detail in the Procedures Manual. In summary, drift fences were open a minimum of four days each month-from April through September, artificial cover grids were checked a minimum of three times per month, and anuran breeding chorus censumes were conducted a minimum of three times per month in April, May and June. Several locations.
on site were trapped for painted turtles and spotted turtles, 4 and each indivivual captured was permanently marked with an identifying number. Hand-captured box turtles were also per-manently marked with identifying numbers. Incidental observa-tions of herpetofauna made by members of the field survey team were also recorded. a . Figure IIB-1 indicates. sampling locations using drift fences, artificial cover grids, and turtle traps. A more detailed figurN showing sampling locations can be found in the Procedures Manual. Table IIB-1 indicates the particular sam-pling methods utilized in various cover types, and Table IIB-2 lists dates during which drift fences were operational during 1978. Sucker grid E was removed because of construction activities after the September, 1978 sampling, and was later reestablished as E' in approximately the same location. Sucker grid F was moved to a new location after the September 1978 sampling. Drift fence #6 was removed after the September, u 1978 sampling due to construction activities. l ' l 1 L 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION '
.Results of the 1978 survey for herpetofauna on the Forked River site are summarized by cover type in Table IIIB-3 This 1 table includes all observations of each species by all sampling methods in various cover types. These numbers reflect observa-tions including recaptures, and not necessarily actual number of individuals. For some species, in particular the eastern l painted turtle, a concerted effort to recapture individuals l
*****.,[,, ,
I,
- o j
- o-
'e { ** .g l
l
. r
!'! I J CJ I
(! g i 9 i BT i ! !
! 9 i
)I
?
l
& i. of ,
j DRIFT FENCES . Acovea caios ,i' E g'/ d aa
/
gTURTLE TRAPPING . STATIONS r l 1 T i 1 J \
! o i i
s i s
=
00 ' i N d ,!
=
,,* ,,j,,
FIGURE IIB-1. HERPET0 FAUNAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978. l
Table IIB-1 Herpetofauna Sampling Methods Used, by Cover Type, Forked River Site, 1978. , Cover Type Sampling Methods Drift Artificial 'Ibrtle Breeding Fences Cover Grids Trapping Chorus Survey Incidental Pitch Pine-Oak Forest 4(b) y- X X Pitch Pine Lowland Forest 1 X X Cedar Swamp Forest X X X Cedar Swamp Shrub Community 1 X X X Upland Shrub Community 1 2 X X
- Lowland-Shrub Community 1 1 X X X
. Sedge Savanna X X i Disturbed Areas (" X X Fire Pond X X X Temporary Ponds X X X
- a. Includes developed / barren and open field communities.
- b. Numbers indicate actual number of sampling locations, X indicates data collection in at least one location in designated cover types.
l 1
I Table-IIB-2 Operational Dates for Drift Fences, Forked River Site, 1978 Month Drift Fence Number ' April May June July August September
=1 17-22 9-13 17-P3 20-25 21-25 7-14 17-22 9-13 17-23 2 20-25 21-25 7-14
- 3. 17-22 9-13 18-24 20-25 21-25 8-15 4 18-22 9-13 17-24 20-25 21-25 8-15 5 18-22 9-13 18-23 20-26 21-25 8-15 6 NC(") NC 17-24 20-25 21-25 8-13
- a. NC= Not constructed at this time i
N r k
Table IIB-3 Summary of Amphibian and Beptile Observations
- by Cover Type. Forked River Site, 1978 Pitch Pitch Cedar Cedar Upland Lowland Pine Pine Swamp Swamp Shrub Shrub Sedge Disturbed Fire Temporary Species Oak Lowland Forest Community Shrub Community Savanna Area Pond Ponds Sala ===Aars Pseudotriton m. montanus ~
Bestern aud salamander 8 1 1 Toads and Frogs Bufo woodhouset fowleri
- i Fowler's toad 55 1 B B 122 7 5 7. B B i '
, Hyla_c. crucifer
- Northern spring peeper B B B B B B B B 4
Myla andersont Pine Barrens treefrog B B B B B B 1 Pseudacris triserista kalai I New Jersey chorus frog B B B B I Rana clamitans melanota Green frog T.B 2.5 B B 5 bb.B B 3. B B Rana sylvatica l Wood frog i 2 X Rana sphenocephala . Southern leopard frog 150 1.B 1 14 21 2.B 39. B B l a. l= Number of observations i B= Breeding chorus, individuels not counted , X= Some observations in cover types occurred in temporary ponds. 1
G-4 w a ;,c V s Table IIB-3 (Cont.) Pitch Pitch Cedar Cedar Upland Lowland Pine Pine Swamp Swamp Shrub Shrub Sedge Disturbed Fire Temporary Species Oak Lowland Forest Shrub Community Community Savanna Area Pond Ponds Turtles Chelydra s serpentina Cossion snapping turtle 3 2 1 % 16 X Clen17s guttata Spotted turtJe 6 1 1 2 X Terrapene c. carolina Eastern box turtle 11 1 3 5 3 3 1 1 X Chryseurs g. picta Eastern painted turtle 1 2 3 96 I Lizards Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus Northern fence lizard 15 3 Snakes Nerodia ~s. s1pedon Northern water snake 1 1 1 X Thamnophis s_. sirtalis Eastern garter snake 1 1 ,
'thannor4its 3. nauritus Eastern ribbon snake Carphophis a. amoenus Eastern vorm snake 1 Coluber c. constrictor Northern black racer -3 1 1 4
Table IIB-3 (Cont.) Pitch Pitch Cedar Cedar Upland Lowland Pine Pine Swamp Swamp Shrub Shrub Sedge Disturbed Fire Temporary Species Oak Lowland Forest Shrub Community Community Savanna Area M Ponds Snakes (Continued) Opheo:1rys aestivus Rough green snake 1 1 Elaphe g. guttata Corn snake 1 Pituophis m. melanoleucas Northern pine snake 1 lampropeltle K. actulus Eastern kin gnake 1 1 1 4 t I
60 was made. For species not being marked, number of individuals cannot be' derived from number of observations. Table IIB-4 and IIB-5 detail the drift fence captures of various species by location of the drift fence and by month, thereby illustrating known concentrations of various species, and elucidating variations in activity exhibited by the different species. Figures IIB-2 through IIB-15 illustrate locations of observations of various species on the site, by number of observations when appropriate, and the distribution of breeding choruses for most species of anurans. Tables IIB-6 and IIB-7 present the data for herpetofauna utilizing artificial cover grids in the same manner as 'd rift fence data were presented. Salamanders Eastern Mud Salamander Ten observations of the species were made in 1978 from three locations on the Forked River site. Additional information on this species is presented in the section on Endangered and Threatened Species. Other Species Another species of salamander likely to be observed on the Forked River site is the northern red salamander (Pseudotriton
- r. ruber). In fact, there is some question as to the identifi-
! cation of the species found on site, due to the similarity of the two species. The mud saltmanders were identified on the basis of eye co3cr and separation of dorsal ground (background) color from color of lower sides and belly (Bishop 1943, Conant 1975). It is possible, however, that both species may be present on site. Toads and Frogs - l Fowler's Toad Fowler's toads were one of the most common and widespread amphibian species observed on the Forked River site (Figure IIB-3). An observation of the species was made in April, but ! breeding activity did not begin full scale until May, and l
i Table IIB-4 Drift Fence Captures, by Location,(~"} Forked River Site, 1978 Species Drift Fence Number Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 captures Eastern mud salamander 7 1 8 Fowler's toad 2 21 16 4 3 52 98 Green frog 1 2 3 44 5 55 Wood frog 1 1 Southern leopard frog 1 10 119 13 13 11 167 Spotted turtle 1 1 Northern fence lizard 1 1 2 Eastern worm snake 1 1 Total Captures 11 32 139 21 61 69 333 a._ See Figure IIB-1 for location of-drift fences l
Table IIB-5 Drift Fence Captures,by Month, Forked River Site,1978 Month Total Species April' May June July August September' Captures Eastern mud salamander 4 1 1 1 1 8 Fowler's toad 1 2 39 10 29 17 98 Green frog 22 8 3 22 55 Wood frog 1 1 Southern leopard frog 86 9 - 72 167 Spotted turtle 1- 1 Northern fence lizard 1 1 2-Eastern worm snake 1 1 U Total Captures 7 3 61 105 43 114 333 1
r% i E i o i
! yp ;, **g el
- s. f '
> c ht WC $
hYh
=
i i l
- V/
- :l I :
A ii s t ,, ! 0 9 ! si : Q No.of Observations /n \ c
% l%
t \ i o 3'
- i;
)
og < I
- i i . :
,.... : l**G2 e1
- /,****) ) i t FIGURE IIB-2. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, EASTERN MUD SALAMANDER, i
i FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
l I***e t ,*** : 4 , r I ***e, g , r 30 s fg h= )_. _m . . ig m D( n 12 1 =I
'Q *i+ = l n j
- i I
- I I
l 1 I A Y I I i 0 2
~
I i Q Na of Observations ', $ ! 3 Breeding Chorus Locations 3
. g l
. r g y 1 E
)
t I o i
)g I '
, i oO t s:
=
o -!g ! ioa. ***a../,;\ jj FIGURE IIB-3. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, F0 E R'S M e FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978. l I
,. '*~~.
, ; ., ,i T4MS CD r
(@b, I ( i 9( I m,D ! j i l i
! i f/ 3
!. p .I A D of /
I:;, g ,5 s 9 i
$*c*.Il.
g 0 D 1j f 7 E \
- t, l 'l ,
I. io... k.,,f,, , , - klW% , l
. 1 FIGURE IIB-4. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, NORTHERN SPRING PEEPER, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
~~
r i,b- % 4:
/h 1 i(. r . ,
r' Ii 4 Ie i CJ I L 9 t n "' ! l
%'\":
I
, ;l
/
- - I
- y , .a I 9 I D
2 : E Breeding Chorus 0 0 I Locations *
< < c :
l ! i i t >
.t
**s, ,
'l ,
i m a-
~ W3h@ f l ,
FIGURE IIB-5. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, PINE BARRENS TREEFROG, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
**\
i: l i !
! O I i l I or ,
l l l'S
}It Q !
,!:: r s :
f>i: 4 1 c -
- l D n -
t "' i l - r' i
- > P :
- / ,
( : 0p : i: ; 0 1
" E.*.*.t"J. " "'
l %/ d0 0 [ l f
- 4 i,
! a *., i =
\
4,
\
g m a-sN% , i FIGURE IIB-6. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, NEW JERSEY CHORUS FROG, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978. L
j'**
}, ,
I I:
'.4 N IM ,
4 elv
}> !
l \ I WN 1 i l ! 9< , i i:* ! h !) i
- 1
!. *D !
5 B".%"'. " "" f % / [oa o fI O no.o<o iioa- F T TN 4 %.
- 1 o 3 **
U,amr.Da@} : N f'iy ) \ FIGURE IIB-7. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, GREEN FROG, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
*h
- i '
)
" I
[ii ) r D ! I.i Q g i N- .!
%'t i 4 l
- i f
I ! A 31 14 T i 0 9 ! O wa. a' a= "*"*"* I
\ g/ d0 0 f
I i }'
=A 1 -
o
- 1 3,
i I) \ , l = 00 \ m d'Ig' \ io... *a aa/..,,, j FIGURE 11B-8. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, WOOD FROG, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
!*D.
3 j 3 ** *** ; ,, a *iif**
) '1 l fi ff.
De 1 7
~'
i
" 3' d
Q( i n, _ iS y i t i: i f ,
/
" D g/ /
=e .
O no. or on..,v.ti . : 0 . 3 p 1 Q Breeding Choru. -
' O O 8
g Location. g
$ 2
- 1 i N i.
e \ I = s*\. o L .=E> i(
' 1 *g g/ '
i oOl : I 5 {W*)}~ m- a e ,,/*** y , , FIGURE IIB-9. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, SOUTHERN LEOPARD FROG, ' FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
l I I o i 1 i. I tt-4s
/i
}Pe t i i: T fi @y Le c .
I Sl N
. 1 .
y i i: a l 3 [ 0 1 [ I 1D
~
" I
!'g/ f l
ba.'o=rvatia-da eo
< i c .
I
, I.
b 3 \
=
b t ry.,, - l FIGURE IIB-10. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, COMMON SNAPPING TURTLE, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978. l l
x , >,,
/, .,
- g -
^,
/, .
'l' g ?
- ~, . ; ,
y 1 ; /,
**Q c
r, i,) y
'fl fi -
( ) c ; d I N-i: .
;- - i
. ~. .. : g
. a
['U t O ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ i U
% D D [
' i e
[ : i ,
~~
p *t,
,-- .= o y g
0 l __ iooo-(
) m .
f,l*y /* 1 FIG 0RE IIB-11. ' LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, SPOTTED TURTLE, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
~
4 1 . ... - - .: - - _, .- _
l
\%.
3 i : f i ' i3 ! r
/!@
i
) fO
~
f.I. Q( t R. i3 i @f i@ i3 74 .
- ,3 '/ !
\ A 14 "f 4
/
i m o O u .:observati !
/ [0'@0 i
l N '
=
h i : t y,, , FIGURE IIB-12. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, EASTERN BOX TURTLE, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
I I !' I i )
' I f
fl L
) 1 r
0 n : Q t Na e Il a
)
,f I :
{p11 5 , h- i l' f j i t i= so . , 0 ! Q wo. .t on==vatia' , n
/
c [0 0 f: l :
\
, o
*.'S .,
E t c, \ ,% 3' \ 1 S.
):!) L oO j. !
j
=
- m i m a-
[,=}M. i 1 FIGURE IIB-13. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, EASTERN PAINTED TURTLE, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
I 1 O
- ts I 1
*.4 i'!: )
tca ; t t j \ i N 'l [M _g! T
! r/ 1 I
/
I ! A li: of i3 f/6 / 0 l Q No. of Observations , k D D
'e i c
I I w g t \ o 4 i
. s
. I 00 i
^
1 h} _ l
=
I** ,f** }, ,
^ '
m e. I , FIGURE IIB-14, i_0 CATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, NORTHERN FENCE LIZARD, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978,
*k':;
i i ,1is f ) ! I C'D
+ N. Water Snake I3= M 2
=
I I U l ' 7"% i
$ E. Garter Snake j =
0 E. Ribbon Snake 3 j E l / I
$ E. Worm Snake \' g
! E
$ N. Black Racer !, [
A Rough Green Snake . E A Corn Snake
% N. Pine Snake i "*
0
+
[
/
E E. Kingsnake I r '@ j I l \ E
! E l g , ,t *.
s : . E o 3 S.g f lk
~
,f..
m e-i FIGURE IIB-15. LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS, SNAKES, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
Table IIB-6 Artificial Cover Grid Captures, by Location,("} Forked River Site, 1978 Species Artificial Cover Grid Total
'A B C D E F Captures Fowler's toad 12 4 52 68 Southern leopard frog 1 1 Northern fence lizard 6 3 1 10 Northern black racer 1 1 2 Eastern kingsnake 1 1 Total captures 13 7 1 8 53 0 82
- a. See Figure IIB-1 for location of grids e
e 6 m' . i. in .in -
Table IIB-7
' Artificial Cover Grid Captures, by Month,-Forked River Site, 1978 Total
. Species April (a) May(a) June July August September Captures i
Fowler's toad 3 8 26 31 68 Southern. leopard frog . , 1 1 Northern fence lizard 1 3 3 2 1 10 Northern black racer 2 2
~
Eastern kingsnake 1 1 Total Captures 1 3 6 12 26 34 82
- a. Data collected only from artificial cover grids A and B e
i
- . . . . - , _m
79 l l continued into June. Breeding activity was most frequently observed in temporary ponds. Tadpoles appeared in May and newly metamorphosed toads were observed in June. The species I continued to be active, as evidenced by drift fence captures (Table IIB-5), through September and may have continued longer. Individuals of this species were captured in all drift fences located in the pitch pine-oak community, the drift fence located in the lowland shrub community, and especially the one in the upland shrub community (Table IIB-4). The one drift fence in the upland shrub accounted for over half (53%) of the toad captures in pitfalls. This illustrates the capacity for toads to utilize drier, upland habitats to a larger degree , than can other anurans that require moister habitats. This capacity is further illustrated by noting behavior of the
- species. Observations from under artificial cover grids indicate that toads utilized this cover, particularly in the two upland shrub areas, to a greater degree than any other species (Table IIB-6). The artificial cover was utilized
. particularly during August and September when substrates were
' dry (Table IIB-7). The species, however, was noted in all communities on site and was widespread in most portions of the site. McCormick (1970) considers this species a frequently encountered species although not among the most common species observed in upland sites in the Pine Barrens.
Comparison of toad captures in drift fence pitfall traps l and recorded rainfall indicated little relationship between number of toads captured and rain on the day of or the day preceding the capture. This might be expected since toads i are more tolerant of desiccation than most other anuran species; therefore their' activity is less dependent on moisture con- < ditions than is the activity of the other anurans on the site. I 1 L
80
~ Northern Spring Peeper This species was observed in 1978 only as a result of breeding chorus censuses on the Forked River site (Figure IIB-4).
Breeding choruses were heard in May and June on large portions of the site in a variety of cover types where temporary ponds, or other wet areas, were present. Most breeding activity occurred in forested wet areas rather than in more open wet areas such as the lowland shrub community or the cedar swamp shrub community. Spring peepers are treefrogs and return to wooded areas after breeding. None were captured in d rift fence pitfalls, observed under artificial cover, or seen incidentally after breeding season. Therefore, post-breeding distribution is unknown; however, it is expected that wooded habitat in the vicinity of breeding areas is utilized during post-breeding seasons. Pine Barrens Treefrog Breeding choruses of one to ten males were heard in five general locations on the site. The species appears to be widespread, though not necessarily abundant on the site. Additional information on this species is presented in the section on Endangered and Threatened Species. , New Jersey Chorus Frog The New Jersey chorus frog appears to be quite uncommon on ! the Forked River site. Breeding choruses of only one or two individuals were heard in April and May from three locations on.the site (Figure IIB-6). The species was not encountered other than during the breeding season. /
.McCormick (1970) reports this species as one of several amphibians which occur along the edge of the Pine Barrens and in some years establish temporary colonies within the region.
'This may be the situation on the Forked River site where l
E
81 habitat is marginal for the species. Green Prog The green frog was widespread and fairly common in appropriate habitat on the Forked River site (Figure IIB-7). Green frog breeding choruses began in May and continued irregularly through August. Green frogs were frequently encountered as pitfall captures in June through September (Table IIB-5). This activity period, especially of newly-metamorphosed individuals, is in general agreement with that found by Hassinger (1972) in New Jersey, and Martof (1956) in Michigan. It is interesting to note that Martof (1956) observed a second pulse of larval transformation through August and September, which may correspond to a second pulse in drift fence captures observed in September on the site. All but one drift fence captured green frogs (Table IIB-4), but they were particularly abundant, as might be expected,from the drift fence in the lowland shrub (drift fence #5) . All green frogs captured in drift fence pitfalls were juveniles. Adults of the species are fairly permanent residents of permanent water bodies, where males establish territories which are defended during the breeding season (Wells 1977). Newly metamorphosed young and older juveniles disperse from ponds,
- especially during wet weather, from June through September.
Particularly noteworthy is the capture of five individuals in the drift fence (#6) located in the relatively dry, sandy, upland shrub community. Comparison of green frog captures in drift fence pitfalls in relation to rainfall indicates a strong tendency for higher numbers of individuals to be captured on days with recorded rain or days immediately following rainy days. Forty-three of 55 captures were made on days with rain or days following rain. This finding is in ag! ' ment with reports of the' species dependence u/an and preference for water.
82 Wood Frog . Three observations of this species were made in April of 1978 (Figure IIB-8). One individual was captured in a
' drift fence (#3) pitfall and two individuals were observed in a small, temporary pond in the northwest portion of the site.
l Since this species breeds very early in spring and breeding activities are of very.short duration (Martof 1970, 5assinger i 1972), choruses were undoubtedly missed in 1978. If there was a large population of this species on site, it is felt that they would have been observed, especially 2 ! the ~ juveniles and newly metamorphosed young, since this species is fairly conspicuous and is easily caught in drift fence
! pitfalls. Since none were captured in late spring and summer
, ' the population of this species is believed to be quite small on site.
Southern Leopard Frog This species was observed in every month from April through September. Breeding choruses of a few males were l . heard-in two locations in both Phy and June (Figure IIB-9), Ibut were not' heard from the location in the northwest corner I of the site where the largest number of captures of the species occurred.- A small pond near drift fence #3 remained wet (throughout spring and summer, and it seemed to be a focal point of much leopard frog activity. Breeding calls of this species do.not carry far; therefore unless one is in.close proximity , to calling sites, the individual-frog'is not heard. Apparently for-some reason, some breeding locations of~this species were missed in May and June 1978. - Hassinger (1972) found' evidence Lof. breeding-by this species in late summer of some. years, probably as a response to. heavy rains. This was not observed in 1978 on the' Forked: River site.- ' !. Southern leopard frogs constituted the most numerous captureslof any' species caught-in drift fence pitfalls, I (Table IIB-4), and were caught in all six drift fences. .The height _of activity, as-indicated by drift fence-captures _+a3 'a r e , c-, q. , - , . , , , - - . wr, r l, c - ~ , - - - + , ,-a,-,.,m.',,- , - - - , , - - . , , ,,,-merw--rwa--v.,,~e,,ae-.,vn-mm
83 appeared to be in July, August, and September (Table IIB-5). Distribution of the species was widespread on the site. Large numbers of individuals of the species were observed in locations fairly distant from potential breeding locations. Southern leopard frogs were observed in all cover types and undoubtedly constitute an important component of the herpetofauna1 community on site. Comparison of rainfall and drift fence pitfall captures indicates increases in activity of this species during or shortly after recorded rain at the Forked River Meteorological Tower. An average of nearly 20 frogs per day were captured on days with rain or following rain, whereas on days without rain an average of eight individuals per day were captured. The relationship of increased movement as a response to rainfall is in agreement with findings by Dole (1965) using trailing devices on leopard frogs in Michigan. Other Species Two other species of anurans, the eastern spadefoot (Scaphiopus h. holbrooki) and the carpenter frog (Rana virgatipes) are likely to be found in the future on the Forked River site. The spadefoot is an explosive breeder after heavy rains. McCormick (1970) reports the species as not rare in upland sites in the Pine Barrens. , Carpenter frogs inhabit lowland areas blanketed by l sphagnum mosses. McCormick (1970) presents distribution maps which indicate records for the species in close proximity to the Forked River site; therefore in the future this species may be recorded on site. 'l i l Turtles Common Snapping Turtle Twenty-six observations of this species were made on the Forked River site from May through September 1978 (Figure IIB-10). L_ _
8k , On the-basis of number of observations, the period of greatest' activity for the species is between June and
; September.
The' majority of' observations of the species were made in the vicinity of the Fire Pond in conjunction with turtle trapping efforts. Size of individuals observed ranged 4 from less than 2 inches (carapace length) to nearly 1 foot in length. The smaller individuals may have been recently ~ hatched. On several occasions, individuals or tracks of snapping turtles were observed far from water bodies, which are the normal habitat for the species. Individuals of the species are'known to move great distances from water in search of more suitable habitat, or in the case of females, in search of nesting locations. In one instance, tracks and partially excavated holes were observed-on a sandy slope just north of South Branch Forked River. Several holes were excavated, but g 4 no evidence of a completed neet was found. #
~
M , . [; Spotted Turtle fl FourLindividuals from two general locations on the Forked [? ' l- River site were permanently marked during 1978. Additional ![ information on_this species is presented in the section on ? Endangered and Th?eatened Species. Box Turtle ~ c; l Twenty-eight observations of this species were made on k Lthe Forked R'iver site.from May through October 1978. The $ species was widely distributed on the site (Figure IIB-12), { I and was observed in nearly all cover types on site, with the pitch pine-oak and pitch pine lowland cover types having the largest number of sightings. Box turtle activity became apparentLin May and continued through October, with the [ largest number of ' observations of the species being made in i June'.(13.out of 28). l
~,
h_,
F 85 V J e ,. Thirteen' individuals ranging in size from 1 3/8 inches to i 5 1/8 inches (carapace length) were permanently marked. Four individuals were recaptured. One individual was captured on three successive days in the same location. Another individual was recaptured 1 1/2 months after initial captur.e in virtually the same location. Two recaptured individuals showed some , movement. One was recaptured approximately three months after initial capture,.in the same cover type (pine forest) a minimum of 700 feet from the original location. Another individual
- - was recaptured approximately 3 1/2 months after initial capture. This individual had moved a minimum of 1100 feet
.from the lowland shrub community to the cedar swamp forest 4
in the southwest portion of the site, crossing Oyster Creek.
' This last individual was one of three different box turtles ' observed in the-same location on three successive days in Octobercindicating a potential hibernaculum site for the species
- at the upland shrub / cedar swamp forest ecotone near this ! location. 4 Eastern Painted Turtle i Most of the observations of this species on the Forked River site were from two generalized locations, the Oyster , Creek / Fire Pond area, and the western portion of South Branch Forked River. By-far, the majority of observations came from the Oyster Creek / Fire Pond vicinity where the trapping program was most intensive (Figure IIB-13). Forty-six individuals ranging in size from 2 3/4 inches to 5L1/2 inches (carapace length) were permanently marked. Captured females exhibited much greater size range (2 3/4- ; i inches to 5 1/2 inches) than did males (3 3/4 inches to 5 g inches). It should be noted that small individuals were not effectively captured in traps.used in this program due to the large mesh size (1 inch) of wire. Eight females were larger
~
L than the-largest male painted turtle captured. This is j i r t l l
.__._____.___.__,._.._,c
86 ; f
- expected, because, as in most turtle species, female painted i turtles generally reach larger size than do males (Carr 1952).
' Of the.46 individuals permanently marked 25 were recaptured at least once, and a total of 44 recaptures were
' made as follows: 13 individuals recaptured once, 8 recaptured
~
twice, 2 recaptured-3 times, one recaptured 4 times, and one i recaptured 5 times. Recapture data indicace that painted turtles, at least some individuals, move freely within the Fire . I Pond.and upstream into Oyster Creek. Fourteen individuals moved either from the southeast to the southwest corner of the 4 Fire Pond, or upstream into Oyster Creek from either of these two locations. Recapture data also suggests that male turtles exhibit more movement than do females, with 8 out of 9
^ recaptured males showing movement between these three locations, and only_6 out of 16 recaptured females showing such movement.
Movement of these Individuals is not to be construed as migration or a directional' trend, but rather perhaps a i behavioralJdifference between the sexes in their activity
- during the period of- May through September. ,
Lizards Northern Fence Lizard A total ~of 18 observations of this species was made on
~
~
i the Forked River site between April and October of 1978 _(Figure IIB-14). The majority of observations (15) were made in or near_the. pitch' pine-oak cover _ type. The other three observations were made in upland shrub. This spe.cies responded I to.the presence!of artificial cover in several locations and i lwas second only to Fowler's toads in frequency of observation
.under artificial cover (Table IIB-6). Ten observations of the
~
[
-species were made under artificial cover, eight of which were
'in May, June'and July (Table IIB-7). Sightings were made in j'
four general locations on site, the three in pine forest being in proximity 4to open areas or cuts. This situation in the , L I 1
= --
wv4-= - y>-ww.,w , ww.,--yi yt=~--*-- -e -,--ri<w-
87 pine forest apparently fulfills requirements for open sunny areas near adequate cover (Smith 1946), as does the upland shrub area in which the species was observed. On the basis of these requirements there are numerous other locations where the species might be found on the Forked River site. Therefore, distribution of the species on site is likely greater than is indicated on Figure IIB-14. According to~ Smith (1946) the eastern pine forests are the optimum habitat of'the northern fence lizard, and according to McCormick (1970) it is one of the most common reptiles in upland sites in the Pine Barrens. Other Species Two other species of lizards are potentially present on the Forked River site. These are the ground skink (Scincella lateralis)and the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus). The ground skink is reportedly (Conant 1962) only locally common in the Pine Barrens. Five-lined skinks generally inhabit cut-over woodlots with much debris. Preferred habitat is usually damp (Conant 1975), therefore there is some possibility of finding these species on site in the future. Snakes Northern Water Snake 7 Three observations, all in May of 1978, of this species were made on the Forked River site (Figure IIB-15). All
-three individuals were found sunning at the edge of a body of l water, and all thrde retreated into the water when approached.
Wright and Wright (1957) review habitat characteristics for the species; habitats are varied, but almost all are
- associated with water in some form. In early spring this species often basks on raised or overhanging objects in j proximity to water, and is therefore fairly conspicuous. The
! -lack of observations other than in May indicates that this i species may_not be very numerous on the Forked River site i L ... a . ,
.- .- . .. . - - - . . = . . - _ _ _
88 even though habitat appears adequate and food sources appear common.- Eastern Garter Snake Two observations of this species were made in June 1978 in two different cover types, upland shrub community and cedar swamp shrub community (Figure IIB-15). Because this species 3- - is -generally not inconspicuous, it is believed that the lack of
' observations indicate the species is uncommon on site. This species is often found under cover objects and it had been expected to utilize artificial cover grids. The fact that no observations of the species were made under cover objects also indicates the species is uncommon on site. l
} Habitat for the species on site appears adequate as do food sources. Garter snakes have been shown (Wassersug and
. Sperry 1977) to be particularly successful in preying on metamorphosing frogs. They are also one of a few species that prey on toads, which are toxic to many species. Because of the abundance of toads =and other species of anurans on site, food i
supplies' appear adequate. Eastern Ribbon Snake One individual of this species was observed sunning on the spoils bank east of the Fire Pond in May 1978 (Figure IIB-15). Like the water snake, this species is most often associated with water and wet areas where preferred prey (frogs,
~
!- fish, salamanders) are found (Wright and Wright 1957). It is possible that the species is more common on site, especially in communities like the' lowland' shrub, than our one observation would indicate. i. Eastern Worm Snake , One individual of this species was captured in September 1978 in a drift fence (#3) pitfall in the pitch pine-oak i
- d. s . v @ os
89 community (Figure IIB-15). Additional information on this species is presented in the section on Endangered and Threatened Species. Northern Black Racer Five observations of this species were made in various I locations in the western portion of the Forked River site. Included in the observations was one juvenile, road-killed in the southwest portion of the site. Additional information on this species is presented in the section on Endangered and Threatened Species. Rough Green Snake 95to observations of this species were made on the Forked River site, one in July and one in' October 1978 (Figure IIB-15). Both observations were made in wooded areas (pitch pine-oak and cedar swamp forest) with thick shrub layers. Several on-site workers have also reported observations of the species in the lowland shrub and other communities. This arboreal species (Wright and Wright 1957) feeds on insects, spiders, snails, and frogs. Because of habitat i requirements,this species might' Utilize large parts of the vegetated portion of the Forked, River site. The species may be quite common on the site with the low l numbers of observations resulting from the difficulty of detecting the species. Green snakes remaining motionless in_ shrubs or vines are easily overlooked, thus reducing l observations, particularly incidental sightings by other personnel. McCormick (1970) reports this species as less frequent than some, but not a rare species in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Corn Snake One observation of the species was made in the pitch pine-oak community on the site. Additional information on this
90 ; i species is presented in the section'on Endangered and > Threatened Species. Northern Pine Snake
'One observation of this species was made in the pitch pine-oak community on the site. It was captured in a mammal i- trap in the southwest portion of the site. Additional information on this species can be found in the section on Endangered and Threatened Species.
Eastern Kingsnake Observations of three individuals of this species were made in widely separated locations on the Forked River site in 1978. Additional information on this species is presented in
'the section on Endangered and Threatened Species.
.Other Species Among'the several other species of snakes that mi~ght be
'found in the future on the-Forked River site, the eastern
' hognose snake (Heterodon' g. platyrhinos) and the milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), are among.the most likely-to be l
! observed. Both species are reportedly (McCormick 1970) frequent in upland areas of the Pine Barrens and distribution maps (Conant 1962) indicate-records of the eastern hognose snake
- . near the Forked River site. . Milk snakes are reportedly l (Zappalorti pers. .comm.) found in the vicinity of the site.
Endangered or' Threatened Species of Herpetofauna One; amphibian species, the~ Pine Barrens treefrog, observed p 'on the Forked River site in 1978 is listed as Endangered by. ; the United States Department of the Interior (Table IIB-8). L However, only the Florida population of the species is
-considered Endangered and has Critical Habitat determined for ,
it'(42fFR'58754-58756). Therefore, the endangered status does i i
.u-
, . - , , , , ~ . , _ . . . - , . . . _ . , - , _ . - . _ _ _ . . , . , _ , , . - , _ _ . _ . , . . . , _ _ . . . _ , . , . . . . _ , . ~ . _
Table IIB-8 Endangered, Threatened, and Status Undetermined Herpetofauna Species Observed on the Forked River Site, March - October, 1978 Spec'ies- Status (*) Comments
. Pine Barrens treefrog Endangered-U.S. Florida populations Endangered-N.J. only are federally Threatened-SSAR endangered. The species is widespread on site although not abundant.
- Eastern mud salamander Threatened-N.J. Observed in.three Peripheral-SSAR locations on site.
Corn snake Threatened-N.J. One observation Threatened-SSAR in western portion of pitch pine-oak
~
forest. Northern pine snake Threatened-N.J. One observation in Threatened-SSAR southwestern portion of pitch pine-oak forest.
' Spotted turtle Undetermined-N.J. Observations from two locations on the site.
Northern black racer Undetermined-N.J. Five observations on site, including a juvenile. Eastern.kingsnake> Undetermined-N.J. Three observations, widely separated on site. Eastern worm snake Undetermined-N.J. One observation in the pitch pine-oak forest,
- a. Source:
U.S. = USDI:1977 N.J. = NJDEP 1979 SSAR = Edwards and Pisani 1976 %--%,** e W s
'l I' E
92
- not opply to ths New Jersey population.
Seven of the 22 species of amphibians and reptiles observed on the Forked River site are found in the official list of endangered, threatened, peripheral, undetermined, declining and extirpated wildlife' species in New Jersey, issued , by the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP 1979) (Table
~
IIB-8).. In addition, a publication of the Society for the Study "of Amphibians and Reptiles (Edwards and Pisani 1976) lists endangered and threatened species in each state. Several species observed on the Forked River site are also included on this list. Pine Barrens'Treefrog
. This species has a disjunct distribution in New Jersey, 7
North and South Carolina, and Florida. The Florida population (federally Endangered) was only recently discovered, and the area occupied by the population has been declared Critical Habitat (42'FR 58754-58756). During the. review period between the proposal to declare the population endangered and the final rulemaking, several comments received by the USDI stressed the need for comparable protection for the New Jersey population (USDI 1977). Therefore,.this species should be considered one of considerable importance on the Forked River site. Pine Barrens.treefrogs were observed only as a result of breeding chorus. censuses in 1978 (Figure IIB-5). Choruses of from'one to ten males were heard in five general locations, with the largest concentrations of calling males being in the vicinity of the sedge savanna. The extended period of chorus activity lasted from May until August.
- i. Like spring peepers, Pine Barrens treefrogs were not encountered as captures in drift fence pitfalls nor under artificial cover grids. Both species are inconspicuous outside
.of' breeding season. The Pine Barrens treefrog appears to be fairly-widespread in appropriate habitat on site, although not-
. abundant. 'Most wet areas, in particular the sedge savanna, i utilized by this species for breeding choruses remained wet throughout the summer. Standing water, although at a lower level than in spring, was noted in the sedge savanna in July, August, i t
L
93 and Saptember'of 1978. Attempts waro made on several occasions to dip net larvae of the species from this location and others where' breeding activity had occurred, but these attempts were unsucceesful in capturing Pine Barrens breefrog tadpoles. Therefore, breeding success in 1978 could not be documented. Eastern Mud Salamander Ten observations of this species were made from March
'through September 1978 (Figure IIB-2). The largest monthly nwnber of observations (4) was made in April indicating early spring activity of this species. The largest number of observations in one place was made as drift fence pitfall captures in drift fence il (Figure IIB-1) located in the
~
pitch pine-oak forest near South Branch Forked River. Observations of this species indicate increased terrestrial activity during or following rainfall. Seven out of nine observations of this species between April and September occurred on days with rain or days after rain as recorded at the Forked River Meteorological Tower. Corn Snake One individual of this species was found in August.1978 in the pitch-pine-oak forest on the westernmost boundary of the site near the Garden State Parkway (Figure IIB-15). In
-addition, an. unidentified snake, possibly of this species, .was observed in the cedar swamp shrub communtiy in May. The species is reported (Wright and Wright 1957) to inhabit a variety ~of cover-types including-pine woods, fields, scrub oak,-cultivated land near buildings, and-other areas disturbed by man. It also reportedly (Conant 1975) spends much time i underground and may therefore be more common in many areas 'than it appears. Much of the-vegetated ~ portion of the Forked River site seems to constitute suitable habitat for the species from the standpoint of vegetation and from the stand-point of availabiltiy of preferred foods such as small mammals, L young birds, and insects. McCormick (1970) reports this species as less frequent than some but not a rare species in upland sites in.the Pine. Barrens.
94 I l Northern Pine Snake One large individual of this species was observed in the
. pitch pine-oak community in the western portion of the site in
< July 1978;(Figure IIB-15).. This individual was caught in a !~ box trap set for mammals, having possibly entered for shelter. In addition, tracks of large snakes, possibly northern pine
-snakes, were observed on several occasions crossing the sand road near the location of capture of this individual. The
~
, speciesiis generally considered an inhabitant of the coastal plain (Wright and Wright 1957). Conant (1975) reports the species as "much addicted to burrowing and so secretive that its presence may be unsuspected even by persons who have lived in the same region with it for years". Conant (1975) reports that the food of pine snakes consists largely of small mammals, but also includes birds and bird eggs, and lizards. Large - a portions of the Forked River site seem to constitute suitable habitat for the pine snake. However, because of its secretive habits, : speculation on the potential abundance of this species
] is difficult. McCormick (1970) reports this species as among
' 9 the most common reptiles'in. upland sites in the Pine Barrens.
- t L.
,f Spotted Turtle Spotted turtles were observed in two general locations on site: the Fire Pond, and the temporary pond in the north-r- west portion of the site near South Branch. Forked River b (Figure IIB-ll). Ten observations of at least four different
[ individuals were made from April through September. Four 4 individuals were permanently marked. All marked individuals l were recaptured at least once, three within one day of initial L marking, and one specimen originally captured in drift fence
#5 in April'was retrapped nearly two months later in the
[ southeast corner of the Fire Pond. 7 The size of marked turtles ranged from 3 1/4 in. to 4 1/4 in. (carapace length). Activity level in this species is reportedly higher in early spring than during other times l _,,,,.-,gw,m- , - , , .on,.-g,..-
.- . - - - = - - - - _ - . . _ - - . - - . .
95 i
, of'the year, or at least the species is more conspicuous
~
L at=this time. Our data indicate some activity in April, May, and June, and then again in September. It appears that during very warm weather the species is relatively inactive. ! These findings are in general agreement with those of Ward et al.(1976)'in their study of microhabitat selection of spotted turtles in Maryland. Northern Black Racer Five observations of this species were made on the Forked River site in 1978 (Figure IIB-15). Four of these observations were made in July and one, a road-killed juvenile, was made in October. Three observations were made in pine forests, one in upland shrub, and one in the grassy area west of the construction site. The species reportedly (Wright and Wright
~
1957) inhabits 'a wide variety of habitats including wet and dry forested and brush areas, grassy fields and swamps, coastal
~ plain environments, and cultivated areas. Because of their wide range of tolerance in habitat requirements, the species l might be expected to be found in almost any location on the site.
L This species reacted to various trapping techniques employed on the Forked River site. One specimen was caught in.a box trap set for weasels, entering it either for the l cover it afforded or in pursuit of the mouse used as bait. The species reportedly (Wright and Wright 1957) feeds on small mammals, as well as amphibians, snakes and lizards. Two
' individuals were observed utilizing the cover afforded by the artificial-cover grids set out in various locations on site.
L _ Eastern Kingsnake Two live individuals of this species were observed on the Forked River site (Figure IIB-15). One large (3 1/2 feet)
. individual was observed sunning on the spoils bank east of the Fire Pond in May. The other smaller (approximately 2 feet) l L
96 l 1 individual was observed in September under artificial cover. Another eastern kingsnake, partially eaten, was found in the pitch pine lowland forest near Oyster Creek. Although a terrestrial species, preferred habitat descriptions (Wright and Wright 1957, Conant 1975) usually include reference to proximity of water. Wooded, brushy, and open areas, especially in the eastern seaboard's pine belt (Conant 1975) are inhabited by this species. Preferred foods are quite variable and include other snakes, turtle eggs, small mammals, j birds, lizards, amphibians, and invertebrates. It appears l that.much of the Forked River site constitutes suitable habitat for this species and that potential prey are available. l Eastern Worm Snake One individual of this species was captured in September 1978 in a drift fence (#3) pitfall in the pitch pine-oak com-munity (Figure IIB-15). This specimen was an adult of unknown sex approximately 10 inches long. This species is reportedly (Wright and Wright 1957) extremely fossorial but is occasionally found under surface objects (Barbour et al. 1969). Food in-l cludes earthworms and various kinds of insects (Conant 1975). l 3
SUMMARY
Twenty-two species of herpetofauna (one salamander, seven anuran, four turtle, one lizard, nine snake) were observed on the Forked River site in 1978. It is anticipated that perhaps several other species may be added to the list of inhabitants of the site in future years. -Data collected on the site'are in general agreement with regional accounts concerning herpetofauna of the Pine Barrens (Conant 1962, McCormick 1970), with the exception of the presence of the i eastern mud salamander. Most pacies found to be common on the site are reported as such in the literature. L Anuran activity, particularly in spring, is concentrated [ in or near water. Outside of the breeding season, the toads and treefrogs are not restricted to water or wet areas. wy-^ -
,% yww-+ 4--i e * -= y
97 True frogs are also often found away from water outside of breeding season. Turtle activity, except for that of the box turtle, is concentrated in or near ponds and streams. Snake observation' are widely distributed and, in general, show no patterns of concentration of highly preferred habitat. Construction activity influences the herpetofauna on the site in a variety of ways. Most species are adversely affected by vegetation removal and disturbance of natural communities because this removes habitat. However, several species benefit, at least in some way, from disturbance. Fowler's toads, northern spring peepers, and southern leopard frogs utilized wet, open areas which resulted from construction activities. Northern fence lizards seem to benefit from or are at least found in forested areas that have been disturbed by some type of clearing of vegetation. Observations of snakes are often made at ecotones, such as along the spoils bank east of the Fire Pond, and along road cuts and forest edges. The herpetofauna of the Forked River site includes eight species that are considered endangered, threatened, or of ! undetermined status by various authorities. This high number of noteworthy species is due in part of the uniqueness of the Pine Barrens. This type of habitat, and accordingly some of the amphibians and reptiles that inhabit it, are restricted to this region. 6 E
98 C. AVIFAUNA Avian populations in temperate North America vary considerably from season to season as birds migrate from
; breeding to wintering grounds and back each year. This causes the bird species and number of individuals at any given point to vary, especially when, as is the case with the Forked River site, a point is located within a major migratory flyway.
Avian populations on the Forked River site can generally be divided into four groups; spring migrants, breeding and summer residents, fall migrants, and winter residents and visitants. Permanent resident birds would be part of all four general groups. The avian populations on Forked River were sampled by methods which were designed to collect representative data for each'of these seasonal populations.
- 1. SAMPLING ACTIVITIES Avifauna were sampled on the Forked River site from April 1978 through January 1979 using a variety of sampling techniques.
Techniques incorporated to sample populations were the strip-count method in all seasons, the breeding bird census during the nesting period, and the winter bird census during the wintering period. The permanent strip-count locations, all of which were sampled during every season, as well as several frequently sampled additional transects, are shown in Figure IIC-1.- A more detailed figure showing sampling locations can be found11n the Procedures Manual. Details on the seasonal sampling
' follow.
l L Spring ! Spring sampling for avifauna consisted of censusing for owls and recording other nocturnal species during April and May, and strip counting in major plant communities during May. In addition, breeding bird plots were established for censusing during the second quarter. On the nights of April 19 and 21 and May 10 and 23, 1978, an observer recorded the species of birds that were heard
- 4 X4M K
1
~3/ -
o x X . 3 H g'* ,
~.l %,
8
- 9 L I E f!
i i m' - I y!J ! 3 muuEN f.A x j/ I I ! 0 - a.,,[ i A-U PERMANENT : 0 8 I l TRANSECTS e l X EXTRA TRANSECTS, FREQUENTLY SAMPLED e kl 0 0 f
< e 3 -
r - 2 S ,
.t i
= l m e-
** t FIGURE IIC-1. LOCATIONS OF STRIP-COUNT TRANSECTS, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978-1979.
100 calling during a period of two hours after the first birds began to call. On the nights of April.19 and 21, tape recorded . calls of.a screech owl, barred owl, and great horned owl were } played in each wooded area on the_ site, inforder to elicit a 4 response from any owls that were present on the site. Other nocturnal species heard were also noted. , During the period of May 22 to 28, strip counts were i conducted. A minimum of seven-repetitions were made in each plant community. Sixteen repetitions were made in the pitch t pine forest . community (including pito'h pine-oak and pitch pine , .logland) which is the plant community covering the largest 3
; portion of the Forked River site.
L bummer
- Summer sampling for a'vifauna was conducted during two periods.. .Bieeding. birds were sampled during ' June; summer birds
' ~ were sampled.using the strip-count method during August. Incidental obser.vations were recorded throughout the month of July, in addition to the above-mentioned periods. i Six breedin's bird plots (Figure IIC-2) were sampled L using the^territoi'ial' male mapping method-during the period
-of; June 17 to June 28, 1978. Detailed methodology is described 4
'in the Procedures Manual. 'Three plots Vore censused in the pitch pine'-oak community, arid one ' each wasIciensused in the cedar'sNamp,: lowland shrub, and upland shrub , communities.
7 During the period of August 1,to August 8, strip counts , were. conducted. A minimum of 12 repetitions were made in each plantf' community. Thirty-four. repetitions were made in the pitch' pine forest community (includilig pitch pine-oak and pitch >
- p[i e lowldi$d)~. f , . , ,
f37f'
-dj ' W
; Fall- ~P / -
<" V
- Fall. sampling for-avif'auna was conducted during two s - .- s f *pieri'ods., September 7ft'o September 12 and September 23 to h
~. ,
3 [ n ~
?
-m
, ; H. 4* f O g ** .
- Tm. -w- w
.-<-,,-*._,,-.e.,-,,.. ye t.,. .w--, .-..c-e k ,v.-- .-----,e.<- -, s . .,,, -,-e--,-, -.e,my,--,,-,-c.,we---,.-
j *****. ,,, l . ,' ***. , i o l l r t, 4a
/:
i: r I I CD r' I 4
' I D- @
l d -: im p , si i y Uf f ,
! q v. ' I D
g I I OO D !
@ .I g PITCH PINE-OAK [ ((
l ' '
$ CEDAR SWAMP g o q
$UPLANDSHRUB h ) !
$ LOWLAND SHRUB 00 '
~
~
%f I
~ -' .
~ ,j
' .g.,*) ) ' FIGURE IIC-2. LOCATIONS OF BREEDING AND WINTER BIRD CENSUS PLOTS, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978-1979.
102 September 27Q 1978. Incidental observations were also recorded
- en various dates between August 1, 1978 and October 24, 1978.
4 During the two September sampling periods, strip counts were conducted. A minimum of 11 repetitions were made in each plant community. Forty-six repetitions were made in the pitch pine forest community (including pitch pine-oak and pitch pine lowland). Winter Winter samp, ling for avifauna consisted of censusing for owls, winter bird censusing within plots, and strip counting in;each major plant community. Winter bird plots were censused and strip counts were conducted during December and January.
' Owls were censused on one night in January. Incidental observations.were made:during both sampling. periods and I
various dates during February. j Winter strip counting was conducted during two periods, ,
' December 13 to December 20, 1978 and January 15 to January 18, 9
. 1979 A minimum of 12 repetitions were made in each plant y community. Forty-three repetitions.were made in the pitch ;
p - l pine forest community. Winter, bird censuses were conducted .
-during these periods in the same plots used for breeding bird 'O censuses'(Figure IIC-2). Detailed methodology is described ,
in.the Procedures Manual. ,
- 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
l Spring - Nocturnal Census i yNo owls were recorded on the Forked River site during the A l sIrinEsampling.- One owl .(barred or. great horned) ,was heard' calling-from.across tha Garden'iState Parkway on April 19, but could not be iden 'fied due to the considerable distance , l "between the obret or .J the-bird.
;Five specier of crepuscular birds were noted on the site.
The.mosticommon was the whip-poor-will which was heard calling h
+ v, % 4 - v P p'eM---P-T ' -- h- T---TTF T " '
- ngrW W '*W-
103
- primarily from the pitch pine forest but also in the cedar swamp and lowland shrub communities. .This species, along with the. common nighthawk, was also observed feeding upon flying insects at-dusk around the lights in the construction area. Several common snipe and American woodcock and a single chuck-will's-widow were also'noted. The first two species were heard primarily in the lowland shrub and the cedar swamp communities. The latter species was heard only on the night Lof April:19 in the cedar swamp forest along South Branch Forked River near the site of the Energy Spectrum Building.
Spring - Strip Counts
'Results of spring st-ip counting are presented in Table IIC-1. . Thirty-eight species of birds were-observed during strip' counts. During the months of March, April, and May an additional 40. species were noted incidentally. These species-are listed in Table IIC-2.
Pitch-Pine Forest Community Twenty species were recorded during strip counting in the pitch pine forest community. The rufous-sided towhee was the most abundant species (17.7 birds /hr.). Other common species included-the prairie warbler.(11.6 birds /hr.), black-and-white warbler (5.3 birds /hr.),Rcommon yellowthroat (4.3 birds /hr.),
~b lue jay (4.0 birds /hr.~), and the. pine warbler (3.1 birds /hr.).
All of these species are' common to the pine-oak areas of New Jersey, and the' rufous-sided towhee is reported to.be the most abundant bird ~of the New Jersey pine barrens (Leck 1975). Six species (common crow, f4sh crow,-American robin, pine warbler, ovenbird, and-American redstart) were encountered during' strip counting.only in this community, although incidental observations were made of each of these species in Vi :other communities. The common crow, fish crow, and American
' robin'can be. expected'to occur regularly in any of the plant communities.during spring migration as well as other times of a . ac . . . .
Table IIC ' Total 8ightings and Birds per Nan-hour by
. Plant Cossamity, Forked River Site, May 22-28, 1978 Pitch Pine Forest Cedar Swanto Upland Shrub Lowland Shrub Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr.
Anas platyrhynchos 5 2.0 Mallard Actitis macularia 1 0.k.
-Spotted Sandpiper !
l Zenaida macroura 0.8 2 Mourning dove 2 0.3 2 07 Colaptes auratus Commeon flicker 5 0.8- 6 1.2 Tyrannus tyrannus . Eastern kingbird T 1.4 1 0.3 1 0.4 i l l Mriarchus crinitus i Great crested flycatcher 1 0.2 2 0.4 Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Rough-winged swallow 8 3.2 l Hirundo rustica 2.0 Barn swallow 5 Iridoproene bicolor I Tree swallow 8 3.2 Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay 2h 4.0 10 2.0 1 0.3 1 0.4 Corvus brachyrhynchos Comunon crow 5 0.8
t ' Tab 12 IIC-1 (cont.) Pitch Pine Forest Cedar Swamp Upland Shrub Lowland Shrub Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Corvus ossifragus Fish crow 1 0.2 Parus carolinensis l Carolina chickadee 11 1.8 2' O.h 5 1.7 l Troglodytes aedon House wren b 07 1 0.2 i ! Mimus polyglottos Mockingbird 2 0.3 3 0.6 2 0.8 Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird 5 0.8 12 2.h 13 h.5 8 3.2 Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher 2 0.3 1 0.2 2 07 Turdus migratorius American robin 1 0.2 Bombycilla'cedrorum Cedar waxwing 1 0.2 5 2.0 Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler 32 53 3 1.0 Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler 1 0.2 7 2.8 Dendroica pinus Pine warbler 19 3.1 Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler 70 11.6 7 1.h 15 52
Tabls IIC-1 (cont.) Pitch-Pine Forest Cedar Swamp Upland Shrub Lowland Shrub Total. Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird 5 0.8 Oporornis philadelphia Mourning warbler 2 0.7 Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat 26 4.3 57 11.4 6 2.0 43 17 0 Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's warbler 7 2.8 Setophaga ruticilla American redstart 1 0.2 Agelaius phoeniceus ' Red-winged blackbird 15 3.0 2 07 45 17.8 Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle 1 0.4 Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird 4 0.8 Carduelis tristis American goldfinch 1 0.2 Pipilo erythrophthalmus Rufous-sided towhee 107. 17 7 11 2.2 32 11.1 Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow 2 0.8 Spizella pusilla Field sparrow 8 1.3 1 0.2 18 6.3
r-
, ' Tab 13 IIC-1 (cont.)
Pitch Pine Forest Cedar Swamp Upland Shrub ~ Lowland Shrub Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr Zonotrichia leucophrys
' White-crowned sparrow ,
1 0.4 Melospiza georgiana Swamp sparrow 13 51 Melospiza melodia
. Song sparrow 19 3.8 5 1.T 11 .4.3
# rA 1
I l
,e - a,. a & - x G Tablo IIC-2 Incidsntal Sightings of Birds Not Recorded in Strip Counts, i Forked River Site, April-May, 1978 Podilymbus'podiceps Philohela minor
-Pied-billed grebe American woodcock Ardea-herodias Capella gallinago Great blue heron Common snipe Butorides virescens Tringa solitaria Northern green heron Solitary sandpiper Florida caerulea Tringa melanoleuca Little blue heron Greater yellowlegs Egretta thula Tringa flavipes Snowy egret Lesser yellowlegs Nycticorax nycticorax Larus marinus Black-crowned night heron Great black-backed gull Botaurus lentiginosus Larus argentatus American bittern Herring gull Branta canadensis Larus delawarensis Canada goose Ring-billed gull Anas rubripes Larus atricilla T ack duck Laughing gull
'Aythya valisineria Columba livia Canvasback Rock dove Bucephala clangula Caprimulgus carolinensis Common goldeneye Chuck-will's-widow Mergus serrator Caarimulgus vociferus Red-breasted merganser ship-poor-will Cathartes aura Chordeiles minor
. Turkey vulture Common nighthawk Accipter striatus Megaceryle alcyon Sharp-shinned hawk Belted kingfisher 1. Buteo .iamaicensis- Contopus virens
-Red-tailed. hawk Eastern wood pewee - Falco sparverius Eremophila alpestris American-kestrel Horned lark Colinus virginianus Riparia riparia Bobwhite Bank swallow Charadrius vociferus Progne subis
, Killdeer Purple martin 4
, . - , - - - ,_,,,m., . - + ,_,-.n-, .. - ,, -.e+.. --.y ,,, , m.,. - , , ,,,- ,..c .. . ,-, w. r
Table IIC-2 (Cont.) Sitta canadensis Red-breasted nuthatch Catharus guttata
. Hermit thrush Sturnus vulgaris Starling Dendroica virens Black-throated green warbler i
i
110 the year, while-the ovenbird and American redstart should
-occur in'any area where'understory vegetation is dense. While the' pine warbler occurs in other. plant communities, it was
. generally. associated with the dry pine areas. Bent (1953) characterizes this species as being associated with pitch LpineL(Pinus rigida).
Cedar Swamp Community Eighteen species of birds were noted in the cedar swamp community. The most common species was the common yellowthroat (11.4 birds /hr.). This species was associated with the moist,
- brushy thickets or marshy areas in the cedar swamp community.
Also associated with such habitat were the red-winged blackbird (3'.0 birds /hr.) and the gray. catbird (2.4 birds /hr.). Due to;the irregular shape of cedar swamp areas and a mixture of bordering plant communities,'a considerable amount and mixture of ecotonal areas were present. Such areas provided suitable
. habitat:for such species as the song sparrow (3.8 birds /hr.)
-and eastern kingbird (1.4 birds /hr.)
Two species (American goldfinch and brown-headed cowbird) , were;noted during strip counting only in this community. [ However.. incidental observations of both of these species were made-regularly in all other plant communities. I l
. Upland Shrub Community p Fourteen species of birds were observed in the upland
. shrub community during spring. This was the least number of
- species observed in any plant community. HThis was attributable both to the relatively'small amount of this community on the
-Forked-River' site and to the sparseness of vegetation,found in upland 1 shrub areas.
, Pitch: pine and scrub oaks were common in upland shrub areas and provided habitat for rufous-sided towhees (11.1 birds /hr'.)'and prairie warblers-(5.2 birds /hr.), both of which were common species of the pitch pine forest community. L W~ .T W 1 s.
. _ _ ~ . . .=_ _ __
111 Other common species in the upland shrub community included fthe' gray catbird-(4.5 birds /hr.) and common yellowthroat
.(2.0 birds /hr.)'of the densely vegetated areas, and the field sparrow (6.3 birds /hr.) which was associated with open
, shrub areas. I The mourning warbler was the only species. observed in !
'this plant community that was not seen elsewhere. The mourning !
- warbler is an uncommon species of heavy underbrush (Robbins et al=. 1966) and was considered uncommon or rare as a spring migrant on the' Forked River site.
J Lowland Shrub Community Twenty species of birds were noted during strip counting
'in the lowland shrub community during spring. The most common
- species in the lowland shrub was the red-winged blackbird
'(17.8 birds /hr.). This species is abundant in a wide variety 2
of grass, marsh, and shrub habitats and-is often considered the j > most abundant-North American bird. The second most common species in the lowland shrub community was the common i Lyellowthroat-(17.0 birds /hr.), which found-ideal habitat _ in this plant community. Robbins et al. (1966) describe this ! cspecies as being abundant in moist grassy and shrubby areas. A number of species that were observed in the lowland shrub g community were_ generally found only in this community, or can
' be expecte'd to utilize this plant community far more than any other on the Forked River site. These species included the j
- swamp sparrow'(5.1 birds /hr.), mallard (2.0 birds /hr.), and I spotted sandpiper 1(0.4. birds /hr.). All three of these species l
were strongly associated with the Fire Pond, Oyster Creek, or 1 the marshy or wet shrubb'y areas bordering the pond or_ stream. j Another group of birds associated with the lowland shrub j' . wasLthe swallows that feed on. insects in flight over the Fire p
- Pond, Oyster. Creek, and the surrounding habitat. Three species-(rough-winged, barn, and tree swallows) were observed l-L i
H _
..n ne
11. L at a' combined rate of 8.4 birds /hr. Also incidentally observed feeding in. flocks with these species were two other
-swallow species,'the bank swallow and purple martin.
Other species that were common in the drier shrub areas lof the lowland shrub' community included the song sparrow (4.3 birds /hr.), gray catbird (3.2 birds /hr.), yellow warbler (2.8 birds /hr.) and cedar waxwing (2.0 birds /hr.). All of 'these birds 'are common species lof shrub habitats in. l much of North America. One' migrant warbler. species (Wilson's warbler) was observed only.in the lowland shrub community. A fairly common q northern species that is associated with thickets, especially willows (Robbins et al. 1966), the Wilson's warbler is only a migrant in New Jersey. Summer - Breeding Bird-Censuses y Tables IIC-3, IIC-4, and IIC-5 present the estimated number of breeding pairs of birds by species within each~ plot.
;; ~During the census period 34 species were recorded within the O breeding bird plots. Table IIC-6 lists the 12 species that i
N 'were observed in.other areas of the site during this period; i- ,
! however,:these~ species were observed in such low numbers
.that it is felt that they either were not breeders on the site or were not a significant component of the breeding bird o population of the Forked River site.
a: j1 Pitch Pine Forest Community The breeding bird populations of the pitch pine forest were censused in three pitch pine-oak plots and the results i are indicated in Table IIC-3 Plots are numbered 1, 2 and 3 and are~approximately 16, 18, and 15 acres respectively. The number of_ breeding species ranged from 9 to 13 per plot with a. total of 16 different specibs recorded as breeders 4 in at least one of the.three plots. The rufous-sided towhen was = the most common and evenly distributed species -among ar.d L
' w a .-
i e--= "- r y = ~ -e-- , . - - we. . , ,- =v er -w i e--.- -- ee-. e e- e em%, e v--et- - v- ..e-*---
l Table IIC-3 . Estimated: Breeding Bird Pairs, Pitch Pine-Oak Plots, Forked River Site, June, 1978 Estimated' Number of Breeding Bird Pairs ")
~
Pitch pine- Pitch pine- Pitch pine-Species Oak Plot #1 Oak Plot #2 Oak Plot #3 Colinus virginianus Bobwhite- + +
- Zenaida macroura Mourning dove 1 1 1 Coccyzus erythrootbalmu.s Black-billed cuckoo + ,
Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will N N N Chordelles minor Common nighthawk 1 Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird + 15 Myiarchus crinitus
- Great crested flycatcher 1 +
Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay 2 1 i Corvus ossifragus Fish crow 1
- a. Birds that were recorded but not as-breeders within the plot are noted with a plus sign (+). Nocturnal species are designated.as N and are considered as breeding within the. plots although numbers cannot be: estimated.
1
Table IIC-3 (cont.) Estimated Number of Breeding Bird Pairs (") Pitch pine-. Pitch pine- Pitor, pine-Species Oak Plot #1' Oak Plot #2 Oak Plot #3 Parus carolinensis Carolina chickadee 2 1 1 Mimus polyglottos Mockingbird + + Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird + + Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher ~ 3 2 Turdus migratorius-American robin + + + Dendroica pinus Pine warbler 5 4 3 Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler 4.5 8 10.5 Sniurus aurocapillus Ovenbird + + Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat 3.0 Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird 1 1 Pipilo erythrophthalmus Rufous-sided towhee 8.5 8 10.5
Table IIC-3 (cont.) Estimated Number of Breeding Bird Pairs ("} Pitch. pine- Pitch pine- Pitch pine . Species Oak Plot.#1 Oak Plot #2 Oak Plot #3: Spizella pusilla Field. sparrow 2 1.5 Melospiza melodia - Song sparrow 05 Estimated Total Pairs- 28.0 31.0 31.5 Total No. Breeding Species 10 13 9-u__.____________._______.________.______.____._____________ _ _ _ _
Table IIC-4 Estimated Breeding Bird Pairs, Cedar Swamp Community Plot, Forked River Site, June 1978 Estimated Number of Breeding Pairsta)
' Species Cedar Swamp Community Plot Butorides v. virescens Northern green heron 1 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard +
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove 2 Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird 3 Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay 1 Parus carolinensis Carolina chickadee + Mimus polyglottos ! Mockingbird 0.5
~Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird +
l Toxostoma rufum
-Brown thrasher 0.5 Turdus migratorius_
l American robin + i l Sturnus vulgaris 1 Starling + i l Bombycilla cedrorum. ) Cedar waxwing + [ Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler + l Geothlypis trichas Common-yellowthroat 2.5
-a. Birds that were recorded but not as-breeders within the plot are noted with a plus sign (+).
l' u
1
' Table IIC 4 (cont.)
of Estimated Breeding Numbep Pairs sa ) Species Cedar Swamp Community Plot 1 Caprimulgus vociferus 1 Whip-poor-will + Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird 4.5 Molothrus ater , Brown-headed cowbird + l Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle 1 Pipilo erythrophthalmus Rufous-sided towhee 1 Carduelis tristis American goldfinch + Melospiza melodia Song sparrow 3.5 Estimated Total Pairs 20.5 Total No. Breeding Species 11
Table IIc-5 Estimated. Breeding Bird Pairs, Lowland Shrub and Upland Shrub Plots, Forked River Site, June, 1978 Estimated Number of Breeding Bird Pairs (a)
. Upland Lowland Species Shrub Plot Shrub Plot Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron +
Anas platyrhynchos , ..
"^
D ' ^- ~_ . , " Mallard *.~... ..
+
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove + Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird 05 1 Myiarchus crinitus Great crested flycatcher 05 Parus carolinensis Carolina chickadee 0.5 Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird 3 14 Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher + Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler 0.5
- a. Birds that were recorded but not as breeders within'the plot are noted with a plus sign (+).
- u. . .. _ . .
. Table IIC-5 (cont.)
Estimated Number of Breeding Bird Pairs-Upland Lowland' Species Shrub Plot Shrub Plot Dendroica petechia 2 Yellow warbler Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler 3
-Geothlypis trichas 13 Common yellowthroat 1.5 Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird 5 Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird 1 Cardinalis cardinalis Cardinal +
Pipilo erythrophthalmus Rufous-sided towhee 5.5 Spizella pusilla Field sparrow 1.5 Melospiza georgiana Swamp. sparrow 5 l Melospiza melodia Song sparrow 0.5 3 i i
s r i a P d r t i o . B l dP 5 g n . n ab 3 8 i lu 3 d wr e oh e LS r B f o r e b m u N
)
. d t e n t o a -
c m t ( i .o t l 5 s P 5
- E d .
C nb 7 0 I au 1 1 I lr ph e US l b a T s e i c e p s r S i a g _ P n i l d a e t e s o r e T B i c d . e e o p t N S a m l i a t t s o _. E T
t Table IIC-6 Incidental Species Seen During the Breeding Bird Census Period, Forked River Site, June 17-28, 1978 Casmerodius albus
' Great egret Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Larus'argentatus Herring gull Larus delawarensis Ring-billed gull Larus atricilla Laughing gull Eremophila'alpestris Horned lark Iridoprocne bicolor Tree swallow Hirundo rustica-Barn swallow-Sturnus vulgaris Starling Passer domesticus ;
House sparrow t Piranga olivacea - l Scarlet tanager l l J
122 4 within the plots; 27 pairs nested in the three plots. Thus, the towhee was considered to'be the most abundant breeding species-on the site. As previously noted, Leck (1975) reported this species as the most abundant species in the New' Jersey Pine Barrens. inte prairie warbler (23 pairs) was recorded as the second most common breeding species while the pine warbler (12 pairs) was the third most common. This latter species typically breeds earlier in.the spring (Leck 1975) and therefore-its density may have been underestimated. During future' years some breeding bird census repetitions will be conducted earlier in the season to-better estimate the abundance of this species. Only.three other species (mourning dove, whip-poor-will, and Carolina chickadee) were noted in all three
. pitch _ pine-oak plots. The brown thrasher and field sparrow were found in two of the three. plots; however,-these two species were generally as evenly distributed over the pitch pine-oak areas as were the-three previously mentioned species.
One' species in particular reflected habitat differences among the three plots. The three~ pair of common yellowthroats that were recorded in Plot #3 were associated with dense
. shrubby areas. 'This species would be expected in such habitat and would also be expected to be more common in the pitch pine: lowland areas where dangleberry; black huckleberry, sweet pepperbush,t highbush blueberry, and other shrubs form dense shrub-patches.
l-Cedar _-Swamp' Community The breeding bird census results for the cedar swamp community' plot-(17 acres),which included cedar shrub and cedar forest areas,.are presented in Table IIC-4. Eleven
- l. species were recorded as nesting in the plot with a total population _of 20.5 pairs of birds. The red-winged blackbird (4.5 pairs),. song sparrow (3.5 pairs), and eastern kingbird l
i-if
123 (3 pairs) accounted for 54 percent of the breeding bird population in this plot. The common yellowthroat (2.5 pairs) and mourning dove (2 pairs) were the only other species for which more than one pair of breeding adults were recorded. The high water level within this plot probably reduced ; breeding bird populations. Ground-nesting species such as l rufous-sided towhees, song sparrows, and black-and-white !
. warblers would possibly have been numerous in this plot if such a large portion of the ground were not inundated by water.
A number of birds were associated with the ecotones within and along the edge of the plot. The eastern kingbird and mockingbird were strongly associated with the ecotone created by this community and the transmission line originating at the Oyster Creek Power Plant. The song sparrows were found.mostly along the edge of the cedars near the road to the Forked River construction site. Upland Shrub Community The upland shrub area was the smallest of the breeding !' bird-plots (10 acres). A total of 17.5 pairs comprised of
-10 species were recorded as breeding birds (Table IIC-5).
However, four'of these species (eastern kingbird, Carolina chickadee, black-and-white warbler, and song sparrow) had only portions of their territories within the plot. In fact, i ! of these-four species, only the song sparrow was suspected of actually having its nest within the plot boundaries. The rufous-sided towhee (5 5 pairs) was the most common l. breeder in the plot. The_ gray catbird (3 pairs) and the prairie warbler (3 pairs) were also common in the plot. The ! towhee and prairie warbler were associated with the pitch pine-oak areas of the shrub community. The catbirds were
- associated with denser shrub areas, such as a thick stand of winged sumac (Rhus copallina), and the border along the adjacent cedar community.
124 Lowland Shrub Community The breeding bird composition of the lowland shrub plot (15 acres) is given in Table IIC-5 This plot had the lowest number of breeding species,-and yet the highest number of breeding pairs. The common yellowthroat accounted for a large proportion (390 of the breeding bird pairs. The dense shrub layer composed of. leafy-bracted huckleberry, leatherleaf, inkberry,;; swamp honeysuckle and highbush blueberry provide good. habitat.for this species. Red-winged blackbirds were also common in this shrubby vegetation, particularly along Oyster Creek and at the edges of the Fire Pond.
-Species such as.the gray catbird and yellow warbler were
~
- associated with clumps of black gum, sweet bay, and red maple.
~Along.the stream.and near the Fire Pond, swamp sparrows
.were. generally found along the edge of black gum clumps within the; plots. . Song sparrows were typically associated with the shrub edge along the spoil' area where erosion had resulted "in a1 thinning of the shrubs.
Avian Diversity Diversity values' calculated for each of the plots
' (Table IIC-7). indicated that the diversity of the avian
- populations: was generally low in all communities. The values for: pitch pine-oak (2.79, 3 01, and 2.39) and cedar (3.13) plots were lower than values found by Tramer (1969) for coniferous forests (3 53'I 0.14), mixed forests (3 92 I 0.14),
~ or upland deciduous forests (3.82 I 0.08). However neither pitch pine-oak nor cedar communities fit very well into Tramer's categories; since these' communities are each strongly dominated by one or two plant species and are-simpler in structure'than:Tramer's. broad categories, avian diversity values for the. plots can be expected to be lower. MacArthur and MacArthur (1961) showed that,-in. temperate regions, bird species diversity is correlated to foliage height h -
Table IIC-7 Avian Population Diversity Values (H') for the Breeding Bird Census Plots, Forked River Site, June, 1978 H' Pitch pine-oak #1 2.79 Pitch pine-oak #2 3.01
- Pitch pine-oak #3 2.39 Cedar Swamp Community 3.13 Upland Shrub. Community 2.83 Lowland Shrub Community. 2.51 1
l
126 diversity. The plant communities on the Forked River site, as'elsewhere in the Pine Barrens, have lower foliage height diversity than most of the communities in Tramer's categories, thus accounting for the relatively low avian diversity observed. Diversity values for the upland shrub (2.83) and the lowland shrub (2 51) are also lower than the value for shrubland (3.14 I 0.16) found by Tramer. The smaller size of the site shrub plots may account for their lower diversity. These diversity values will be of greater value when used in future years to monitor the structure of avian populations within each plot. These indices are based upon species richness and evenness of distribution within a census, and therefore can be helpful in detecting changes in avian population structure due to habitat changes. Summer - Strip Counts Results of the summer strip counting are presented in Table IIC-8. Forty species of birds were observed during strip-counts. During the months of June, July, and August an additional ten species were noted incidentally (Table IIC-9). Pitch Pine Forest Community - i Twenty-three species were recorded during strip counting in the pitch pine forest community, which includes both pitch pine-oak and pitch pine lowland areas. As was the case in spring, the rufous-sided towhee far outnumbered (15.9 birds /hr.) any other species in the pine forest community. As noted previously, this species is considered the most abundant breeding bird on the site. l, The tree swallow (6.4 birds /hr.) was also common in the ! pitch pine forest. This aerial-feeding insectivore was most common incopen areas or just above the treetops. This-species
-was the most abundant summer bird on the overall site. Leck l
(1975) rcports this species as a breeder in New Jersey, common l l l l
Table IIC-8 Total Sightings and Birds per Man-hour by Plant Comunity, Forked River Site, August 1-8, 1978 Pitch Pine Fbmst Cedar Swarro Upland Shmb Iowland Shrub Species Total Birds /hr Total Birds /hr. Total Birds /hr. 'Ibtal Birds /hr. Butorides virescens Northern green hemn 1 0.2 1 0.3 Buteo jamaicensis Bed-tailed hawk 1 0.3 Falco sparverius American kestrel 1 0.2 2 0.6 Colinus virginianus Bobwhite 2 0.2 1 0.2 Actitis nacularia Spotted sandpiper 3 09 Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper 1 0.3 Iarus argentatus Herring gull 6 1.8 Zenaida macroura Mourning dove 16 19 7 1.1 5 1.4 2 0.6 Coccyzus erythroptha3nus Black-billed cuckoo 2 0.2 Chonleiles minor < Comon nighthawk 3 0.4 1 0.2
, Table IIC-8 -(cont!)
y
, n 4 , .
.- t- -
Pitch Pine ~ Fbrest Cedar Swano Upland Shrub Iowlarxl Shrub
. Species
'1btal Birds /hr. 'Ibtal Birds /hr. 'Ibtal Birds /hr. Total Birds hr.
tg ., Colaptes auratus'* }.( l ,. ,
<g , .
Coumon flicker
,1
, , , , 3 0.4- >$ 2 0.6 7 s ,, 3q, ,,
~
Picoides pubesc' ens - .
, M- - ) .1 Downy woodpecker 2 "0.6 s.,>
Tyrannus tyrannus *j. Eastern kingbirtl -6 0.7- 15 2.4 5 1.4 ' 23 7* ,, Myiarchus crinitus , Oreat crested flycatcher %j-1 ' '- 0.2 t i Hirundo rustica-Barn swallow .4 0.5. ' 12 19 6 1.7 5 1.5 ,
> t, C '\,
Iridoprocne bicolor , Tree swallow , 54 6.4 34 5.5 27 7.7 583 176.7 , Progne subis , n Purple nartin '
.3 0.!4 1 0.2 1 0.3
( , .c s Cyanocit,ta_ crit,tata , s , s i
, -Blue Jay . 3 0.4 4 0.6 2 0.6 .
Corvus brachsrhynchos Octnon crow 1 0.2 , s 's , dorvus os'sifragus '
' Pish crow 6 1.8 Parus carolinensis Carolina chickadee 10 1.2 2 0.3
. Table IIC-8'(cont.)
Pitch Pine Fbrest Cedar Swanp_ Upland Shrub I m land Shrub Species ibtal Birtis/hr. ibtal Birtis/hr. ibtal Birds /hr. Ibtal Birds /hr. Troglodytes aedon 1 0.2 House wren Minus polyglottos 4 05 1 0.2- 2 0.6 Mockingbird Dumetella carolinensis 2 0.2 6 1.0 6 17 19 5.6 Gray catbird ibxostona rufum 5 1.4 Brown thrasher Turtius migratorius 4 0.5 3 0.5 24 6.9 7 2.1 American robin Sturnus vulgaris 50 59 5 0.8 Starling Mrliotilta varia 1 0.2 Black-and-white warbler Dendroica petechia 1 0.2 2 0.6 > Yellow warbler Dendroica pinus 6 0.7 Pine warbler Dendroica discolor 15 1.8 4 1.1 Prairie warbler Geothlypis trichas 20 2.4 26 4.2 7 2.0 16 4.8 Conmon yellowthroat
Table IIC-8 (cont.) Pitch Pine Forest Cedar Swamp Upland Shrub Iowland Shrub Species Total Birds /hr. 'Ibtal Birtis/hr. 'Ibtal Birtis/hr. 'Ibtal BiMs/hr. Amelaius phoeniceus ~ 1 0.1 9 15 2 0.6 66 20 Red-winged blackbird Q21scalus quiscula 1 0.1 60 97 1 0.3 4 1.2 Cormon grackle Carpodacus nexicanus 2 0.3 1 0.3 llouse finch Carxiuelis tristis 4 0.6 American gpldfinch Pipilo erythrophtbalmis 135 15 9 9 1.5 40 11.4 Rufous-sided towhee Spizella pusilla 25 29 2 0.3 15 4.3 2 0.6 Field sparrow Melospiza georgiana 20 6.1 Swamp sparrow Melospiza melodia 9 1.1 23 3.7 7 2.0 11 3.3 Song sparrow
l Table IIC-9 t Incidental Sightings of Birds Not Recorded in Strip Counts, Forked River Site, June-August, 1978 . < Ardea herodias Great blue heron Nycticorax nycticorax 4 Black-crowned night heron Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Pandion haliaetus , Osprey Larus atricilla Laughing gull 4 Larus marinus Great black-backed gull J[ n Columba livia 4 l Rock dove l Caprimulgus vociferus t Whip-poor-will -
;l Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe
~l I Eremophila alpestris #
( Horned lark Bombycilla cedrorum f L Cedar waxwing 4 Passe _r_ domesticus ! -House sparrow Piranga olivacea Scarlet tanager i
132 4 over open fields particularly in late summer. A cavity-nester, the species often utilizes bird-boxes, particularly around marshes, streams, and ponds. The starling which averaged a rate of 5.9 birds /hr. actually was observed as a single flock of 50 birds. However, this non-native species is often referred to as ubiquitous and can be expected to occur anywhere on the Forked River site. During the August sampling period highly mobile flocks of immature starlings were observed to range widely over the site. Other common birds in the pitch pine forest community were the field sparrow (2 9 birds /hr.), common yellowthroat (2.4 birds /hr.), mourning dove (1 9 birds /hr.), and prairie warbler (1.8 birds /hr.). All of these species are common in New Jersey (Leck 1975) and all were recorded as breeding species in the pitch pine-oak census plots (Table IIC-3). Cedar Swamp Community Twenty-seven species were recorded during summer strip - ! counting in the cedar swamp community. The common grackle t was the species with the highest average relative abundance (9 7 birds /hr.). However, 57 of the 60 individuals seen were in one flock that was only on-site for a short period of time. Thus, the tree swallow was the most abundant bird (5.5 birds / l L hr.) encountered regularly in this community. Other common species noted in cedar arear were the common l yellowthroat (4.2 birds /hr.), song sparrow (3 7 birds /hr.), eastern kingbird (2.4 birds /hr.), and barn swallow (1 9 birds / hr.). The latter species feeds in flocks with tree swallows. The yellowthroat, kingbird, and song sparrow were breeding species in this community. All of these species are common in New Jersey (Leck 1975). l l L__
133
. Upland Shrub Community Twenty-two species of birds were noted during strip .
counting in the upland shrub community during summer. As in the spring, the rufous-sided towhee was the most abundant bird (11.4 birds /hr.) in the upland shrub. The tree swallow l (7 7 birds /hr.) was the second most common species and the l American robin (6.9 birds /hr.), which was incidental in upland l }: l shrub during spring, was the third.most common species. The robin was encountered in small flocks of from four to eight birds in deciduous shrubs and in a low wet area, while the tree swallows were again noted with barn swallows (1.7 birds /hr.) ! as aerial-feeding flocks or individuals. Other common species in the upland shrub were the field sparrow (4 3 birds /hr.), song sparrow (2.0 birds /hr.), common yellowthroat (2.0 birds /hr.), gray catbird (1.7 birds /hr.), mourning dove (1.4 birds /hr.), eastern kingbird (1.4 birds /hr.), and brown thrasher.(1.4 birds /hr.). Lowland Shrub Community Nineteen species were noted during strip counts in the [ - lowland shrub community during the summer sampling. While this was the lowest number of'apecies observed during strip counts , in any one community, this community had the highest number of birds observed per unit time. Tree swallows alone were encountered at atrate of 176.7 birds /hr., due to a flock of f
- several hundred birds that were consistently observed roosting
' or feeding near the Fire' Pond. Also, many species that were
-not encountered in this community during strip counts were seen incidentally.
l- . In addition to the large flocks of swallows, red-winged blackbirds (20 birds /hr.), eastern kingbirds (7.0 birds /hr.)
' swamp. sparrows (6.1 birds /hr.), gray catbirds (5.6 birds /hr.),
and common-yellowthroats-(4.8 birds /hr.) were encountered more frequently here.than in any other community. Song
-.p i.- .%..a n a
/ w e. w vg-e y n,.-e.y.ew 9m4m,. ,-.w>+,w g- g. g .w- p4 p**n1- -wy.-.-4.-. e,-y--dsy--9g---yeeg. g-gr-+.,e- y9y-vg-w- g e-'-?e **y--wey g-3p}e 4 tweee up
_ ~ . _ _ _ . 134 i e
-sparrows, American robins, herring gulls, fish crows, and -
common' grackles _were also encountered at rates of from 1.2 birds / 1~ hr. to 3 3 birds /hr. l A number of birds seen in this. community were associated
. primarily with the presence of the Fire Pond and the immediate reaches of Oyster Creek. These included the spotted sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, and herring gull which were noted during strip counts, and black-crowned night herons, mallards, and laughing gulls that were seen during incidental observations.
The importance of this plant community and its abundance i of insects to swallows was evident. During the spring sampling, five species of swallows were noted feeding here, three-of which were encountered at a combined rate of 8.4 birds /hr. The combined. rate for tree swallows and barn swallows during the_ summer sampling is 178.2 birds /hr. The lowland shrub community provides important feeding, roosting, and loafing
~ habitat for swallows, particularly in late summer when the young-of-the-year birds comprise a large proportion of the population. If suitable tree cavities or nest boxes were L present near the pond or stream, tree swallows would likely nest here also.
Fall - Strip Counts Results of the fall strip counting are presented in
' Table IIC-10.- Fifty-seven species of birds were observed during
~
. strip counts. An-additional 28 species were noted incidentally.
These species.are listed in Table IIC-ll.
- Pitch Pine Forest Community Thirty-five species were recorded during strip counting
~ in'the_ pitch pine forest community. The common grackle was l-thefmost abundant species (12.8-birds /hr.). This high number was due to flocks of common grackles which roosted in the ,
! pitch-pines. Another species that was generally encountered in F.-
-- . -v,- w, . - ,v.+ .
,,-r,-.- , - ~ - - , , ~ ~ -,-se . ~ -, -
- T;blo IIC-10
'Ibtal Sightings and Birds per Man-hour by Plant Cnnmnity, Fbrked River Site, September,1978 Pitch Pine Forest Cedar Swano Upland Shrub Iowland Shrub ibtal Birds /hr. ibtal Birds /hr. ibtal Birds /hr. Tbtal Birds /hr.
Nycticorax rycticorax Black-crowned night heron 1 0.2 Anas platyrtiynchos 511ard 1 0.1 Aix sponsa
% duck 1 0.1
~
Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk 2 0.1 i Falco sparverius 4 Anerican kestrel 1 0.1 1 0.2 1 0.2 Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon 1 0.1 Actitis macularia
- Spotted sandpiper 1 0.2 Calidris mauri Western sandpiper 1 0.2 Porzana carolira Sora 1 0.2 Zenaida macroura Mourning dove 24 1.8 21 2.8 36 6.5 141 26.6 coccyzus erythropthalnus Black-billed cuckoo 1 0.1 1 0.2 i
Tablo IIC-10 (cont.) Pitch Pine Pbmst Cedar Swanp Upland Shrub Iowland Shrub ibtal Birtis/hr. Tbta_l Birtis/hr. ibtal Birds /hr. Tbtal Binis/hr. Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher 1 0.2 Colaptes_auratus . Connon nicker 19 1.4 7 0.9 2 0.4 7 1.3 Picoides pubescens
- Downy woodpecker 2 0.1 -
1 0.2 , Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied sapsucker 1 0.1 Tyramus tyrannus
#~ "
Eastem kin @ini 3' ~ Oi2-'m _ ,8 1.1 Emaidonax trailii
'dillow flycatcher 1 0.1 Hirmdo mstica Barn swallow 1 0.1 1 0.1 Iridoprocne bicolor Tme swallow 40 29 5 0.7 6 1.1 1 0.2 Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay 111 8.1 59 7.9 52 9.5 13 2.5 Corvus brachyrhynchos Connon crow 5 0.4 1 0.2 Parus carolinensis Carolina chickadee 49 3.6 4 0.5 10 1.8 3 0.6 Sitta carolinensis White-breasted nuthatch 1 0.1
1 Tcblo IIC-10 (c nt.) Pitch Pine Forest Cedar Swanp Upland Shrub Iowland Shrub
'Ibtal Binis/hr. 'Ibtal Birtis/hr. 'Ibtal Birds /hr. 'Ibtal Birtis/hr.
Sitta canadensis Red-bmasted nuthatch 1 0.1 Troglodytes aedon House wren 1 0.1 Troglodytes trt>glodytes Winter wren 1 0.1 Cistothorus platensis Short-billed marsh wren 1 0.2 Minus polyglottos Mockingbird 1 0.1 2 03 9 1.6 Dtnetella carolinensis Gray catbirtl 4 0.3 13 1.7 7 1.3 10 1.9
'Ibxostoma rufbm Brown thrasher 3 0.5 'Ibrtius migratorius American robin 4 0.3 Catharus ustulata Swainson's thrush 1 0.3 Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing 11 0.8 0.4 3 10 1.8 i Sturnus vulgtris Starling 6 0.4 2 0.3 1 0.2 Vireo olivaceous Red-eyed vimo 2 0.1
T2ble IIC-10(cont.) Pitch Pine Fbrest Cedar Sweep Upland Shrub Iowland Shrub Total Birtls/hr. Total Birtis/hr. 7btal Birds /hr. - Total Birds /hr. Riiotilta varia Black-and-white wartler 1 0.1 Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler 2 0.4 Dendroica tigrina Cape May wartler 1 0.2 Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler 2 0.1 4 0.5 Dendruica vinns Black-throated green warbler 1 0.1 Dendroica castanea Bay-breasted warbler 1 0.3 Dendroica pinus Pine warbler 5 0.4 Dendruica discolor Prairie warbler 2 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.4 Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler 2 0.1 1 0.1 Setophaga ruticilla Am rican mdstart 1 0.1 Geothlypis trichas Connon yellowthroat 10 07 19 2.5 3 0.5 28 53 Dendroica species Unidentified warbler 1~ 0.1 7 09 2 0.4
Tablo IIC-10(cont.) Pitch Pine Pbmst Cedar Swasp Upland 31 rub Impland Shrub 7btal B1Ms/hr. Tbtal BiMs/hr. 7btal Birds /hr. Tbtal B1Ms/hr. . ' Icterus galbula Northem oriole . 1 0.1 2 03 3 05 - Quiscalus ouiscula Comon grackle 176 12.8 10 1.3 3 0.5 1 0.2 Apelaius choeniceus Red-winged blackbird 3 0.6 Cardinalis cardinalia CaMinal 1 '0.1 Carduelis tristis Anerican goldfinch . 4 0.5 2 0.4 Pioilo erythrophthalnus Rufous-sided towhee 101 7.4 2 0.3 50 9.1 4 0.8 Zonotrichia albicollis White-thmated sparmt 3 0.2 3 0.6 Passemulus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow 13 2.5 Soizella ousilla i Field sparmt 2 0.1 7 09 29 53 24 4.5 Melosoiza georoiana Swamp sparmt 24 4.5 ; Melosoiza melodia Song sparme 10 1.3 7 13 28 5.3 Fringillidae species Unidentified sparrow 2 0.4 i
._ . _ ~. __ . _ _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - __
Table IIC-11 Incidental Sightings of Birds Not Recorded in Strip Counts, Forked River Site, September, 1978 1 Phalacrocorax auritus Tringa melanoleuca Double-created cormorant Greater yellowlegs
'Ardea herodias- Larus marinus Great blue heron Great black-backed gull
. Butorides virescens Larus argentatus Northern green heron Herring gull Egretta thula Larus delawarensis Snowy egret Ring-billed gull Casmerodius alba Larus atricilla
; Great egret Laughing gull Branta' canadensis Columba livia Canada goose Rock dove Cathartes aura Chordelles minor Turkey vulture Common nighthawk Accipiter cooperi1 Chaetura pelagica Cooper's hawk Chimney swift Buteo jamaicensis Megaceryle alcyon Red-tailed hawk Belted kingfisher Buteo platypterus Corvus ossifragus Broad-winged hawk Fish crow i
Pandion haliaetus Progne subis Osprey Purple martin
- Falco columbarius Catharus guttata l Merlin Hermit thrush ,
Bonasa umbellus Ruffed grouse Colinus virginianus Bobwhite
-Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant
-Charadrius vociferus
. Killdeer-i w me q
--mw-_ , - - -w--
141 ' i flocks.was the blue jay (8.1 birds /hr.). This species was
-migrating through~the area in considerable numbers. ;
'The rufous-sided towhee was recorded at a level (7.4 l birds /hr.) in the-pitch pine areas that was less than one-half of the levels noted in spring and summer (17 7 and 15 9 birds / hour respectively). The population level of the towhee
..would be. expected to decline from the summer level since the species is reported to be " scarce in winter" in New Jersey (Leck 1975). . Bull'(1964) reports that migration of towhees in-the New York City area begins in mid-September and lasts well into November. However, Leck (1975) reports that the '
species. departs New Jersey in November, and thus the Forked ! -River site population would appear to have migrated rather early in the season. Only four other species were observed in the pitch pine i forest community at rates higher than one bird per man-hour.
?The Carolina chickadee'(3.6 birds /hr.) showed a seasonal population increase in this community. This was probably a result of both reproductive success on site and possibly an l influx of-early migrant chickadees from northern, non-sedentary I populations. The other species commonly observed were the tree. swallow (2 9 birds /hr.), mourning dove (1.8 birds /hr.),
- and common flicker-(1.4-birds /hr.).
Several species noted in this community were indicative
'of fall migration. The sharp-shinned hawk, yellow-bellied sapsucker, winter wren, yellow-rumped warbler, and white-
' throated sparrow are examples of species that do not breed L - inLthe site vicinity and are moving southward during migration.
L Incidental. observations indicated that the latter two species were becoming considerably'more common by mid-October. l' A peregrine' falcon, listed as an endangered species (USDI. 1979), was' encountered during utrip counting in this community. A. number of other sightings of peregrine falcons were made
-- incidentally. The status of this species on the Forked River N nW . p
144 site is discussed later in this report. Cedar Swamp Community Twenty-nine species of birds were noted during fall strip counting in the cedar swamp community. The most common species was the blue jay ( 7 9 birds /hr.). Again, this is a reflection of the numbers of this species that were migrating through the site. The common yellowthroat, a common spring migrant (11.4 birds /hr.) and summer resident ( 4.2 birds /hr.) in this community, decreased to 2 5 birds /hr. in fall. This decrease was a result of migration which begins in September and peaks in October in New Jersey ( Leck 1975). The mourning dove was also common (2.8 birds /hr.) in this community. At this time of year doves were encountered in flocks ranging from a few to several hundred individuals. This species is discussed in greater detail in the lowland shrub community discussion. Three other species were noted at rates higher than one bird per hour. The gray catbird ( l.7 birds /hr.), common grackle ( l.3 birds /hr.), and song sparrow ( 1 3 birds /hr.) are all common species in New Jersey ( Leck 1975). Several' species noted in this community were indicative of migration as they are more northern than the Forked River site in their breeding distribution. These species were the Swainson's thrush, bay-breasted warbler, and yellow-rumped l warbler. l Upland Shrub Community l Twenty species were noted in this community during fall strip counting. As in other communities, migrating blue Jays were very common.(9 5 birds /hr.). The rufous-sided towhee was nearly as common (9 1 birds /hr. ). as the blue jay; however,
~
as we noted in the-pitch pine forest, towhees were less common l l l
~
s _
143 l i here in fall than they were in spring (11.1 birds /hr.) and summer ( 11.4 birds /hr.). The mourning dove was common (6.5 birds /hr.) and was observed feeding on weed seeds in upland shrub areas. This food source was also being exploited by field sparrows (5.3 birds /hr.) and song sparrows ( 1.3 birds /hr.). Four other species were regularly encountered in upland shrub. These species were the Carolina chickadee (1.8 birds /hr.), cedar waxwing (1.8 birds /hr.), mockingbird (1.6 birds /hr.), and tree swallow ( l.1 birds /hr.). A migrant that might at first appear to be somewhat unusual for a pine-dominated shrub area was the northern oriole which is a species of deciduous woodlands. The three individuals observed were feeding on the berries of deciduous shrubs such as the black huckleberry and blueberry. Lowland Shrub Community Twenty-seven species of birds were recorded in the
- lowland shrub during fall strip counts. The mourning dove was the dominant species in this community. An average of 26.6 birds / hour were recorded. These individuals fed upon weed seeds along the edge of the lowland shrub and the construction area. Large numbers of doves were also regularly seen inside l the construction area fence, and when flushed, these individuals would often fly into the lowland shrub. Figure IIC-3 indicates this and several other areas where large flocks of doves were regularly observed feeding. This species was the most abundant bird on the Forked River site during fall. Leck (1975) reports the mourning' dove as one of the most abundant l winter birds in New Jersey. Doves were strongly associated with the fence line and construction periphery areas where weed seeds were abundant.
a l o ! I 5 :
~ ,4 e l
- i
}N. s f::
r a \ I CD I i f ' I. L J
. 1
- 9 m
<Q *),a i
s ', 2K s j : bY f ;
& IlMI
- ,5 h'/ :
R
't
- 2
! 0 0 !
' 'e i
< c :
r
- 2
,3 i t
I , E o t i l = f .,
!/
l 4
=
l 00 l vy - h l
= [WW
.* d ,* )
j 4) i FIGURE IIC-3. AREAS OF USE BY LARGE FLOCKS OF MOURNING D0VES, j FORKED RIVER SITE, FALL, 1978. l 1
145 Other common species in the lowland shrub were the common i yellowthroat ( 5.3 birds /hr.), song sparrow ( 5 3 birds /hr), swamp sparrow ( 4.5 birds /hr.), and field sparrow (4.5 birds /hr.). l The latter three species were regularly encountered in mixed 1
- flocks along with the savannah sparrow. These flocks fed I
along the edge of the shrubs bordering disturbed areas. The song sparrow and swamp sparrow were associated with lowland shrub in all seasons, with the swamp sparrow occurring only in this community. The common yellowthroat is typical of wet, shrubby habitat and was also common in lowland shrub throughout the baseline study. Three other species occurred at rates higher than one bird per man-hour. The blue jay ( 2.5 birds /hr.), gray catbird (1.~9 birds /hr.), and common flicker ( 1 3 birds /hr) were distributed generally.throughout the lowland shrub. These species are common breeders and migrants in New Jersey (Leck 1975). The common flicker, which was not recorded in j, this community during spring or summer, was observed here during L
-fall and showed an increase in the other communities as well.
This species.is abundant along the east coast in fall ( Bull i 1964)'and is common as a. wintering species in New Jersey (Leck 1975). < Winter.- Nocturnal Census On the night of January 17, 1979 the nocturnal bird ! census failed to locate any owls on the Forked River site. I ' j No owls had been encountered during other phases of the winter bird studies. From this -lack of observations it would appear
- that utilization of the site'by wintering nocturnal species is minimal or non-existent.
O
-cm m-+a. n
_ . - . . - - _ . . . - .-_- -~. _._. - 146 .
> t L
Winter ~ Strip Counts
- Results of the' winter strip counting are presented in Table IIC-12. Twenty-three species of birds were observed
. during the strip counts. An additional seven species were
- noted incidentally. These species are listed in Table IIC-13 ,
' Pitch Pine Forest Community
. Ten species were recorded during winter strip counting in.the pitch pine forest community. The yellow-rumped warbler was the most abundant species (7.3 birds /hr. ) while the 1 rufous-sided towhee, the most abundant species in this habitat
'during spring and summer', was absent. Fall numbers of towhees had indicated that the species had begun to migrate from the site and.by winter the species was entirely absent.
The Carolina chickadee was'the second most abundant (3 2 birds /hr.) species in the pitch pine. forests. This species became more common in fall and population levels remained approximately the same into the winter. As noted previously this increase was-probably due to both production of young and an influx of birds from other populations. While the l I black-capped chickadee may be expected to; occur on the site , during some winters, there was no evidence of this species during this winter's sampling periods. Therefore this species
'did not account for the observed increase of chickadees in the !
pitch. pine forests.. The.other species encountered in the pitch pine forests were recorded either as scattered individuals (e.g. downy woodpecker, blue jay, and golden-crowned kinglet) or in isolated flocks (e.g. American robins and dark-eyed juncos). it s h L r b
Table IIC-12 -
'Ibtal Sightings and Birds per Man-hour by Plant Cnnerlity Pbrked River Site, Winter,1978-1979 Pitch Pine Fomst Cedar Swano - Upland Shrub Iatland Shrub
'Ibtal Birtis/hr. ibtal BiMs/hr. 'Ibtal Birtis/hr. Tbtal B1Ms/hr.
Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe 1 0.3 Branta canadensis Canada goose 66 18.3 Anas platyrhynchos M*11nrti 21 5.8 i Anas rubripes Black duck 3 0.8 Anas crecca Green-winged teal 2 0.6 Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck , 7 19 Bucephala albeola Bufflehead 2 0.6 Buteo jamaicensis Bed-tailed hawk 1 0.1 i Falco sparverius
- American kestml 2 0.3 1
Zenaida macrt>ura Mourning dove 6 0.8 1 0.3 2 0.6 1
1 Table IIC-12 (Cont.) Pitch Pine Forest Cedar Swang) Upland Shrub Iarland Shrub
'Ibtal Birds /hr. 'Ibtal Birds /hr. 'Ibtal Birds /hr. 'Ibtal Birds /hr.
Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker 2 0.2 Eremophila alpestris Homed lark 2 0.6 Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay 7 0.6 11 1.5 2 0.6 Corvus brachyrhynchos Conmon crow 1 0.1 Parus carolinensis Carolina chickadee 35 3.2 2 0.3 2 0.7
'Ibrdus migratorius American robin 12 1.1 13 1.8 Begulus satrapa Golden-crowned kinglet 7 0.6 1 0.1 1 03 Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet 2 0.2 Dendroica coronata Yellow-runiped warbler 80 73 36 4.9 2 0.7 1 0.3 Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed junco 11 1.0 53 7.3 1 0.3
Table 110-12 (Cont.) Pitch Pine Pbrest Cedar Swasp Upland Shrub Iowland Shrub
'Ibtal Binis/hr. 'Ibtal Birds /r. 'Ibtal Birds /hr. Total Birds /hr.
Spizella arborea Tree sparrow 11 3.1 Melospiza georgiana Swanp sparn:m 2 0.6 Melospiza melodia Song sparrut 10 1.Il 3 0.8 Brberizinae Unidentified sparrow 1 0.3 G e
.e3 l -%
I l l l
' Table IIC-13 '
i Incidental Sightings of Birds Not Recorded in Strip Counts, ! Forked River Site, Winter, 1978-1979 l l l Ardea herodias Great blue heron Olor columbianus 7 1stling swan Anas americana American wigeon > Aythya americana
- i. - Redhead Aythya valisineria Canvasback Mergus serrator Red-breasted merganser Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
, Accipiter striatus l Sharp-shinned hawk l l Falco columbarius Merlin Larus marinus
. Great-black-backed gull ,
Larus argentatus Herring gull
-Larus delawarensis
- Ring-billed gull Columba livia l Rock dove i
-l t
+ m.r- ,om--
- m.__m
. . .= ._ _. . - -_ _
151
- l Cedar Swamp Community Nine species of birds were encountered during winter strip counts in the cedar swamp forest and shrub areas.
, The dark-eyed junco was the most abundant ( 7 3 birds /hr.) and the yellow-rumped warbler was the second most abundant (4.9 birds /hr.). Both of these species were regularly encountered in small flocks ( 4-10 birds) with twenty-one
' juncos being the largest flock that was noted. These two i species are common winter birds in New Jersey ( Leck 1975).
American robins *( l.8 birds /hr.), blue Jays ( l.5 birds
/hr.), and song sparrows ( l.4 birds /hr.) were also encountered in small flocks but with less regularity. These three species are common wintering birds in New Jersey. While robin and blue jay levels were higher in cedar swamp areas in winter than in summer, song sparrows were greatly reduced ( 3 7 to 1.4 birds / hrs.) as a result of migration.
The occurrence of small flocks of the previously mentioned species is attributable to the protection from harsh weather that is afforded by the cedars. While these birds were I observed in both' cedar shrub and cedar forest, they retreated to the denser foliage of the cedar forest during cold, windy days to roost at night. Upland Shrub Community Only three species of bir'ds were encountered in the upland shrub strip counts during winter. A mere total of five individuals were observed: two Carolina chickadees, two yellow-rumped warblers, and one mourning dove. The scarcity of birds in this community was attributable to a number of factors. While this habitat occupied far less acreage than the other communities,due to its openness and lack of. cover it also afforded very little protection from harsh weather,and little food appeared to be available. Berry-producing shrubs and mast-producing oaks were less common t
152 than in other communities and appeared to have been stripped of their fruits by mid-winter. Lowland Shrub Community-The largest number of species (17) during winter strip counts was encountered in the lowland shrub community. This was due to the utilization of the Fire Pord .and Oyster Creek by a number of waterfowl species, such as the Canada goose (18.3 birds /hr.), mallard (5.8 birds /hr.), and ring-necked duck-( l.9 birds /hr.). Other waterfowl recorded were the pied-billed grebe, black duck, green-winged teal, and bufflehead. Terrestrial species were less common in the lowland shrub than were waterfowl, with one flock of eleven tree sparrows accounting for 42 percent of these birds. All other terrestrial species were encountered at rates of less than one bird per hour of censusing. The large flocks of mourning doves that were encountered in and near this area during fall were no longer present in l the site area. ~Other species previously common to the lowland shrub and that had migrated from the site included the common yellowthroat and swamp sparrow. Winter - Plot Censuses . 'Results of the winter' bird plot censuses are given in Tables IIC-14 through IIC-16. Twenty-four species of birds ! were encountered during these censuses in numbers'that were high enough ( mean - 0 5 per census) to be considered as
.actually wintering within the plots. An index of diversity was' calculated for-each_ plot ( Table IIC-17).
l l
Table IIC-14 EstimatedNumberofWinteringBirds,PitchPigg7akPlots, 0 Forked River Site,. Winter,1978-1979 Estimated Number of Birds (b) Species PP-0#1 PP-0#2 PP-0#3
' Red-tailed hawk +
Downy woodpecker +
' Blue jay 0.5 + 0.5 -Common crow + +
Carolina chickadee 25 2.0 1.5 American robin 3.0 Golden-crowned kinglet 0.5 Yellow-rumped warbler - 95 11'.5 + Unidentified warbler + Dark-eyed' junco 2.5 1.0 Estimated Total Birds 15.5 13.5 6.0 l Number of Species 5 2 4
- a. - Based upon December 1978 and. January 1979 censuses.
~b . Mean number to nearest 0.5 birds. Birds encountered at
-less than 0.5 birds per census indicated by a plus sign (+).
O % b q , . , . - , . .y . , - . - --
,,..,9 .mw,, ,, - y--,--- -y-ee-- e-p ,c-~.-,--=m u,---,t-m-me ~,
Table IIC-15 Estimated Number of Wintering Bi CedarSwampPlot, Winter,1978-1979{gg, Estimated Number of Birds (b) Species Cedar Swamp Plot Black duck 05 Green-winged teal 3.5 American kestrel + Mourning dove 1.0 Blue jay 15 Carolina chickadee + Golden-crowned kinglet + Yellow-rumped warbler 8.0 Dark-eyed junco 9.5
+
Song sparrow - i Unidentified sparrow a +
! .l
. Estimated-Total Birds 24.0 Number of Species ,
6
- a. Based upon December 1978 and January 1979 censuses.
l b. Mean number to nearest 0.5 birds. Birds encountered at less than 0 5 birds per census indicated by a plus sign (+). l
9 Table IIC-16 EstimatedNumberofWinteringBirds,Upl9nfandLowland Shrub Plots, Winter, 1978-1979sa Estimated Number of Birds Upland Lowland Species Shrub Plot Shrub Plot Pied-billed grebe + Canada goose 31.0 Mallard 5.0 Black duck 1.0 Green-winged teal 0.5 Ring-necked duck 2.0 Bufflehead + Sharp-shinned hawk + American kestrel + Great black-backed gull + Herring gull + Mourning dove + i Blue jay + Carolina chickadee + l Yellow-rumped warbler + Dark-eyed junco + Tree sparrow 2.0 Swamp sparrow + Song sparrow + l Estimated Total Birds <0.5 41.5 Number of Species 1 6 I l l n. Based upon December 1978 and January 1979 censuses. l b.. Mean number to nearest 0.5 birds. Birds encountered at less l l than 0.5 birds per census indicated by a plus sign (+). 1
^
~
l
.l ,a .
4 mP _ Table IIC-17
. Avian-Fopulation Diversity Values (H') for the Winter Bird Census Plots, Forked River Site, Winter, 1978-1979
& y e e ^s
. . : 'H' Pitch Pine-Oak #1 1.60 ,
1 Pitch Pine'-Oak #2 '
~
0.61 . i Pitch Pine-Oak #3 - 1.73 ; i I Cedar Swamp Community 2.02 ' Upland Shrub' Community '(a )
~
Lowland Shrub Community 1.31
,,- ~ ,
4
- .~.
a.- -Only one individual noted during censuses. (- - .-
?
7' e f
.j e
/
f y .1
.. g e i'
== ,
i ? / e l
. I' ~ ,
9
}
.m l
r' L
.y. ,
157 Pitch Pine Forest Community e As indicated in Table IIC-14, the number of wintering bird species within the' pitch pine-oak plots ranged from 2 to 5 with 6 different s'pecies recorded as wintering birds. Several other species were noted as visitors to the plots or were using the plots as only a fraction of their wintering territory. . The yellow-rumped warbler was the most common species, although it was recorded only as a visitor in plot #3 The Carolina chickadee was recorded in all plots; this species appeared to be evenly distributed throughout the pitch pine forest areas of the site. Blue jays also seemed to be evenly , 1 distributed in pitch pine forests although in lower numbers. : Of the. species encountered in pitch pine-oak plots, only the American robin is not a common winter bird in New Jersey. Leck (1975). reports this species as scarce in. winter although very common as a summer resident. Bull (1964) states that in the New York City area the species is rare to uncommon in - winter but it is locally numerous in some years. American robins on the Forked River site generally occurred in small ! flocks, although one flock of approximately 40 birds was noted. Cedar Swamp Community Six species were. recorded as wintering birds in the cedar swamp plot.. The dark-eyed junco ( 9 5 birds) and the yellow-rumped warbler (8.0 birds) were-the most common. As was noted j :previously for the yellow-rumped warbler, the dark-eyed junco ( is a common winter bird in New Jersey ( Leck 1975). ; The_ green-winged. teal averaged 3 5 birds per census,
'however this.was a result of the presence of one flock of 24 , ;
birds during one census. Green-winged teal were incidentally ; noted regularly in December on various portions of South l Branch Forked River, the intake canal for the Oyster Creek-
+--h --N-- ve. ,,r,-.,,- y- . , - . , . , , , , , y .w,g, #,.y.wwyww -w ,.s er-y ar m- e =m --e e mgre - w tw- --w-*-e--me*----y a-'- e-u--g-v
l 158 t Plant, and in.the Fire Pond. These birds had apparently left the. site by January. Leck (1975) describes the green-winged l teal'as a migrant, some, occurring in winter. Twenty-two Audubon Society: Christmas counts taken at various locations in
.I Nwa Jersey during the winter of 1977-1978 reported over 190 ,
green-winged teal 1( Heilbrun et-a1.1978). This is indicative i l
- that:the species-is not' unexpected in winter.
4 The black duck, mourning dove, and blue jay were also noted in this community.- These species are typical winter
- birds in coastal areas of New Jersey.
1
' Upland Shrub Community As was noted during strip counting, the winter bird
- population of the upland shrub was extremely low. Only one
~
bir'd, a Carolina chickadee, was encounteredLin the plot during
. s t . ,
five:censusesi3resulting in a mean density of less than 0.5 birds per:cens'us.' , r Lowland Shrub Community , Six species ~were recorded as wintering birds,in the , lowland shrub and twelve other-species were noted in the plot. Waterfowl.that were utilizing'the' Fire Pond'and Oyster Creek
..were the most abundant birds. The Canada goose ( 31 birds per
~
- census)wasthe:do$tabundantepecieswith~a-flockof92-birds '
occurring regularlyEin' January., This species is an abundant I ' winter. visitant along the east. coast, and-is;probably the . i H most widespread and best-known of all the waterfowl in North I America ( JMa11ards,. black' ducks, green-winged teal, and ring-necked [. - ducks' accounted for an" average of 8.5 birds per census. All of a theseLapecies are considered as common to. abundant wintering h
= species along[the New York'and Ne'w Jersey coast-( Bull 1964). i L .
P,
, .c t
+
l
- .. .wi'.; l {
rn 3 r . , , , w ,,n. n. - ?,s,,, .n'.-.,n,,,. ,..,,--.,,c.,,,.,,,,. ..,,.,n,..,.,-,.y,
,,.,,.,,,ew. n,_n.,
159 l The only other species that averaged greater than 0.5 l birds per census was the tree sparrow. This was due to the presence of one flock during one census. This species, ! however, is generally an abundant winter bird along the east. coast and_can be expected to occur in future years. Favoring weedy and shrubby edges, the tree sparrow may become more common in this community and should also be encountered in other. plant communities. Incidental sightings made in February indicated that
, canvasbacks, redheads, red-breasted mergansers, and whistling swans also occur on the Fire Pond. Other waterfowl species may be expected in future years.
Avian Diversity Diversity values calculated for the winter bird census
] plot populations are given in Table IIC-17 Since only one species was encountered during the censuses in the upland shrub plot, no diversity index was calculated for this community.
Because of the 'aw number of species and the dominance of one or two speciem in a given plot, the diversity values for the winter bird populations were very low. For a site at this. latitude, it is typical for winter bird diversity to be lower than the summer diversity. It is likely that the low number of total. individuals and bird species were a result of a scarcity of winter food supplies and the relatively poor protective cover from harsh weather at this location. The cedar swamp community, which offered the densest foliage for protective cover, did contain small flocks of several species of birds.
^
160 1 1 ?. l Incidental 31ghtings
.During'the course of the baseline study bird species i were recorded by field personnel performing other portions of '
~the study. .These incidental sightings are listed within the l :Results and-Discussion Sections of this report for each season.
While many of_these. species were listed as incidentals because
< - a single individual bird or a small group was seen on only one or a-few occasions,'there were several species that were '
L actually quite_ common. .This is particularly true for several gull speciesL- herring gull, laughing gull, great black-backed
-gull, and ring-billed gull. Although these birds were not encountered often in regular sampling, they were quite common :
on the site as they are~throughout much of coastal New Jersey. TheseLwaryLbirds avoid the observer and therefore are rarely encountered within the boundaries of a strip count. ,. 'Some of the other. species recorded as incidental observations ! such.as the great egret, chimney swift, killdeer, common nighthawk,' belted kingfisher, purple martin, scarlet tanager, t L
.and. turkey vulture are fairly common in-New Jersey during some seasons of the' year and can be expected to occur on the
,' ~ Forked River site regularly. l I
- ' Endangered and Threatened Species-of Birds
_During the course of the baseline studies a number of- ! avian _ species that are listed as endangered or threatened by j the U. S. Department of Interior or the New Jersey Department t of Environmental Protection were encountered on the Forked River site. Table IIC-18 lists'these species, their status, - therseason during which they were noted, and comments upon l l ^ their-activities observed on the Forked River site. L-1None of these species would be expected to nest on the .i site'due to a lack.of appropriate-habitat. During migration
- periodstand winter these species can be expected to occur in varying numbers each year.
I'
Table-IIC-18 Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species of Birds Observed on the Forked River Site, April 1978 - Feb. 1979 Season Species. Status (") Observed Comments Paregrine falcon Endangered - U.S. Fall A number of birds observed hunting Endangered - N.J. and resting on the site during September and October. Osprey Endangered (b) N.J. Spring Birds seen flying Summer over, roosted on Fall met towers, and possibly hunting at Fire Pond. Cooper's hawk Endangered (b) N.J. Spring Migrants observed Fall in both seasons, generally flying over. Some birds hunted on site. i Marsh hawk Threatened (b) N.J. Spring Bird observed l~ hunting. Habitat limited on site. Much suitable habitat east of site where this species has been seen during all seasons. Marlin Threatened - N.J. Fall Birds observed Winter during September, October, and February hunting and resting on site. Grsat blue heron . Threatened (b) N.J. Spring Individuals seen on Summer occasions near the I Fall. Fire Pond or in Winter Cedars near South Forked River.Also frequented Oyster Creek plant intake canal.
- a. Source: USDI 1979,'NJDEP.1979
- b. Breeding populations in the state are of concern.
i .. z
162 Game Species
'The Forked River site generally does not support any appreciable number of upland game birds, and waterfowl appear to be concentrated in the Fire Pond during the migration and winter seasons.
The mallard and the bobwhite were the only game bird species that nested on the site. Both of these species were uncommon. Other game species recorded on the site included
- the ruffed grouse and ring-necked pheasant which, like the bobwhite, are both non-migratory species. The most common migratory game species were the Canada goose, mallard, black duck, and green-winged teal.
The mourning dove, which is considered a game bird in some states (including New Jersey) but not in others (e.g. New York) was generally common on the Forked River site. As previously discussed, during fall this migratory species was abundant along fence lines and near the lowland shrub area where weed seeds were available. Community Summaries Seasonal variation in bird species and number of individuals would be expected at~any location in temperate North Amercia. Species numbers increase . in the spring and fall when migrants that breed to the north and winter to the south pass.through the site. While there would be expected
- to be considerable variation in the number of species and
- numbers of individuals from year to year, these numbers taken during the course of a one-year period can be used to assess the utilization by bird s of the habitats'available at the Forked River site and to make general assessments of the importance of these habitats to avian populations. Of particular interest are the breeding'and wintering populations, because these birds are present on the site for an extended O
W - + -
..m...v. - y , ,r.m.. y - g., mv-* -,. - .-.m m e.---- y +e-. -
163 time period and.tne survival of these populations is more dependent on the habitat provided by the site than is the survival of the migrant populations. Table IIC-19 presents seasonal summary data concerning avian utilization for each major plant community. These data indicate the number of species and numbers of birds recorded during each season by a particular sampling technique. Pitch Pine Forest Community Fifty-five species of birds were observed during strip counts and plot censuses in the pitch pine forest community. Sixteen species were recorded as breeding species within the three pitch pine-oak census plots and six species were recorded as wintering. The pitch pine forest provided a large portion of the
-utilized habitat for species such as the rufous-sided towhee, prairie warbler, pine warbler, blue jay, and common grackle.
The first three species were particularly characteristic of the pitch-pine forest community. Generally, the birds observed in this plant community were typical of what would be expected throughout the Pine Barrens region of New Jersey. Without exception, the more common species noted in the pitch pine forests at Forked River were among those_ species discussed by Leck (1975) as typical species of the'New Jersey Pine Barrens. ! Cedar Swamp Community l Forty-seven species of birds were observed during strip l . counts and plot censuses in the cedar swamp community. Eleven species were recorded as breeding in the plot that was censused and six species were recorded as wintering. The relatively large amount of ecotonal areas that were associated with the cedar swamp forest and shrub areas i i
.m
Table IIC-19 Summary Data for Avian Sampling on the Forked River Site, May 1978 - February 1979 Pitch.. Pine Cedar Upland Lowland
'Forect Swamp' Shrub Shrub STRIP COUNTS Spring Number of species 20 18 14 20 Total individuals /hr. 54.7 32.2 36.9 69.8 Summer Number of . species 23 27 22 19 Total individuals /hr. 44.8 37.9 47 7 235.5 Fall Number of species 35 29 20 27 Total individuals /hr. 43 7 26.6 43 1 41.2 Winter l
l Number of species 10 9 3 17 Total-individuals /hr. 14.4 18.4 1.7 35.8 PLOT CENSUSES Breeding Birds
-Number of species- 16 11 10 8 Estimated mean density l
.(pairs /100 acres) 185 121 175 223 Wintering Birds Number of species 6 6 1 6 Estimated mean density
-(birds /100 acres) 71 141 5 277 TOTAL-NUMBER OF SPECIES IN L
STRIP COUNTS AND PLOT CENSUSES 55 47 33 53 v-
165 provided much of'the available habitat for birds such as song sparrows, common yellowthroats, and eastern kingbirds. The dense vegetation of this community, particularly the cedar L forests,_provided valuable cover for birds. During winter the + value of-this cover was evident from the variety of. species that occurred in dense cedar areas. Leck (1975) points out that relatively little is known about the bird associatons of much of New Jersey's cedar swamp areas. He notes such species as prothonotary warblers, hooded
. warblers, American redstarts, and white-eyed vireos as
. occurring during summer in cedar swamp areas. However, these
-species were not found as summer residents on the Forked River site.
Upland Shrub Community Thirty-three species of birds were recorded in upland shrub areas during strip counts and plot censuses. Ten species were_noted breeding in the census plot, but only one [
~ species was recorded as wintering.
There was relatively little upland shrub on the Forked l I' River site, and the. avian species found in this community i could also be'found in pitch pine-oak and pitch pine lowland i areas. Incidental observations indicated.that large upland t ' shrub-areas such as the area north of the site boundary were importanticommunities for birds. However, the small areas L 'such as found on the site supported few birds. Winter data suggested that upland shrub areas provided little food or
- cover during that season.
1 Lowland Shrub Community l . Fifty-three. species of. birds were recorded in strip counts and plot censuses in the. lowland shrub. 'Eight species were recorded as breeders in the lowland shrub plot and six species were recorded as wint'ering. Both of these numbers L F
- 4
- .a I ,
< > - . - ,wn , , , - , - , , , , - , , , +a ., -, - .-.-,r %-, , ,nn, , . , - ,,,,r ,,-,,-,,,,n-,,w---r,,,,-,
166 are probably lower than actual values as this community is harder to census accurately than any other due to its expanse, the presence of Oyster Creek and tributaries, and the difficulty of walking in various areas. The lowland sh' rub had the highest number of birds per unit effort during spring, summer, and winter. The summer value (235.5 birds per hour) was the highest recorded on site. Fcll levels were not appreciably different from pitch pine or upland shrub. Both breeding and wintering bird densities were highest in the lowland shrub plot. The lowland shrub area is important habitat for a number of sp~ecies. Swamp sparrows were found on site only in the lowland shrub. Common yellowthroats, yellow warblers, and red-winged blackbirds were much more common as breeders in this community than in any other. Water birds, particularly herons, sandpipers, ducks and geese, were more common during migrations and winter in the Fire Pond area than elsewhere on the site. Migrating tree swallows were abundant here in late summer attesting to an abundant insect food supply available in this community. Fish and amphibians were also important food sources provided by this community for larger birds. Site Summary During this study, 121 bird species were observed at the Forked River site. Table IIC-20 lists these species and notes j the sampling technique by which they were recorded. The number of species recorded on site is equivalent to approximately 25 percent of the number of species known to have occurred in New l Jersey. Leck (1975) reported that 410 species had been reco.rded in New Jersey as of January 1, 1974. One hundred and twenty-one species is a moderate number when it is compared to single day counts of greater than 150 birds that have been recorded in parts of New Jersey (Leck 1975). All of the species noted on the Forked River site are listed for New Jersey by Leck (1975). With the exception of the peregrine falcon, none would be considered as extremely unusual. The peregrine falcon occurs regularly in fall along coastal New Jersey, but is-considered particularly noteworthy due to its Federal En-dangered status.
Tabis IIC-20 Sununary cf the Bird Species Obasrvad on the Forked River Site, April 1978 - February 1979 Techniques Breeding Winter Incidental
' Strip Counts Bird Bird Sightings-Species S2 Su F W Census Census & Su F W r Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe X X X Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant X
'Ardea herodias Great blue heron X X XX Butorides striatus Northern green heron X X X X Florida caerulea Little blue heron X
-Casmerodius albus Great egret X X
( A Egretta thula Snowy egret X X
. l Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron I X X X g Botaurus lentiginosus "?
( American bittern , X ,
-Olor columbianus ,
Whistling swan Xi Branta canadensis , Canada goose X X X X i' I - L Anas platyrhynchos ) Mallard I XX X X X t S Anas rubripes l Black duck X X X l-l Anas crecca l . Green-vinged teal X X L l Anas americana American vigeon. X Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck X X _ m . --.
Tablo IIC-20 (Cont) Techniques Breeding Winter Incidental Strip Counts Bird Bird Sightings Species S2 Su F W 'CeruML, Census 2uFW S S Aix sponsa Wood duck X Aythya americana Redhead X Aythya valisineria Canvasback X X Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye X Bucephala albeola Bufflehead X X Mergus serrator Red-breasted merganser X X Cathartes aura Turkey vulture X X XX Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk X X X X t j Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk . X Buteo .iamaicensis Red-tailed hawk X X X X X X-Buteo platypterus
-Broad-winged hawk X i
Pandion haliaetus Osprey XX Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon X Falco columbarius-Merlin XX Falco sparverius American kestrel I XX X X Bonasa umbellus Ruffed grouse X Colinus virginianus Bobwhite. X X X X
T ble IIC-20 (C:nt) Techniques Breeding Winter Incidental Strip Counts Bird Bird Sightings Species S2 Su F W Census Census SJ Su F W Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant X Porzana carolina Sora X Charadrius vociferus
.. Killdeer X X Philohela minor
-American woodcock X Capella gallinago Common snipe X Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper X X X Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper I X Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellovlegs X X Tringa flavipes i Lesser yellowlegs X Calidris mauri Western sandpiper X Larus marinus Great black-backed gull X X X XX
! Larus argentatus
- Herring gull X X X X XX Larus delawarensis Ring-billed gull X X XX Larus atricilla
' Laughing gull X X X
'Columba livia Rock dove X X XX Zenaida macroura Mourning dove X X XX X X Coccyzus erythroothalmus ,
Black-billed cuckoo X X X
,.m.yy -y < v--yi-m.w-vw,, , - - *- w ---w ,-,e-.- . -- .e- . r-+ - - - - - - yy,p r y - .w.-r,
Table IIC-20 (Cont) Techniques Breeding Winter Incidental Strip Counts Bird Bird Sightings Species S2 Su F W Census Census & Su F W Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-will's-widow X Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-vill X X Chordelles minor Common nighthawk X X X X Chaetura pelagica Chimney swift X Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher X X X Colaptes auratus Common flicker X X X Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied sapsucker X Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker X XX X Tyrannus tyrannus L Eastern kingbird I X X X Mriarchus crinitus Great crested flycatcher X X X Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe X-Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher X Contopus virens Eastern wood pewee X Eremophila alpestris Horned lark X X X Iridoproene bicolor Tree swallow X X X X Riparia riparia Bank swallow I
- '" ~
v -- y-- -,-p=s ,c= , p.-.s , - , -
T;bl3 IIC-20 (Cont) Techniques Breeding Winter Incidental Strip Counts Bird Bird Sightings Species Sg Su F W Census Census Sg S, F W l Stelgidopteryx ruficollis . Rough-winged swallov X Hirundo rustica. Barn swallow I X X X i l Progne subis Purple martin X X X Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay X X XX X X i Corvus brachyrhynchos Common crow X X XX X Corvus ossifragus Fish crow X X X X Parus carolinensis
. Carolina chickadee X X XX X X Sitta carolinensis j . White-breasted nuthatch X Sitta canadensis Red-breasted nuthatch X X Troglodytes aedon House wren X X X
! Troglodytes troglodytes Winter vren X l l Cistothorus platensis ! Short-billed marsh wren X Mimus polyglottos-Mockingbird X X X X Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird X X X X .. Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher X X X X
~ Turdus migratorius American robin X X XX X X Catharus guttata Hermit thrush X X i
--p wy --<w g y- ,aw -v-r- p-w - - e- - -
--t- - - -
wr -- w .9w-y, y w,r- ,,y , 9
Tablo IIC-20 (Cont) Techniques Breeding Winter Incidental Strip Counts Bird Bird Sightings Species pg Su F W Census Census Sg Su F W Catharus ustulatus Swainson's thrush X Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned kinglet X I Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet X Bostbycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing I X X X Sturnus vulgaris Starling I X X X X Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed vireo X Mniotilta varia Black-and-white varbler X X'I X X Dendroica vetechia Yellow warbler- . X X X X Dendroica tigrina .
-Cape May warbler X Dendroica coronata Yellow-runtped varbler XX X i Dendroica virens Black-throated green varbler X i
Dendroica castanea 1, i Bay-breasted warbler X Dendroica minus Pine warbler X ~X X X I Rggdroica discolor Prairie warbler X X X X Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler X
- Dendroica species Unidentified warbler X- X
'Seiurus aurocapillus
_ Ovenbird .X X k-'w. o h%A
Tablo IIC-20 (Cont) Techniques Breeding Winter Incidental Strip Counts Bird Bird Sightings Species Sp_Su F W ' Census Census S2 Su F W Oporornis philadelphia Mourning varbler X Geothlypis trichaq, Common yellowthroat X X X X - Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's varbler X Setoph m ruticilla American redstart I X Passer domesticus, House sparrow'c X Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird I X X X Icterus galbula Northern oriole X Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle X X X X Molothrus ater l- Brown-headed cowbird I X L Piranga olivacea Scarlet tanager X Cardinalis cardinalis Cardinal X X l Caruodacus mexicanus House finch X l Carduelis tristis American goldfinch I X X X i Pipilo erythrophthalmus Rufous-sided towhee X X X X , I l- Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow I X Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed junco X X t I
Tablo IIC-20 (Cont) Techniques Breeding Winter Incidental Strip Counts Bird Bird Sightings Species _Sg Su F W Census Census Sg Su F W Spizel'a arborea Tree sparrov X X Svizella pusilla Field sparrow I X X X
-Zonotrichia leucopbrys White-crowned sparrow X Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated sparrov X
- Melospiza aeorgiana Swamp sparrow X X XX X X Melospiza melodia Song sparrow I X XX X X Eberizinae species Unidentified sparrov XX X i
4 0 6
,,__r.., -- ,,-, , w -
7 wy e - - - + - --. e- - 9
l 175 D. -MAMMALS l., SAMPLING ACTIVITIES Data concerning the distribution and abundance of mammalian species on the Forked River site were collected from the spring _ of 1978 through the winter of 1979. Details concerning the
. sampling methods employed during this study can be found in the1 Procedures Manual. Following is a brief synopsis of the techniques amd sampling dates of the mammal investigation.
Sherman Trapping -
, Ten trap lines, each containing 15 trapping stations, were establishedEin.various portions of the site and operated during spring, summer and fall. The location of each line can be found on Figure IID-1. A more detailed figure showing sampling locations can be found in the Procedures Manual. Following are
- the trapping dates for these lines:
Spring - April 20 to 27, 1978 Summer - July 19 to 26, 1978 Fall. - October 11 to 18, 1978 , A-total of 150 traps were used each season, thus generating a L l --potential of-3,150 trap nights. _ From this total'all non-
- Jfunctional trap nights were subtracted, leaving a total 3,101 functional trap nights.
. All major plant community types were sampled with Sherman traps. The-plant communities sampled and the respective trap
-- lines were:
Pitch Pine-Oak Forest Lines OP1, OP2, OP3 Pitch Pine Lowland-Forest Line OP4
' Cedar Swamp-Shrub
- JCommunity: Lines C2, C3, C4 Cedar Swamp Forest Line Cl Upland Shrub Community Line Tl Lowland Shrub Community Line S1 m- = y- n- w q -e--, wy - y y -
,-.--...-g ,--,,,,-~-,,p-.,,
2
?l h $
\
r' I.= t / T Lca o' W .
< 0 i n g' P3 I l
S1 , j ,# L 8 e > g l l /
& fc s
- i. f .
l
! D .'
unuumum SHERMAN, BOX,and ! P CAGE TRAPS l { } [ sesesses SHERMAN TRAPS ONLY E I [ I - = = = DEER TRACK i l _ [ [ TRANSECTS l g l -
**g
,1 *
'l ,
00 1
=
I t n ' y c* I FIGURE IID-1. MAMMAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978-1979. l
- - - . . - - . - - - - - , . - - - . . . . , . , . . . . . _ _ - _ . . . - _ . . . - . . . . ~ . . . , . . _ _ . - - - _ -
177 I Box Trapping Eight.of the 10 trap lines used for Sherman traps also served as' trapping locations for box traps (Figure IID-1). Six box traps-were placed on each line, one each at Stations 3, 5, 7. 9, 11 and 13. Each box trap was baited with corn auld apples and operated for the following time periods: Spring April 20 to 26, 1978 Summer July-18 to 25, 1978 Fall ' October 10 to 17, 1978 Winter February 21 to March 1, 1979 Due to severe weather conditions which restricted the movement of animals during the early portion of the winter sampling period, box traps were operated only on Lines C1, C2, OP3, and OP4 during February, 1979 During the four seasons a total of 1,128 trap nights were generated by box trapping. 7 Cage Trapping ,. During the spring, summer and fall sampling periods two L .
- cage traps were placed on the same eight lines as the box -
traps (Figure IID-1). On each line Stations 1 and 15 were used (forcagetraps. As~ mentioned previously, a very heavy snowfall
.during the winter sampling period restricted the movement of
, many species; therefore, a reduced cage trapping effort was
-employed. The sampling dates for cage trapping were:
Spring April 20 to 27, 1978 . l- Summer July 19 to 26, 1978 L Fall October 11 to 18, 1978 t k Winter February.26 to March 1, 1979
- During the course of this study a total'of 348 trap nights L
were generated with cage traps. t [ Weasel Trapping Weasel traps were used during all four seasons in an I attempt to. capture weasels and other small predatory animals. 4
.a - . .
. , , - - .., ,, _ , , - ,-.. - _ . .._,- ., _ m
178 "The numbercof traps in use varied from four in winter to 10 in spring. In most cases each of 'he eight trap lines that contained cage and box traps also included one weasel trap. The length of the trapping period varied somewhat but coincided 1 closely with the box and cage trapping efforts. ' Fox Calling , During each' sampling period at least five attempts were made to lure foxes into view with the use of an electronic predator call. Throughout .the course of the study calling efforts were conducted in all portions of the site where the vegetation allowed for an acceptable view of the immediate
' vicinity.
Deer Survey Two deer track transects were established prior to the beginning of the~ study. The location of the transects can be
- found on Figure IID-1. The north transect, which coincided I'
with the-property boundary, was approximately 2,875 feet in length. The. south transect, which was situated between an i
~ upland shrub area and one of pitch pine-oak, was approximately 1,750 feet.in length. Both transects were checked several times each sampling period and all new sets of tracks were counted and recorded. In-addition to track counts, small blocks of cover were driven in an attempt to force deer into view. The i
l locations of any deer seen during the study were recorded on-
-data cards-and provided valuable information concerning this species.
~ Bat Sampling Four nylon mist nets were used in an attempt to capture g . bats. Theinets were positioned along the western portion of !
the transmission line right-of-way. One net was located
. perpendicular and adjacent to a pitch pine-oak community.
y:.. 4
179 Another was set up adjacent to a cedar swamp forest community. The-third net was located next to a strip of shrubs, and the fourth net was stretched perpendicular to the small tributary of the South Branch of Forked River that flows north to south across the right-of-way. The nets were operated for several . . hours following dusk on the nights of July 22, 24, 25 and 26. Incidental Observations Jul integral part of the mammalian survey was the collection of incidental-obs,ervations.. tais included actual sightings as well as the discovery of indirect evidence such as tracks, scat, and carcasses. Incidental data were collected and recorded by all personnel on site during 1978 and 1979
- 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
.931e results of this survey are presented in two sections.
~The first section contains a detailed discussion of the status of-each species found on the site and includes information
.concerning abundance and distribution among the various plant
. communities.
~
Following the species status discussion is a i,
-section concerning the overall ecology of the mammalian fauna and their relationship to other flora and faunal factors.
l Species Status L -Opossum (Didelphis' virginiana) L Based on the data, the opossum was considered a rare inhabitant of the Forked River site. Tracks of one individual
.were found in spring, and one road-killed opossum was found on' February 27, 1979': . None were captured in either box or cage traps and no other evidence of this species was located.
L New Jersey-is well within the geographical range of the opossum-(McManus-1974, Burt.and Grossenheider 1964). McCormick (1970) described the status of the opossum in the Pine Barrens as " occasional"; thus, a general lack of habitat 1 - l, - mm-,_#-.-_-... -.-._u_-
180
-. suitability may be the reason for the failure of this species to reach abundance levels typical of other parts of its range.
Mas,ked.. Shrew (Sorex cinereus). A . total of seven masked shrews was caught in Sherman
- traps. Three were captured during spring in a cedar swamp forest community-(Line C1).and four were caught in the
. lowland shrub community-(Line S1)'during fall. An additional 3; 11~ masked' shrews were collected in drift fence pitfalls, five
- during July and seven during September. During July, drift L fences located 'in lowland shrub and pitch pine-oak communities resulted in'the capture of this species, while drift fences located in lowland shrub, pitch pineloak, and upland shrub communities resulted in captures during September. ,
.The overall status of this species on the site during
- 1978-was uncommon and localized. McCormick (1970) reported -
. masked' shrews to be " common in open lowland areas". - Connor (1953)'did not-discuss the' abundance of the masked shrew in i theLPine Barrens, but did' indicate that most were found in i damp localities. .The observations of both McCormick (1970) and Connor (1953)' concerning habitat preference of this species in the region are:in. agreement with the data. Although some masked shrews were captured ~in the drier upland shrub and pitch pine-l oak areas, most: captures were noted in the cedar swamp forest and. lowland shrub communities which are typically very moist.
L Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina'brevicauda) ! .During the study only two short-tailed shrews were noted;
-one1was found dead during summer, and one was captured in a-
-.Sherman trap in the lowland shrub community (Line S1). Both LMcCormick (1970) and Connor (1953) indicated that this species was-not abundant in.the Pine-Barrens. Although it may not be appropriate in the Pine Barrens region, it is interesting to note'that Patric-(1962), working in New York, reported that very low short-tailed shrew populations were present in the year i
r.. y.
+~ - , ,1, - - . . c,-,, - n ,, , . , . - . , . . ~ , ~,n ., ,.ne, -._s -,,,,,.,.,n - - - , . . . . - - , , - - , , - , ,
181 preceeding population peaks in red-backed voles. Since the red-backed vole is an important and abundant member of the mammalian community in the Forked River site there may have been a similar relationship between these two species. i
. Star-nosed Mole (Condylura cristata)
One. dead star-nosed mole was found on May 26, 1978. It was lying on.the dead-end road immediately south of the Fire Pond in1the lowland shrub community. Based on this limited amount of data, and also the fact that none of the sampling techniques used during this study were appropriate to capture moles, it was impossible to draw any conclusions concerning the status of this species other than that they were present. ' McCormick (1970) classified the star-nosed mole as " rare to I occasional". However, due to the difficulties in adequately sampling ~this species, they may have been more abundant on site than indicated by the occurrence of only one observation in the course of a year.
'On the Forked River site it was likely that star-nosed moles were restricted to the lowland shrub and cedar l communities. The preferred habitat of this species is very moist muck soils (Doutt et al. 1967). It was therefore reasonable to assume that the lowland shrub and cedar i ' communities which are restricted to wet muck soils represented suitable habitat for this species.
i . Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) The presence of the little brown bat was documented l
'during summer when one was found dead in the construction area.
None were captured during.the July mist-netting effort. L 'Although-this species is frequently very common throughout its range (Barbour and Davis 1969) little information is available
- concerning-its regional status near the study area-.
During.the summer. months the'two key habitat factors l- ! influencing the abundance and distribution of this species are l 1 _,r,. -
182 man-made' buildings, which are used for roosting and nurseries, and open water, which is used for foraging areas at night. On t the. Forked' River site the. Fire Pond represented a good foraging area, but to ,what extent it was used was unknown. The major complicating factor that may have influenced the distribution of this. species and other bat species was the presence of the construction area which was totally lighted at night. Security. officers' reported l frequently seeing bats flying around the bright lights, probably feeding on insects attracted to the lights., This may explain why a species that should have been l common was not captured in mist nets set on other portions of the' site.- Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) On July 24, 1978 one male hoary bat was captured in a j mist net ~1ocated under the transmission line and adjacent to : a cedar swamp forest community. This was the only bat captured l during the-mist-netting effort. Therefore, except for the f l fact that this species was a summer resident of the area, , little could.be concluded concerning its status. Published l reports concerning hoary bats indicate a segregation of the
-sexes during summer (Barbour and Davis 1969). There is also evidence that during the breeding seasons males may be
} associated with other males, and likewise, females may associate with other females (Provost and-Kirkpatrick 1952). Thus-the possibility existed that the Forked River site was
-being used only by males and not by breeding females.
McCormickL(1970) did not include the hoary. bat in bis checklist of recent mammals found in the Pine Barrens. However, due to , l the widespread distribution of this species, which probably ! includes.all' 50 states-(Barbour and Davis 1969), it probably l 'is a-summer resident of the Pine Barrens. In the eastern United States Barbour and Davis (1969) considered the hoary
, bat a rare species, although this may be due more to a lack of L
I L
. 183 l l
l
.information than actual abundance levels. Although the data
- collected during 1978 definitely confirmed the presence of this species on the Forked' River site during summer, it is I also possible that during spring and fall migrating hoary bats temporarily use the site as they pass through the area.
Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis) , A few visual-observations of red bats foraging over the
- site were recorded during the survey. McCormick (1970) did not include the red bat in his checklist of mammals found in the Pine Barrens. This species is similar in habits to the hoary I
bat in'that they typically roost in trees and display migratory movements. Unlike the hoary bat, this species is usually a common member of faunal communities within its [ geographic range.(Barbour and Davis 1969). Although the status of this species on the site was unknown, it was likely that the red bat was one of the more common bat species using the. site. Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) L In discussing the. status and distribution of the eastern
-cottontail on the Forked River site it should be kept in mind that. populations-of cottontails not only vary from year to year, but are also capable of demonstrating long-term fluctuations.
Thus the data gathered during 1978-79 should be considered [ L applicable only to-that one-year period. The abundance level displayed by cottontails may have been average for the site, j or.it could have been either above or below average. Based on the box trapping data (Table IID-1) and the accumulation of incidental observations, it was concluded that the cottontail was not particularly abundant on the Forked River site during 1978-79 Both McCormick (1970) and Connor L (1953), however, described this species as a common inhabitant of the Pine Barrens. A total of seven cottontails were ear-tagged during this study, five in fall and two in winter. ' None l' l f r mo% , Aen atUv.-.-. ,,- , , , ,---- y .-,4--.,,,,..,s-av. -w , o-- ,m,-,, . -,. - - .- - - - - * " T C'N - " "W-m ew---* -
l ' 1 Table IID-1 Trapping Data of Medium-sized Mammals, Forked River Site, 1978-1979 Recaptured Trapping Tagging Species Tag No. Station Date Station Date Red squirrel 49 c1-13 7-25-78 86 S1-13 10-13-78 y 37 OP4-5 2-27-79 Eastern cottontail 186 c3-7 10-12-78 160 c2-3 10-13-78 c2-11 2-23-79 c2-5 2-24-79
- -~ c2-13 2-25-79
- 106 OP3-7 10-14-78 j 140 ,OP3-7 10-16-78 165- ^ OP3-7 10-17-78 1
138 OP4-5 2-24-79 OP4-3 3-1-79' 181 c2-13 2-27-79 l Ra[c' con 52 - OP3-15 7-24-78
-. ,y
' I \. 53 cl-1 10-12-78
('.
,1 s
~ r ;.
e ,54~
'U:02-1 10-13-78
, 55 'e C3-15 10-15-78 OP3-1 10-18-78 a(
10-16-78
)d06 /';-,c3-1,,t
,f' ,- f 1,
[/Eng-tailed l
', , , 'f
/ ,
, \,
l _o' ' i j, weasel -87 'OP4-9 y ' 10-13-78 /
- t. g w(;
t - t 3 4. 9
\ - 5 Q
- c i f'
l[ m- . vc .
185 were caught in either spring or summer. This amounted to a
- total' capture index of 0.62 per 100 trap nights.
In addition to the low ~ capture rate,.there was evidence , that cottontails were not uniformly distributed on the site. Trap lines that were associated with captures included Lines
~
c2, c3, OP3 and OP4 (Table IID-1). Line OP4 accounted for the' capture of one individual while the other three lines accounted for the' remaining six cottontails. Line OP4
-(Figure IID-1) was in a pitch pine lowland community located in the center of the site, while the other three lines were all north of the South Branch of Forked River. Thus it appeared, based on the trappin's data, that cottontails were more abundant in the northern half'of the site than in the southern half.
= Incidental observations indicated that some cottontails did-inhabit the' southern portion of the site, including the
' lowland shrub, upland shrub, cedar swamp forest, and pitch pine-oak communities. They were also noted in the vicinity of
, developed areas. However, there did appear to be fewer ,. observations in the southern half than the northern half, which
'wasjin general accord with the,results of the box trapping effort.
Although there was no clear-cut trend towards cottontails
- preferring one particular plant community over the others, the box trapping data suggested an equal preference for the cedar swamp shrub community and the pitch pine-oak community.
l However,~all three cottontails captured in the pitch pine-oak community were' caught at the same trapping station (Table IID-1).. Since the captures in the cedar swamp shrub community occurred over a wider' area than in the other communities, this may have been indicative of a greater utilization of this community. Despite!the fact that no cottontails were captured in the lowland' shrub or cedar swamp forest communities, incidental observations indicated that these communities were inhabited
-by-cottontails to a limited extent. Cottontails were also
186 noted on one occasion n an upland shrub community. } l Fased on the data,it appeared that the cedar swamp shrub and pitch pine-oak communities may.have been preferred, to 4 some extent, over other communities. The low cottontail abundance in.the upland shrub areas,'which also displayed a scarcity of protective cover, and also in the cedar swamp forest
. communities, which also contained little ground cover, was
. understandable. However, considering the apparent abundance of-protective cover in the lowland shrub and pitch pine lowland 1
communities, it was surprising to find few, if any, cottontails in'these communities. Only one cottontail was captured in the pitch pine lowland community, and none were caught in the ! lowland shrub (Table I1D-1). Woodchuck (Marmota monax)
'During the course of this study woodchucks were seen on only{,one occasion. This was during summer on the road south of the . Fire Pond in the- lowland shrub ce':munity. Because there Twas no other evidence-of woodchucks on the site, they were f'
i- considered rare. r ' Eastern Gray Squirrel'(Sciurus carolinensis)
/During the one-year period during which mammals were
!' . sampled 'cn1 the Forked River 1 site very'few gray squirrels were , [, see,n, and none were captured in box. traps. Of the few gray b squirrels'seen, all were. associated with the. pitch pine-oak ' c
-. community . Althoughl sightings were distributed in various-L
( , portions of L the : site, the northeast corner, near the ' meteorological tower, seemed to be preferred by this species. One was ;also seenLin 'a patch of tall oak trees just north of
'the site. The. status of the : gray squirrel on the site was fin agreement with comments:made by Connor (1953).and McCormick
~
~(1970).which indicated that this species was widespread in the Pine Barrens,-but not very abundant except in areas containing l
3
.%-', . --,,w . . , , m [,. , , - , ~ . - , , ,.,..w~.. ,,m, y ,.,%,. -.,y, g ,v. ,,-----,,,,m, - .~..-e-.., - - - ,, eg . - - -,, +-,
- , . . ~, . . - . ~ - _. . _ - . - . . - - - . . _ . _ _ -
187 ; i
' mature oaks and areas near developments where the composition ;
of the tree species was more suitable than in the Pine Barrens l proper. Connor (1953) also indicated that cedar communities '
- ^ were generally avoided by gray squirrels. It appeared that,
) in' general, the lack of tall' oaks, and the associated scarcity
'of good nest cavities and high mast production rendered the Forked River site unsuitable for the maintenance of a high -density of gray squirrels.
Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) The red squirrel was unquestionably the most abundant squirrel on the Forked River site. They were seen during all four seasons, and there was evidence of their occurrence in all major plant communities except the upland shrub. Both
- . Connor (1953) and McCormick (1970) considered this species to be common throughout the Pine Barrens.
.Although red squirrels were considered a common 'inhabitant of the site, only three were captured in box traps -
( '(Table IID-1). The-three captures were distributed among the following plant communities: cedar swamp forest (Line Cl), lowland shrub (Line S1), and pitch pine lowland (Line OP4). Visual observations confirmed that red squirrels were also present in the pitch pine-oak community, although none were
- . captured in such areas (Lines-OP1, OP2 and OP3). There was
- also a ~ limited amount of evidence that red squirrels were ~ present in the cedar. swamp shrub community, but again none I were' captured in such areas.- It was possible that red squirrels used cedar shrub' areas incidentally,due to the proximity of l- cedar shrubs to cedarJforest communities. Connor (1953) indicated thit cedar forests were the prime habitat for this j; . species in-the Pine Barrens although they also u oak-pine areas.
Even though the red squirrel was considered a common mammal on'the site, based on the trapping data and visual L t E L L __ _ _ _ _ a
188 observations, they did not seem to be overly abundant. As in 1 the case of many other mammalian species, whose abundance levels are subject to great periodic changes, the collection of data in one year was insufficient upon which to draw any t i firm conclusions concerning the overall status of this species. Therefore, it was not known if the abundance levels displayed
- by red squirrels during the course of this study were average, below average, or above average.- Since the red squirrel is considered a common inhabitant of the region, and suitable habitat apparently existed, it was possible that during 1978-79
. population levels were below average. It will require the 1
collection of data over several years. in order to put the 1978-79 red squirrel data into proper perspective. White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) i The white-footed mouse is typically an abundant member
- of faunal communities in woodland areas over much of the eastern United States (Hamilton 1943,.Burt and Grossenheider ,
1964). ~In theLPine Barrens region it was considered by Connor f (1953) and McCormick (1970) to be a common-species, particularly in pine and oak woods.
.All of the-data on' white-footed mice were collected with
'the use-of Sherman traps and drift fence pitfalls. A summary of
- Sherman trapping data concerning this species is presented on Tables IID-2 and IID-3. Since Sherman traps-and drift fences
- were used only in spring, summer and fall, there were no winter data collected on this species.
l . Tables IID-2 and IID-3 show that the abundance and
. occurrence of' white-footed mice among plant communities and seasons displayed a great deal of variability. The status of
. this specien'will be discussed by plant community.
Trap Lines OP1,'OP2 and OP3 were located in the pitch-pine . oak-community.. There was considerable variation among these
,three lines-(Table IID-2). The capture index on OP1 started out low in spring (0.97), increased considerably by summer (5 77),
Table IID- 2 White-footed Mouse: Seasonal Summary of Captures by Trap Line, Forked River Site, 1978 if Spring (") Summer (b) Fall (c) Trap (d) Capture (*) Trap Capture Trap Capture Nights Index Nights Index Nights Index
-OP1 103 0 97 104 5.77 102 5.88 OP2 104 0 103 0 104 2.88 OP3 104 1 92 105 0 103 0 97 OP4 104 0 105 1 90 102 0 98 S1 -105 1 90 104 0 96 104 0 C1' .102 0 104 6.73 102 0 98 C2 105 0 104 0 103 1 94 C3 105 0 104 0 104 0 C4 105 0 102 0 93 0 T1 105 0 105 0 102 7.84
- a. April
- b. July
- c. October d.- Number of functional trap nights
- e. Number of individuals captured per 100 functional trap nights 4
Table IID-3 White-footed Mouse: . Seasonal Summary of Captures by Plant Community Types, Forked River Site, 1978-
- . Plant Trap
. Community Lines Spring (a) Summer (b) Fall (c)
Trap (d)- -Capture (*) Trap Capture Trap Capture .i Nights Index Nights Index Nights Index Pitch Pine Lowland Forest OP4 104 0 105 1 90 102 0 98 Pitch Pine- OP1, OP2, Oak Forest OP3 311 0.96 312- 1 92 309 3.24 i Lowland Shrub Community 31 105 1.90 104. 0 96 104 0 l Cedar Swamp C2, C3, Shrub Community C4 315 0 310- 0 300 0.65 Cedar Swamp Forest C1 102 0 104 6.73 102 0.98 Upland Shrub ( Community T1 105 0 105 0 102 7.84 , a. April 2
- b. . July .
- c. October
- d. Number of functional trap nights
- e. Number of individuals captured per 100 functional trap nights i
j
191 and then changed little by fall (5.88). On Line OP2 no white-footed mice were caught in either spring or summer, but
' a slight increase to a capture index of 2.88 occurred by fall.
The capture index on Line OP3 started out low (1 92) in spring,
' decreased to zero during summer, and then increased slightly
' to 0 97 by fall.
When the data from the three lines were combined (Table IID-3) a slightly different picture developed. The combined data indicated a seasonal increase from 0.96 to 1.92 and
.then to 3 24. This suggested an overall low level of abun' dance, increasing from one season to another in an L expected fashion. What it did not reveal was the variation among the three sampling areas.
131e reason for one pitch pine-oak area (Line OP1) being
~
- preferred over other pitch pine-oak' areas (Lines OP2 and OP3) was unknown. The plant communities on the Forked River site were fairly homogeneous with little obvious variation from one area to another. The noted variation in abundance could have b been'due to several reasons, such as the abundance and distribution of predators, interspecific competition with other small mammals, or an unperceived difference in vegetation characteristics. As noted in other portions of this report, it was difficult-to characterize the status of a species on the
' basi's of one year's' data, and the picture presented by the dataTcollected in 1978 could change dramatically over a period b of time.
As can be noted in Tables IID-2 and IID-3 the cedar swamp shrub community was generally avoided by white-footed mice. l- ! Only on Line'C2,-during fall, was this species captured. The I . combined capture index!for cedariswamp~ shrub communities I (Table IID-3) was zero in spring and summer, and a very low l 0.65 in' fall. The-lack of captures in cedar swamp shrub areas is in accordance with data collected by Connor (1953) which
- 'showed no white-footed mice caught in cedar _awamps. As in Connor's study, there was no apparent reason why this species L
l.- 7 a-T 4 vs
194 l av.oided cedar swamp shrub' areas. White-footed mice generally reach high levels of abundance in areas where dense protective ground cover is available (Hamilton 1943) and have also been found to inhabit shrub communities in upland situations (Doutt et al. 1957). Only one pitch pine lowland area was sampled with Sherman traps (Line OP4) and was likewise found to contain few white-footed mice. With-the exception of fall, the capture index Jn1 Line OP4 was similar to the combined capture index for
-Lines OP1, OP2 and OP3 (Table IID-3).
The one line in a cedar swamp forest community (Line C1)
' displayed a change in capture index from zero in spring to 6.73 Lin summer and then down to 0.98 in fall (Tables IID-2 and IID-3). It was concluded that the cedar swamp forest
-' community was not suitable habitat for white-footed mice, despite a high. capture index in summer. Apparently the mice that were present in summer were either transient in nature
- or the population was not able to sustain itself due to some
! unknown factor. _ The' lowland shrub (Line S1) also contained few white-(' fcoted mice (Tables IID-2 and IID-3). The capture index decreased from a low level' of'l.90 in spring to 0 96 in summer y and'then'to.zero in fall. The situation in the lowland shrub l was similar to that.in_the cedar swamp shrub areas in that both l 'were very wet and contained very thick ground cover. But in
~
l both cases, white-footed mice failed to exceed a low level of I- abundance. The white-footed mouse was absent from the upland shrub [ community.that was' sampled:with Sherman traps (Line Tl) during
- spring and summer. However, during fall a capture index.of 7.84 was noted on this line, which was the highest capture index-for white-footed mice on any line during all three seasons (Table IID-2). The reason for'the sudden increase on this line from summer to fall was unknown. All of the mice captured-on Line T1 were adults, thus it was likely that h
a
193 the presence 'of white-footed mice on Line T1 was the result of. movement from some other area rather than the result of ' reproduction on the part of resident animals. The origin of these' mice was also unknown because neither of the lines on either~ side (Lines OP3 and C3) contained a sufficient number of mice to account for.those that appeared on Line T1. A similar invasion of an upland shrub area on the southern side of the site was noted by examining the data from drift fence #6 (Figure IIB-1). No white-footed mice were caught' in this drift fence _during spring or summer;'however, during fall three were caught. The magnitude of.the increase was probably greater since the period for the fall drift fence sampling was considerably shorter than the.other two seasons. Therefore, it was concluded that between summer and fall a movement'of some extent occurred within the white-footed mouse population, and resulted in the habitation of the upland shrub community during fall._ It.was also possible that this movement accounted for the dramatic decrease in white-footed mice caught in the cedar swamp forest' community.(Line Cl) from summer to fall (Table'IID-2). In conclusion, the white-footed mouse was not very L abundant on the Forked River site during 1978. The data indicated that this species utilized, to a varying degree, all major plant communities, and a considerable amount of variation existed within, and among, communities and seasons.
- There was also evidence that between summer and fall there
~
was movement out of cedar swamp forest areas and movement into [ upland shrub: communities. The destination of mice leaving L cedar.' swamp' forests and the ori' gin of mice entering upland shrub areas was unknown but'could have been related. l, .
^
- Red-backed Vole (Clethrionomys gapperi)
The red-backed vole was undoubtedly the most abundant
- mammal on the Forked River site.- Both Connor (1953) and l.
L
ay* t McCormick (1970) reported that red-backed voles are a common I. mammal in the Pine Barrens. The red-backed voles found in New EJersey are members of the subspecies C. g. rhoadsi (Hamilton ! - 1943, Hall and Kelson 1959). This subspecies appears to be
-isolated from other subspecies of C. gapperi, and is found
~
from Lakehurst.in northern Ocean County to the Delaware River Land Cape'May (Hamilton 1943). This subspecies also differs from other forms _of C. gapperi by being pronouncedly darker (
.with a less distinctive red back.
- Sherman trapping data and capture indices concerning this
. species are presented cn1 Tables IID-4 and IID-5 Red-backed 1
. voles were captured in Sherman traps o'n all lines except the
~ upland shrub-(Line Tl). - However, during summer and fall several
- red-backed voles were captured in a drift fence (#6) which was 4 located'in an upland shrub community (Figure IIB-1). There was considerable variation within-and among' plant communities, as well as between seasons. As in the case of the white-footed mouse, the following discussion of red-backed voles is organized I
i' primarily by plant community. Within the pitch pine-oak community (Lines OP1, OPE, and
- OP3),. three. totally different patterns of seasonal abundance
+- were' displayed by red-backed voles. On Line OP1 the capture index started at 4.85 in spring, dropped to 2.88 in summer, and then increased to 4.90 in fall, which was' comparable to the spring level. . On Line-OP2 the capture' index increased steadily from spring to fall changing from 2.88 in spring to 3.88 in summer, and then to 7.69 in fall. At the same time the capture
'index on Line OP3 dropped from 4.81 in spring to zero in summer and fall. By combining the. data for these three lines (Table IID-5) 'the capture index decreased from 4.18 in spring to
~
4 /
'2.25 in summer, and then increased to 4.20 in fall.
i Based lon the data, no reason was apparent to explain the
- differ $nce among lines within the pitch pine-oak community.
According to_ published habitat preferences of red-backed voles [ L(Hamilton 1943, Connor 1953, Doutt et al. 1967, McCormick 1970)
-W ^
y- ,y--y-g rvv+--w,,- ++yy +v,q,g-grye q-g,-ry- fge+wi gi ---y a-a----y.y, -ww-94pa.., ppg. g-y,p+w.9 -4gg,9. e m- D e w - p yvWg-r-ggwww +4,9 ne q g pe - rw W-mverr-m-u--w#
._ _ _ ~ . . ____ _ -- - . _ _ _ _
l- l t i [ Table IID-4 , ( Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of captures by L Trap Line, Forked River Site, 1978 l l Spring (8) Summer (b) Fall (") Trap (d) Capture (') Trap' Capture Trap Capture Nights- Index Nights Index Nights Index OP1 103 4.85 104 2.88 102 4.90 OP2' 104 2.88 103 3.88 104 7.69 OP3 104 4.81 105 0 103 0 OP4 104 13.46 105 11.43 102 28.43 S1 105 4.76 104 0 96 104 23 08 l c1 j!102 7.84 104 2.88 102 10 78 c2 L 105 0 104 0.96 103 3.88 Y ll L C3- :i 105 0 95 104 5.77 104 8.65 l 9 l - c4 /ir 105 0 102 4.90 93 20.43 f T1 . ' 105 0 105 0 102 0 l h l *
- a. ' April
! b. - July L c. October i d. Number of functional trap nights f e. Number of_ individuals captured per 100 functional trap nights [ L l'
- r. i s
+ -gw ry e 4g*'T g=w---"-'wwymy vwttYy
#
- W'evmp 4-syt.-w -e 3m q WM rs?p y- If yr ----yy y - m --+ 7 eeqwg
.: - 3 Table IID-5 Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary'of Captures by Plant Community Types, Forked River Site, 1978 Plant Trap
~ Community Lines- Spring (a) Summer (b) Fall (c)
Trap (d) - CaptureI *) Trap Capture Trap Capture Nights Index Nights Index . Nights Index Pitch Pine Lowland Forest OP4 104 13.46 105 11.43 102 28.43 Pitch Pine- OP1, OP2 Oak Forest OP3' 311 4.18 312 2.25 309 4.20 Lowland Shrub Community S1 105 4.76 104 0 96 104 23 08 Cedar Swamp C2, C3, Shrub Community C4 315 0 37 310 3.88 300' 10.99 Cedar Swamp Forest C1 102 7.84 104 2.88 102 10.78 Upland Shrub Community Tl 105 0 105 0 102 0
- a. April
- b. July
- c. October
- d. Number of functional trap nights
- e. Number of individuals captured per 100 functional trap nights
19'I the pitch pine-oak communities, due to their dry nature, are not' suitable habitat.for red-backed voles. This may be reason ,
- to suspect that movement, as animals were being forced into unsuitable habitat, or. attempted to find better habitat, may have been responsible =for the variation in abundance.
.Within the pitch pine lowland community (Line OP4) red-backed voles maintained' greater levels of abundance than in any other community,on the site (Table IID-4 and IID-5). The capture index in this area started at 13.46 in spring, dropped i'
- to 11.43 in summer,.and then rose dramatically to a very high 28.43 in fall. ~The data from Line OP4 was comparable to the combined capture index_for the pitch pine-oak lines (Table IID-5) in that it decreased from spring to summer and then rose in fall; however, the magnitude of the increase from summer to' fall on Line OP4 was much greater than the increase
, -in.the pitch pine-oak areas. For some reason red-backed voles found the pitch pine l lowland community excellent habitat. This was in contradiction with habitat preferences mentioned by Connor (1953) and McCormick_(1970). They indicated that wet sphagnum bogs and-cedar communities were preferred in the Pine Barrens region.
- Throughout.its range the red-backed vole has been described i las associated with moist to very wet habitats (Odum 1944,
~
Getz 1962, 1968, Brower and Cade-1966, Doutt et al. 1967). Uhe. association of red-backed voles to moist areas is the result offa high water consumption rate.. Getz (1968) reported that the unter turnover rate'of red-backed voles was 2.2 times that of
. white-footed mice. The moisture needed to maintain this rate j
waaLaupplied by free-standing water or a high water table (Getz 1968). On_the surface, the pitch pine lowland community was very dry, Land _thus would not appear capable of providing sufficient moisture to maintain populations of red-backed voles. However, l the pitch. pine lowland community was associated with the Atsion
; s
- tty eitp -s tw-re (
198 sand soil series-which was. characterized by a seasonally , high' water table .within zero to 1 foot of the surface, dropping p' 2 to 3 feet in summer. It was possible that the unusually high abundance of red-backed voles on Line OP4 during 1978 was permitted by the presence of a high water table. Although there was no evidence to support this possibility, it was also , possible that theLlower capture rate during summer may have been due.not to lower abundance, but to a reduction in trappability if the lower water table reduced the amount of time voles spent on.the surface. The capture index for red-backed voles in the lowland shrub (Line S1) displayed a somewhat similar pattern to the ! pitch pine lowland (Line OP4) in that it decreased from spring
'to summer (4.76 to 0.96) and then rose dramatically to 23.08 ,
in fall-(Table IID-4). Unlike the pitch pine lowland community,
.the water table, and thus available moisture, in the lowland shrub remained high throughout the year,.thus the decrease could not have - been the result of a lack of water.
_The capture index for red-backed voles in the cedar swamp shrub community (Lines c2, c3, and c4) changed in what could
- be described as a " normal" pattern. The capture index on all
, three lines started out low in spring, increased by summer,
.then increased again by fall (Table IID-4). The combined i= capture index changed from 0 37 in spring to 3.88 in summer
-to 10.99 in fall.(Table IID-5). This.was the only community sampled with Sherman traps in which the abundance of red-backed
-voles did not display a decrease from spring to summer. -It was possible that the cedar shrub ~ community was better habitat,
'not necessarily from the standpoint of producing more voles at anyJone time, but.from the standpoint.of maintaining permanent j :. populations.
The cedar swamp forest community (Line c1) also displayed a spring t'o.. summer decline (7.84 to 2.88) followed by an ,
-increase to 10 78-in' fall (Table IID-4). It should be noted that'thetfall index (10.78) was very similar to the combined f
199 index for cedar swamp shrub communities (10.99) (Table IID-5).
-In this case, however, there was an explanation to account, in~ part, for the. spring to summer decline.
During spring, several voles were captured on the eastern part of the line (Stations 1,'2, 3, and-4). Between spring and summer erosion
-from the cleared areaLadjacent to the cedar swamp forest resulted in the deposition of 5 to 6 inches of mud at Stations 1, 2, 3 and 4, thus greatly changing the habitat for small mammals. .To what extent this affected the capture index was
, unknown, but during summer and fall no small mammals were
~
captured at those stations..
- During the Sherman trapping effort no red-backed voles-were caught in the upland shrub community (Line Tl). However, I
during summer four voles were caught in a drift fence located
.in an upland shrub area in the southwest portion of the site i (Figure. IIB-1). An additional two voles were caught in that
. drift ' fence during the fall season. . Due to the nature of the '
Ldrift fence technique it was. unknown if these individuals were residents of.the. upland shrub area or moving through that particular community. Tables IID-6 and IID-7 present the number of male and female red-backed voles captured in Sherman traps. Of the eight lines that included vole captures, six had more males than females in spring. One (Line C4) had an equal number of r males and females, and Line OP4 had'seven males versus eight !- females. .During summer seven lines. contained red-backed voles; i- of these, four.had more males than females. The situation
- i. ' changes appreciably by fall. Of eight lines having red-backed !
~ voles in fall , all'eight had more females than males.
As can 1 be~seen on' Tables IID-6 and IID-7, in several cases there'were two.or three' times as many females as males. Whether this
- seasonal.. change in the ratioLof males.to females was due to '
- differences 11n mortality rates or an unequal birth rate for males and. females;was unknown, but it would enable a greater
?1 rate'of. population increase during the late summer-early . 4
- f w re- nv- g -e w e-- +- .v.-.w a *y -a r w p.++-ve.r e -w yem -.~,--m-vy- ,w w m me -er w r e- o-er,,v--+-+-
Table IID-6 Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of Sex D Trap Line, Forked River Site, 1978 g by Trap Line Spring (b) Summer (c) Fall (d) No. No.- No. No. No. No. Males -Females Males Females Males Females 0P1 5 2- 2 1 1 4 OP2 2 1 3 1 1 3 OP3 4 1 0 0 0 0 OP4 7 8 4 7 6 13 S1 - 3 . 2 0 1 7 9 C1 7 3 0 2 1 5 02 'O O O O 1 2 03 1. 0 4 2 2 6 C4 1 '1 2 3 1 9 T1 0- 0 0 0 0 0 ,
- c. Numbers include only those individuals for which sex could definitely be determined, thus the numbers are restricted
.. primarily to adults.
- b. -April c.. July d.--October i
Table IID-7 Red-backed Vole: SeasonalSummaryofSexDatabE)PlantCommunityTypes, Forked-River Site, 1978t Plant . Trap-Community Lines Spring (b) Summer (c) Fall (d) No. No. No. No. No. No. Males Females Males Females Males Females , Pitch Pine Lowland' Forest OP4 7 8 4 7 6 13 Pitch Pine- OP1, OP2, Oak Forest OP3 11 4 5 2 2 7 Lowland Shrub Community S1 3 2 0 1 7 9 Cedar Swamp C2, 03, Shrub Community 04 2 1 6 5 4 17 Cedar Swamp Forest 01 7 3 0 2 1 5 Upland Shrub Community. Tl 0 0 0 0 0 0
- a. Numbers include only those individuals for which sex could definitely be determined, thus the numbers are restricted primarily to adults
- b. April
- c. July 1
- d. October e %
_. - . - .. - .- -- - - . - - ~_- - 202
~
fall period.- - ! _ Age data presented on Tables IID-8 and IID-9 supported l the conclusion that the major reproductive effort, at least during.1978, took place in late summer. During the spring and summer sampling periods (April and July) only one immature red-backed vole was captured. By- fall, of eight lines -
' containing red-backed voles, six had immatures. In some cases
~
more than half of'the captures were immature animals. This f apparent delay in reproduction may explain why the capture
~ indices for this species decreased from spring to summer.
As previously discussed, there was great variation in the g abundance of red-backed voles among the plant communities and
. sampling locations. There was also a change in the distribution
, of voles.within individual trap lines. Tables IID-10 and
- IID-11 present th'e distribution of captures within the trap lines.> .The. pattern of change in distribution follows that of the capture indices (Table IID-4 and IID-5). If the
- combined data are'. examined (Table IID-ll) it is apparent that in.every plant community, except cedar swamp shrub, there was--a reduction in the number of stations reporting captures
. from. spring to summer, followed by a summer to fall increase.
The distribution in the cedar swamp shrub lines increased from spring.to. fall, just as the capture index did. 4 Although the. data on red-backed voles are limited to 1978,
~ End-in'many cases inconsistent, a~few preliminary conclusions
'could be: drawn. Red-backed voles were found in every major plant community. During 1978 they maintained their greatest level of abundance'in the pitch pine lowland community. The abundance-in the pitch pine lowland area may have been due to L the presence of a high water table. A decline in abundance levels occurred from spring to summer in all communities p ' except the cedar ~ swamp shrub community. From spring to fall
- . there was a shift in the ratio of males to females from one
where males-predominated, to one where females predominated.
~
I l - There was also an indication that reproduction was delayed, r-=v v -- g e -- w - s- eh+,a ---,m-e--.-- -- N w---a n ,- e n- m- . w w, ws,awsm- ,,-en , , - --e Aa,-en --,--wy +w- , ,r~ . , - -,---,w
Table IID-8 Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of Age Data Trap Line, Forked River Site, 1978 (a)by Spring (b) Summer (c) p,yy d) No. No. No. No. No. No. Adults Immatures Adults .Tmmatures Adults Immatures OP1 5 0 3 0 5 0 OP2 3 0 3 1 4 4 OP3. 5 0 0 0 0 0
. 0P4 15 0 12 0 19 9 S1 5 0 1 0 15 9 c1 -10 0 3 0 5 5
. C2 0 0 1 0 3 1 c3' 1 0 5 0 8 0 ,
c4 2 0 5 0 10 5 l T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 t c. Numbers include only those individuals for which age was morphologically obvious. b . .. April
- c. July
- d. . October i
'g-'7* rm '-
-v- We-- + - - - - - - ---
Table IID-9 Red-backed Vole: Seasonal Summary of Age Data by Plant Community Types, Forked River Site, 1978 (a) Plant Trap Community Lines Spring (b) Summer (c) Fall (d) No. No. No. No. No. No. Adults Immatures Adults Immatures Adults Immatures Pitch Pine Lowland Forest OP4 15 0 l'c 0 19 9 Pitch Pine- OP1, OP2, Oak Forest OP3 13 0 6 1 9 4 Lowland Shrub Community S1 5 0 1 0 15 9 Cedar Swamp 02, C3 Shrub Community C4 3 0 11 0 21 6 Cedar Swamp Forest Cl 10 0 3 0 5 5 Upland Shrub Community Tl 0 0 0 0 0 0
- a. Numbers include only those individuals for which age was morphologically obvious,
- b. April
- c. July
- d. October
Table IID-10 Red-backed Vole: Spatial Distribution of Captures Within Trap Lines, Forked River Site, 1978 Trap LLine Number'of Trapping' Stations Occupied (") During(b) U"#1"E(c) During) Total During Spring Summer Fall ( 1978 OP1 4 2 4 7
-OP2 3 4 4 8 OP3 3 0 0 3 OP4 9 8 10 15 S1 4 1 9 12 C1' 8 1 6 13 C2 0 1 4 5 C3 1 3 7 9 t
C4 1 4 10 11 i T1 0 0 0 0
- a. Number occupied out of 15 stations available per line
- b. April
- c. July
- d. October l
l
Table IID-ll Red-backed Vole: Spatial Distribution of Captures Within Trap Lines by Plant Community Types, Forked River Site, 1978 No. Plant. Stations Community Available Number of Trapping Stations Occupied During During Durin Total During Spring a) Summer (b) Fall c) 197g Pitch Pine Lowland Forest 15 9 8 10 15 Pitch Pine-Oak. Forest 45 10 6 8 18 Lowland Shrub Community 15 4 1 9 12 Cedar Swamp Shrub Community 45 2 8 21 25 1 Cedar Swamp Forest 15 8 1 6 13 Upland Shrub
- Community 15 0 0 0 0 2
- a. April
- b. July
- c. October
207 and did not add to the number of trappable animals until sometime between July and October. Considering the total data base for this species, it appeared that the cedar ~ swamp shrub community may have represented a more stable, and possibly secure, habitat than the other communities. The spring to summer decline in abundance displayed by all communities, except the cedar swamp shrub, was perhaps due to mortality which was not compensated for by reproduction. Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) During this study only six meadow voles were captured: three in spring, two in summer, and one in fall. All captures occurred on either Line C3 or C4 which were located in different portions of the same cedar swamp shrub community (Figure IID-1). Although the meadow vole is found in the Pine Barrens proper (Connor 1953) they were reported to reach their greatest levels of abundance in lowland marsh areas, ! particularly tidal brackish meadows (Connor 1959, McCormick ! 1970). Shure-(1970) found meadow voles to be a common mammal y on Island Beach. Depending on habitat characteristics, capture
- rates on Island Beach for meadow volcs ranged from zero to 68.4 per 100 trap nights.
In considering the distribution and number of meadow voles captured on the Forked River site during 1978 it should be kept in mind that this species is cyclic, displaying peak densities at approximately 4-year intervals (Doutt et al. 1967). Therefore, it was possible_that during 1978 the meadow vole population was at a low point in the cycle. Only a study of several years duration would provide sufficient data to accurately describe the local status of this species. Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) There were a limited number of observations concerning muskrats during 1978. Both Connor (1953) and McCormick (1970)-
^
I c
200 2 9 reported that muskrats are fairly common along the eastern edge of the Pine Barrens. On the Forked River site they were restricted to Oyster Creek, the Fire Pond, and to a lesser degree, Forked River. No active lodges were found and it was f suspected that the few muskrats present were utilizing bank ' burrows. l House Mouse (Mus musculus)
- House mice were captured in a drift fence located in the I lowland shrub. Two were caught during summer sampling and {
.one was caught during fall. These are the only observations of !
t this species-recorded during'1978. It was suspected, based on f the limited amount'of. data, that house mice were rare in the natural plant communities of the Forked River site. It was more likely that house mice were common around the buildings associated with the construction area. a
- l Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius) l All of the data concerning meadow jump' ing mice were obtained from drift fences. One was captdred during spring, p
- three in summer, and five in fall. This[specieswasfound associated with lowland shrub, upland shrub, and pitch pine-oak communities. In the Pine . Barrens region ( the meadow jumping mouse was reported to be widespread, but most common near
(~ . streams and in sphagnum bogs-(Connor 1953[1959, and McCormick 1970). OnIslandBeach,Shure(1970)rehortedmeadowjumping I mice were associated with moist portions of the- barrier beach. Duetotheirunstablehomeranges,andtehdencytowander, b .this species Lis frequently encountered in areas of non-typical
- h a' b i t a t . Due sto the lack of captures in Sherman traps the meadow' jumping mouse was. considered as uncommon on the site.
Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris) Evidence indicating the presence of domestic dogs was <
'noted during fall and winter. During fall the tracks of one
[ f.
..,--..n...,. -.., , . - n. ,,,,w,-,,,,, ,,_,,,,.._.,,.,,,,,..,..,.._,..n- .,-,._.,._,_-.7-_,.---
dog were found on the south deer track transect (Figure IID-1). In winter, tracks revealed that at least one dog was utilizing the main portion of the Forked River site and two dogs had been active on the small portion of the site east of Route 9 In summary, free-ranging dogs appeared to be rare and transient on the site. Red Fox (Vulpes fulva)
' Evidence of red foxes. was found during spring, summer and fall. During winter, several fox tracks were found, but due to poor track conditions it could not be determined for certain which fox species they represented. During July one red fox was lured into view with the use of an electronic game caller.
The caller was positioned in the upland shrub community in the southwest corner of the site. The fox approached at a full run from the cedar swamp forest area immediately south of that location, and then returned to the'same general area. Based on the data collected during 1978-79, the red fox, although definitely a resident of the site, did not appear to be abundant. However, considering the size of the site in relation to the large home range required by this species, it may have actually occurred in reasonable numbers. Connor (1953) and McCormick (1970) both reported that the red fox was rare in the Pine Barrens and may be restricted to some of the tidal river meadows. The position of the site on the eastern edge of the Pine Barrens may include the range of the red fox in i this region as indicated by Connor (1953). Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) One gray fox was seen during October. Although no definite observations were recorded during other seasons it was possible that some of the unidentified fox tracks that were located were made by gray foxes. Based on the number of observations and the failure of any gray foxes to respond to the electronic game call it appeared that the gray fox was not
. 1 1
1
-- - . , - _ , . - .. ~ , . , _ - , - . . - - - - . . .
210 particularly abundant on the site. This differs somewhat from Connor-(1953, 1959).and McCormick (1970) who indicated that the gray fox was quite common in the region. However, if the gray fox and red fox are considered together it could l i be concluded that'during 1978-79 foxes were an important predator group on the site. [ l
- Raccoon (Procyon lotor) !
The raccoon was reported to be a common inhabitant of the Pine Barrens and adjacent tidal areas (Connor 1953, , McCormick 1970). During this study raccoons were noted during (
.kil four seasons. Cage trapping efforts resulted in the capture of.one raccoon in July and four in October (Table IID-1).
Based on visual observations and tracks, raccoons appeared to be active throughout the site. However, the cage trapping l data indicated' greater utilization of the northern portion of the site, at least during October. One raccoon was captured on Line C1. (Table IID-1), which was located in the cedar l us'wamp forest community on the southern edge of the site - L L(Figure IID-1). The other four captures were north of Forked. River in the pitch pine-oak community (Line OP3) or cedar swamp shrub community-(Lines 02 and C3). Because most of the raccoon captures occurred during fall, it was impossible to determine if the concentration of raccoons on the northern i
' portion of the site was due to a seasonal shift in distribution, or if they were more abundant in that area throughout the' year.
Since four of five captures were in' cedar-dominated communities it was concluded that, at least during October, raccoons t
' displayed a preference for such areas.
- Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) ;
.The striped' skunk was found to be a rare inhabitant of the Forked' River site. None were seen or trapped, and a
- limited. amount of evidence indicating their presence was found I during the spring and summer sampling periods. Both Connor ,
_ _ . _ _ _ _ . - ~ _ -_ _ ____ _ __. ._.._ _ _ _ _ _._- . _ _ _ . _ _. 211 i
'(1953) and McCormick (1970) reported that striped skunks were rare in the Pine Barrens and occurred more on the edges of the i
! region than in the-Pine Barrens proper. ! E l Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata) One long-tailed weasel was captured and ear-tagged l during October (Table IID-1). This individual was caught on f
.Line OP4 which was located in a pitch pine lowland community
- (Figure.IID-1).-
For some unknown reason the weasel totally lacked a tail. 'However, since foxes have been reported to ! i- frequently kill weasels (Latham 1952) it was possible that this weasel lost its tail in an encounter with a fox. Connor (1953, 1959) and McCormick (1970) indicated that this species 1was common in the Pine Barrens and was usually found along streams. . Based on the capture of only one individual it was not possible to draw any conclusions concerning the abundance
- of this species on the site. However, it was interesting to I
note.that the long-tailed weasel captured on Line OP4 was associated with an area that displayed the highest abundance level of red-backed. voles (Table IID-4). Hall (1951) reviewed 1 the food habits of the long-tailed weasel and reported that ! white-footed. mice 'and meadow voles were predominant items 'in the diet of this weasel species. It was suspected that since neither white-footed mice nor meadow voles were abundant on the Forked River site, the red-backed vole represented the ; j . major. prey species of long-tailed weasels.- ,
- Domestic Cat (Felis catus)
Several domestic cats were seen on the Forked River site. Practica11y' all observations of cats occurred near the ' construction area or in the immediate vicinity. - Although l
" cats were actively hunting'the area north of the construction area on both sides of Forked River,:they appeared to be-
' dependent.on the construction area for shelter. To what
. extent' cats affected the local faunal community was not known; ;
+ - # ,,..-.---wme,-, -,~.m. -,-~-.', --,.-y-ww,,--r4,.,,w,-.-,,,- _,,...,y. , ,% . , , ~,m~,%wwy,,,.-,, ,,,_4..p,.4 ..,wi-,-,,.-,.--9%,-.--- -v"
,lQ ( j '
'A y- ,
< 3 ,
.u 212
't! R .
x$1b h- , 4[tf^ vi4 ~ l(, yQ \w n \ however,.they'.are sp w excellent hunters and are capable of killing many small-manurals (Errington 1936). Although it may not l
%. I have been 'related to the presence of cats, the trap line locataC inLthe cedar' swamp shrub area close to the construction w .
4 area'(Line C2) (rigure IID-1) displayed the lowest capture
.i index of red-backed voles of/the.three lines located in that
, lant c$mmunity. i fats were brequently seen hunting in or near s this qline,,'and thus may,have played a role in reducing the abundance of voles.
White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) The-white-tailed deer was the only large mammal expected t on the Forked River _ site. Although this species was common, it appeared that the density of deer using the site was below the carrying capacity of the area. l (
- t. ?The distribution of deer, and number of deer using the site L
, The data collected from-f thetwo _y
~
h deer aried . tr'ackfrom transects ieason to season. are' presented on Table IID-12. ! Durings spring, most'of the deer activity was confined to the i
+
central;part.of the. site. There was little movement across either the north or the south trar.:.ect (Table IID-12). Visual R sightings and incidental tracic observations indicated that deer ! . were feeding on the grass west'of the parking area and bedding
.. . . 1 down'in the adjacent pita cine lowland and-pitch pine-oak a'reas . .
(
, Deer activity;during summer appeared to be distributed more evenly throughout:the site. Incidental observations confirmed the presence,of: deer in each portion of the site.
p The-track transect data (Table IID-12) also, indicated an
, increased tendency for movement.,
'During fall, deer were concentrated along the northern
.' edge of'the -w tite. The deer track data (Table IID-12) strongly !
1 v
" suggested a t,s'hift in activity to"the northern portion of the b . site.: It.was suspected that thic6 concentration was in s, -1
-[ 3 k, .,# f l-4 i . 74 m .x L ;
s. l jf ? " st J 4
,K . l.
sff:g W
, iL WJ' - _ . _ . _ - -
7;-- Table IID-12
' Deer Track Transect Data, Forked River Site, 1978-1979 Season Average Number of Tracks Per Day l North Transect. North Transect (*) South Transect (actual count) (adjusted count) (actual count)
Spring- 0 0 1.6 L
-Summer 5.3 32 30
, . Fall 12.4 7.6 0.9 Winter 2.3 1.4 0.9 ' ut [ ? ' i^ a.
.Because the south transect-(1750 feet) was 61 percent as long as the north transect (2875 feet), track counts on
;the_ north transect.were reduced by 39 percent'to permit fdirect comparison.
.I .
i l-y- l L f .-.
<.c , , , . _ y .m.I , 345,..., ,y., ,_ _ ~ . . ,_,,m. ,,,-m-, . _ . , .,-,_---,,4 v. .. , ,-,~.-
u, , 214 a I-Tresponse-to the. availability of acorns from groves of mature e oaks located north of the site. Little et al. (1958) found f1 Nhktiforseveralweeks-infalldeerinthePineBarrensfeed ltheavily on acorns'. 3
-a1 s1 Th'ere'was a reduction in-the number of deer found on the
. site during. winter,_and also a change in their activity' 3 .3 patterns. As seen on Table IID-12 there was'a decrease in t 3 -
the number of deer crossing the two-transects. This was
- , - also assyciated'with fewer sightings and incidental track
- / observations. It.was suspected that during the winter months-3)
- fewerideer actually used the site. Excensive searches conducbad
'during perieds'when snow permitted tracking' failed to locate .
- t. '
many. deer. At this time of the year the_ deer that remained
- on site were found'mostly in the cedar swamp shrub areas.
This11s understandable since'Little et al. (1958) reported that-Atlantic. white' cedar was by far the preferred food of m. 3 deer dur,ing. winter. in southern New Jersey. L LA factorithat affected_the deer-population was sport . f,; hunting. . Evidence was discovered indicating that deer ! - Lhunting1took place on the site.. To what extent hunting
. influenced thel number of deer present was not known. Illegal F
hunting.was;another factor,that may have affected the deer p populationb 5There was jome evidence that suggested that
=the illegal removal of. deer might'have occurred. .But here again__to.what' extent this might have affected the deer derd ,
V -was notLknown.- 1 s E ,7 In conclusion, although; deer were actively using the sSte, they were not as abundant as they could have beenl.
# 3 ,
L JA; key factor indicating,that. deer were~below their carrying L -
-capacityswas the lack of noticeable-browsing on' white 5 cedar' shrubs.- .Little et al. (1958) and Little and somes _$ /
I(1965)lreported-that deerfare capable of almost totally ' (eliminating cedar reproduction.inl areas where deer'are *
- abundant . . There was no indication that, deer had reduced:to tanytappreciable. extent the stands of-young cedars found on H,, .
}- I
~
n.
, e , , , . .,---g ,+-, ..w,. +,,,m..,,-- - .-.e.v.,w-.e
, . . ., . + , ~N~ w ~ , , , . nw,--~.n--,.-e- . . , , - . - , , .
i L 215 the site. No reason was discovered that accounted for the apparently low. number of deer in the area. There are, however, two possibilities. First is the presence of the Garden State
. Parkway which represented a potential source of mortality through deer-car collisions. The second possibility was illegal hunting.
.The actual number of deer using the site was not determined. Even in a limited area (such as the Forked River site) it is virtually. impossible to accurately document the
. number of deer present (Wright 1960). The probability of
. observing deer was low in areas of' dense vegetation, such as the cedar communities, which provided excellent cover. Based on the1 data, and experience in other areas, it was believed that no r more than 10 to 12 deer were on the site at any one time.. This obviously varied from season to season with the maximum occurring during fall. In the early spring and late winter, probably less than eight deer used the Forked River site.
Mammalian Ecology f- A total of 25 mammalian species were documented'using l .the Forked' River site during the:one-year study (Table :ID-13 ) . Of these 25, two were of domestic origin and-included the domestic dog and cat. Of the remaining 23, all but two were
' documented previously in the Pine Barrens' region by McCormick
- (1970). The two species not reported by McCormick (1970)
- . were'the hoary bat and red bat. Of the 34 species reported
!. . by McCormick (1970) the following 13 were not found on the Forked River site: Least shrew (Cryptotis parva) l Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) Eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Eastern. chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans)
Table IID-13 ymmmal Species List and Seasonal Distribution of Observations, Forked River Site, 1978-1979 i Species Spring Summer Fall Winter l Didelphis virginiana opossum X X Sorex cinereus Masked shrew- X X X Blarina brevicauda Short-tailed shrew X X Condylura cristata Star-nosed mole X
-Myotis lucifugus Little brown bat X 'Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat X Lasiurus borealis
- l. Red bat X Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail X X X X Marmota monax
-Woodchuck X Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel .X X Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel X- X .X X Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse X X X Clethrionomys gapperi .
Red-backed vole X X X Microtus pernsylvanicus Meadow vole X X X Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat X X
Table IID-13 (cont. ) Species- Spring Summer Fall Winter Mus musculus House mouse X X Zapus hudsonius Meadow jumping mouse X X X Canis familiaris Domestic dog X X Vulpes fulva Red fox X X X
- Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox X Procyon lotor Raccoon X X X X Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk X X I Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel X l
l Felis catus-Domestic cat X X X X [ Odocoileus virginianus ,.. -White-tailed deer X X X X 1 I P- r -y - - p ---e- -- g s- -- m---g- w w-- ew y- t- -wv+ -eir .e t- - ' y=-+
y 218 Beaver (Castor canadensis) Rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) Pine vole (Microtus pinetorum) Southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi) Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) Mink (Mustela vison) River otter (Lutra et.aadensis) It was possible that some of these species were actually present but avoided. capture or detection. For example, due to a lack of the appropriate species-specific sampling
' technique it was likely that eastern moles were present but not' captured. On the other hand, it would have been unlikely for eastern chipmunks to avoid detection if they were present.
Therefore,~the list of species noted on Table IID-13 may not
-include all species present, but it does represent the vast majority, particularly those that were abundant enough to constitute an important part of the faunal community.
Table IID-13 also indicates the seasons in which a L particular species was recorded. This should not be interpreted as an indication of seasonal presence or absence. For example, some species such as the small mammals were not noted in winter. This was due to the fact that Sherman trapping was not conducted during winter, and not that they were absent from the site. In the case of.the red squirrel and gray, squirrel, the seasonal distribution was a result of a difference in abundance. Both species should have been L equally observable, or trappable, but because gray squirrels were far less. abundant'than red squirrels they were noted in Lonly two seasons as compared to four seasons for the red squirrel. Considering the whole site, the species composition-and abundance of mammals were greatly affected by the variety of plant communities. If the site had been composed entirely-of a' pitch pine-oak community, as much of the Pine Barrens is, the abundance of small mammals would have been totally
219 different. The most abundant small mammal, the red-backed vole, reached its highest level of abundance in plant communities other than pitch pine-oak. The availability of habitat suitable for red-backed voles in turn affected the suitability of the area for predators such as the red fox, gray fox, and long-tailed weasel. Although all plant communites were important to the mammals to some extent, and the mammalian community was
-influenced by the diversity of plant communities, it appeared that the cedar swamp shrub community ranked above the others in importance. In the cedar swamp shrub communities red-backed vole populations appeared to be most securs and likely to maintain' high levels of abundance over a long period of time.
This community was also important to white-tailed deer, eastern
, cottontails, and raccoons. The other communities varied in importance from one species to another, and from season to season, but the cedar swamp shrub community appeared to be
! a key' stabilizing factor in the existence of many important species.
-Endangered or Threatened Species of Mammals No mammals listed as endangered er threatened by the U.S. Department of Interior (USDI 1979) or_New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP 1979) were found on the Forked River site during the baseline study.
However, the red-backed vole, which is_ listed by the NJDEP as " status undetermined" was the most common small mammal on the site. The status of this species on the site is discussed in detail in an earlier.section.
220 3
SUMMARY
. l A total of 25 mammalian species were noted on the Forked River site during the period from March 1978 to February 1979. (- Mammals utilized, to varying degrees, all of the major plant communities on the site. The presence of mammalian species,
.their relative abundance, and utilization of various portions of the site were determined through the use of Sherman traps, box traps, cage traps, weasel traps, an electronic game call, 4
-and habitat searches.
The most abundant small mammal on the site was the red-backed. vole. The-capture index for this species on most 4 lines displayed an interesting decrease from spring to summer before increasing in fall. It was suggested that this decrease was the result of a delayed reproduction period. The pitch pine lowland community accounted for the highest abundance
- levels of' red-backed voles. The cedar swamp shrub community appeared to be the best habitat for red-backed voles based
-on the fact that capture indices for trap lines in this
, community increased steadily from spring to fall.
Among the small mammals, the white-footed mouse ranked L _second in abundance to the red-backed vole. Tais species and other small mammals were much less abundant than red-backed voles and were not'found in many areas. In general, medium-sized mammals were not very abundant-on the site.- Even typically common species such as the red squirrel,. eastern cottontail, and raccoon did not appear to L exist in high numbers. Within this group.there was a tendency to.-favor the' northern half of the site, although based on the
-limited amount of data collected on this group it was difficult to' attribute much certainty to this trend.
- In the same respect, the white-tailed deer appeared to be present in numbers below-the carrying capacity of the area.
She reason for the -low number of deer was not known but may
-have'been the-result of' illegal hunting activities. During l:
u.,.-p k a-p.- q - - . . -- w ,. ed -y --eg- 4,-w , ,g-... g - ya-v w wtg 4 T- y*w= - ~ " - ' *
, 221' winter, use of the site by deer was greatly reduced in comparison to the other seasons.
Although all plant communities were important to different degrees, the cedar swamp shrub community may have been the most important to the overall mammalian community. Data collected on red-backed voles, eastern cottontalia, raccoons, and white-tailed deer led to the conclusion that the cedar swamp shrub community was of greater importance than other communities. However, it was the diversity of plant communities on the Forked River site, as well as their composition,that accounted for the presence and distribution of the mammalian community. l
222 III. MONITORING PROGRAM (PHASE I, PART B)
-A.. FLORA.
- 1. SAMPLING' ACTIVITIES Sampling activity in 1978 for the monitoring of vegetation = consisted primarily of: the assessment of the construction area _ periphery _and other areas of potential impact;-the establishment and sampling of-qualitative transects around the construction area periphery; the establishment and sampling of quantitative transects throughout the site; and the assessment of areas known to contain potential listed species.
Prior to the establishment of any qualitative transects, the_ entire construction area periphery was walked to assess impact and to map these areas. A few areas that appeared to have potential for future impact were also mapped. Inspections of the entire periphery to assess changes in the extent of L -impact were continued each month-throughout the growing season. - L Twenty qualitative transects were established in April around the construction area' periphery. ,The locations of these transects are1 indicated on Figure'IIIA-1. The transects were mostly placed in a' north-south orientation, beginning at or_near the periphery and= traversing perpendicular to the ! ' periphery in areas that appeared to be under disturbance because of construction activities. They were permanently marked with metal conduit. The transects were at least 20 meters long, although in areas where disturbance was evident for this distance the length was increased to 30 meters. [ : Cover data were obtained for each vegetation layer in meter intervals for the. length of the transect. Methods for
- = . obtaining. cover data were essentially the same as outlined L in the Procedures Manual for-Part A. The only difference was that cover data were obtained by each layer as a whole, 1-l-
I l o O ,_
224 not by. species within each layer. The qualitative transects were sampled during May, June, July, August, and September. Some qualitative information was obtained during April, but because of the lateness of leaf emergence during 1978, the transects were not sampled. The qualitative tr.ansects were also not sampled during October because the woody vegetation had dropped their leaves prior to the scheduled sampling. In October, permanent markers were installed on the metal poles of the qualitative transects near the periphery for the purpose of measuring the depth of soil deposited in each L sampling area. Data on soil deposition will be obtained during' future monitoring efforts. Quantitative transects to be used for Part B will be selected from Part A transects. These transects are located on Figure IIA-1. To supplement the quantitative transects used for Part A, six additional transects were established around the periphery in late September of 1978. The locations ! of these transects are presented on Figure IIIA-2, 0; RESULTS AND DISCUSSION i Qualitative Transect Data l. Data from the twenty qualitative assessment transects are presented-in Appendix Tables B-1 through B-20. These [ data will be compared throughout the monitoring study. There is much_ variation in the data of a given transect from month to month as a result of natural seasonal changes in vegetation.
-Therefore, the most logical comparisons-will be those made from data obtained from given transects during corresponding
' months from one year to the next. A graphical comparison similar'to that presented in Figure IIIA-3 is envisioned for each_ transect. At the end of each season or year, data from corresponding months from a given transect will be plotted;on these graphs and compared to previous data. A visual comparison can be readily made of the change in l-l t
. . _ _ - ~ - _
=
e '*. l
] ~' ~ ,
x .****
= ,*+
8, e gaY l !CD f f
=
' % g c
a
)
j )t a E ; 5 1 Y-E 0l
- , /
l"o D O
'$ l l ; c
, i
\
- I , \
'I ,
)
"4, ' okall~
u. f Ih ~ I 1 FIGURE IIIA-2. LOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL QUANTITATIVE TRANSECTS (*) FOR CONSTRUCTION AREA MONITORING, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978.
SPRING ! (MAY) l 100 l
~
\ 1 g'. .
~
# ~
i " _ e i ie . . . , e a i i , i . , , , , , . . . . . . i b i i as5 8 8 8 810 8 8 4 '15 8 8 8 8 20 ' ' ' '25 8 8 8 8 interval (meters) along transect SUMMER (JUNE & JULYI 300 [ u
~
t . I e I t 9 9 9 9 9 9 f a f f f G I f f 1 9 a e t t t t O , , ' '5 8 ' ' '10 ' ' ' 8 15 8 8 8 '20 8 8 8 '25 8
- 8 '
interval (meters) along transect l . f FALL joo IAUGUST & SEPTEMBER)
! SO 8 .
t - _" w . . _s , .. . , , . . e ie . . .i ,,. u a i a e5 : , jo a i a a15 5 8 8 82 0 ' ' ' '25 8 8 8 ' interval (meters) along transect l FIGURE IIIA-3. PERCENT COVER OF THE GROUND LAYER OF QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT TRANSECT NO. 117, FORKED RIVER SITE, 1978, 1 l
A & 4 -L--,. - e4-- 44--w:.,-- ~: 227
. vegetation. cover along the length-of the transect from year
' t'o L year . Hypothetical graphs comparing two years are
. presented on Figure IIIA-4. These graphs illustrate hypothetical impact on the ground layer at this transect (reduction in. cover) from 1978 to 1979 The amount of impact
- in this hypothetical example also increased during 1979 from
- spring to fall. These types of comparisons and an accompanying discussion will be made in future reports.
-Quantitative Transect Data Data from the quantitative transects to be utilized for
' the assessment of construction activities on community structure are presented as a portion of the Part A data in Appendix A.- Data were also collected from six additional transects placed around the construction area periphery. All
' of the data to be used for comparisons will be selected from- [
j -!these transects at a later date when comparisons can be made ;) i from year to year. As indicated for the . qualitative *
'l t-
- assessment data, the most logical comparisons'will be those (I
made_for a given transect from year to year. Actual . j dominance of the dominant species in each scratum of selected transects will be the data actually compared. The baseline community data will be.used to select the dominant species in each community. Transects will be. selected on a random basis,'but stratified in three groups:. near periphery, away i from periphery, and general location. This will permit the }} monitoring of all areas of the site with the possibility of i h-
' emphasizing a given area. The data will be compared using
- the' appropriate t-test. It will be tested for normality and may be. transformed if necessary to fit'a normal distribution.
Areas of Impact 1 Areas that are presently receiving impact or that
- appeared to be in-a position where. future impact may occur f
,..-y e.w, . - - - . , . - , - . ---,-,...we,- -- -.--e--,.-wr,-,--s.--em, e,,v,rw--,.c,- g-w e-- ,mm m-g -,--.y, .y a- ,-
SPRING [MAYl 100
,)
/
y 50 t 8 -
/
^
t t t t t V
, ) 1 f 9 9 9 f % t , t t t t 9 f t t t t t 0 i a a 45 8 8 8 810 8 8 8 '15 8 8 8 '20 8 8 8 '25 8 8 8 8 interval (meters) along transect SUMMER IJUNE & JULY) 10 0 ,
N 50 [,/ 8 -
' )
_ i
/.
9 t t 9 9 [ t t t t t t e f 9 t t t t t I t t t t t = t ! O , * *
'S 8 ' ' '10 *
- 8 8 15 8 8 8 '20 s a a25 8 ' 8 8 interval (meters) along transect FALL 100,
[ AUGUST & SEPTEMBERI
, *s I u - / sf e
! SO ,
/
u - a p - s'
'J e t i e , e t /t , t e t t t t , t t t t , t t e t O 8 8 8 85 s i a J 10 s sa 815 4 e a 420 8 8 ' '25 a a a a It'ferval (meters) along transect FIGURE IIIA-4. -A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION ILLUSTRATING A REDUCTION IN C0VER IN A GIVEN TRANSECT FROM 1978 ( ) TO 1979 (---) AS A RESULT OF IMPACT.
y , - . ,- , - . - - . - - , , -. , , - = - - - -
. ~ - - . ..
229 are. presented on Figure IIIA-5. As indicated on this figure, impact on vegetation communities on the Forked River site appeared to be restricted primarily to the construction area periphery. The impact around the periphery resulted from three major sources: increased water levels resulting from i dewatering activities and construction activities inhibiting natural drainage; soil erosion from the barren construction areas; and the clearing of acreage from communities. Flooding q Flooding occurred,on the southeast corner of the site , and on the north ~ side of the site just west of the Energy f Spectrum Building'(Figure IIIA-5). On the southeast corner j of the site the flooding had occurred in two places where roads or dikes had been constructed and blocked natural l
. drainage.- The drainage in this area is to the east, so the ,
L ' western side of-these roads or dikes became flooded. The C,
. community affected in these areas was a lowland shrub type.
On the northern side of the site flooding occurred in a cedar swamp forest area along the construction periphery. between the Energy Spectrum Building and the dewatering outflow near the transmission line. These high water levels j .w ere probably a result of the water being pumped into the l- area from the dewatering activities'. Dieback of Atlantic l white cedar trees was evident in this area during 1978. Therel1s a possibility th'at the dieback was initiated by some previous source of impact, such as erosion, especially since it generally takes at least one growing season for impact on-tree species to become evident. However, the high water levels probably added to the degree of stress being placed on these. trees.- Also, although the present evident dieback in the area may be primarily the result of previous impact, continued dewatering activities will result in more dieback among other Atlantic white cedar trees in the area. h
l . 231 s In a recent publication, Teskey and Hinckley (1977)
. stated, in summary, that the impact of changes in water level p on trees depends on~the tolerance' of the species, the soil conditions present, and the nature, timing and duration of the water level ~ change. In flooded conditions the path
' length.through which oxygen must diffuse is great.
The overall major effect of flooding, therefore, is that it creates an anaerobic environment around the root system. The anaerobic environment interferes with-normal root activity and-creates stresses that affect most physiological activity including water and nutrient uptake, xylem and phloem transport, photosynthesis, and' transpiration (Teskey and Hinckley 1977).
-Teskey and'Hinckley (1977) also reported that the timing and duration of flooding were the most critical fa'ctors in determining the growth and survival of a given species.
Flooding during the growing season is much more detrimental
-than flooding during the dormant period. Water temperature was also reported to be an important consideration. Warm water is more damaging because the oxygen-holding capacity of warm water is less than cool
- ster. This is an important consideration at the Forked River site because the water from the dewatering activity is warmer during certain periods than the water in South Branch Forked River.
The degree of impact caused by flooding and increased water levels is dependent on the tolerance of the individual tree species. There is little available literature on Atlantic white _ cedar, but it has been reported (Waksman et al. 1943, as cited in Little 1950) that temporary flooding by fresh water does not injure Atlantic white cedar, although if continued for long periods it results in the killing of
' mature trees. There is a possibility that adventitious roots-(generally defined as roots not formed in the normal manner from the pericycle'of the root) may develop in Atlantic
-white ~ cedar. Roots formed in an adventitious manner, l
. . _ . , _ _ . . . _ , _ . . ._ ~ . . _ , , . ..,._.__m-_._, . . - . . , . - .
232 generally from the base of the trunk, may aid or replace the normal root system of some species. There were some indications that small adventitious roots were being formed on the Atlantic white cedars in this flooded area. However, Silas Little (pers. comm.) indicated that although Atlantic white cedar may form a few adventitious roots, his experience has been that if the hummocks are-flooded the cedars generally die. He had observed this primarily in areas that were flooded by beaver dams. On the basis of the information gathered to-date, it would seem that if the high water level is maintained for an extended period, it will impact the
- Atlantic white . cedar trees, especially in the area just east of the dewatering outflow and south of South Branch Forked River.
Erosion Soil erosion from the construction area resulted in the deposition of soil in the plant communities that occurred . along the construction periphery. This appeared to be the major. source of impact on plant communities on the Forked River site. The vegetation in areas of impact is influenced
~ 'in much.the same manner as by increased water levels. There is a decrease in the availability of oxygen to the roots because of the higher soil levels. The extent of the impact is dependent upon the species being affected, the nature and
, depth of the deposited soil, and the length of time the soil remains-in the area. At the Forked River site the soil being deposited is mostly sandy,'although some finer, heavier clayey soils were deposited along the periphery south of the borrow pile and laydown area. The heavier soils will probably result in a greater reduction of oxygen (and a correspondingly greater-impact on vegetation) than will the
- sandy soils, since the oxygen percentage in the soil decreases l with depth at a much more rapid rate in heavier soils
233
.(Buckman and Brady 1969). Deposited soil initially impacts the ground layer; herbaceous plants are killed Ielatively quickly The woody vegetation may leaf out and not show much sign. of L' pact during the first growing season, but dieback will be, evident in the next growing season.
To reduce the impact from erosion, hay bales were placed around the construction area during 1978. Grass was also seeded on large portions of the construction area in late fall 1978. Grass seeding consisted cainly of annual rye grass' (Secale cereale) with redtop (Agrostis alba) in the low-lying areas (Callahan pers. comm.). The seeding was performed in late fall, perhaps too late for it to become fully. established. As' indicated on Figure IIIA-5, erosion impact occurred primarily along the southern edge of the construction area where the construction area was.slightly elevated above the adjoining area of vegetation cover. Travelling clockwise-from the southeast corner of the site around the construction area periphery, erosion was first evident between the discharge canal and the Fire Pond (Figure IIIA-5). This area had not been seeded, as.had other open areas. Particularly heavy erosion occurred along the periphery beginning northwest of the Fire Pond. In this area a steep bank approximately 10 to-15 feet high existed between the construction area and l edge of the vegetation. Hay bales were installed and seeding
~
l was performed in this area, but gullying continued and soil !~ was deposited in the adjacent lowland shrub community. L Further west along the southern edge of the construction 1per'iphery another rather large area of erosion impact occurred (Figure IIIA-5). Although there was not a large difference in elevation from the' barren construction area to the vegetation edge, erosion was evident in pockets where run-off water tended to drain. This area had also been seeded. Prior to seeding,
-however, small gullies had not been raked smooth and erosion s
234 continued to. occur in these areas. Two remaining areas of erosion-impact'were north ^of the borrow pile and along the
= northern edge of the periphery. Erosion control efforts appeared'most effective in the barren area north of the parking lot. The combination of good grass cover, hay bales, and small dikes had nearly eliminated erosion into the adjacent cedar swamp area. -This was especially important because of the existence of curly grass fern in this area.
The clearing of plant communites for cons.truction
. purposes was also a source of impact. As indicated on Figure =IIIA-5,'a portion (approximately 6 acres) of.the upland shrub-community had been cleared during the latter part of 1978. Although this clearing reduced the amount of upland
-shrub. community and the habitat it provided, the upland' shrub-
' community is probably one of the least important natural communities on the Forked River site. It had low species richness, low total. vegetation cover, and had been disturbed
- inithe past.
The areas in which potentially listed species are known to occur were. assessed for possible impacts throughout the growing ~ season. . Areas containing curly grass fern had not
.been impacted in any' manner by construction activities during 1978.- The station of. Calamovilfa brevipilis could possibly
-be impacted by future erosion from the. borrow-pile. However,
- as mentioned previously, its. presence is probably partly due L to.pastidisturbance. The status of both these species will L be mo.nitored in the. future.
L :3 ' RECOMMENDATIONS L 1 Control Erosion
~As previously. stated, almost all the impact on vegetation
- on-the Forked River site is: presently occurring immediately
' adjacent-to the construction area periphery.- The impact is
- primarily a. result of-soil eroding from the construction area l
I
- - - - - - - n.. __
i
~
235
.and being deposited'on-and around the vegetation. The control
.of erosion is, therefore, of primary importance. There are two basic methods of limiting disturbance to the vegetation from
( erosion: (1) some means.of physically intercepting the eroding soil, or (2) the establishment of a vegetation cover on the construction area. Physically intercepting the eroding. soil is a temporary means'of possibly' controlling erosion impact. The methods _ employed include the establishment of dikes or hay bales along the construction periphery. Hay bales are presently being utilized along most of the_ construction periphery, with low dikes-in a few problem areas. The hales generally become ineffective as a result of: bales becoming. dislodged, soil was'ing h out from under the bales, soil being deposited to the height of the bales, and soil washing through spaces between the bales. To insure the effectiveness of the hay bales, it cis recommended that the bales be inspected regularly, i- 'especially after heavy rains. Bales that have been dislodged or eroded under should be placed in position and staked down.
~
Additional bales should be added where soil has been deposited to the height of the bales or where soil is eroding through spaces between the bales. Generally, the bales have been fairly well maintained on site, although they failed to control erosion in a few areas. The best method of controlling the erosio5 on the site is'to establish-a vegetation cover on the barren construction area. Seeding was performed during the fall, but it was ; [ frather late in the growing season and the grass may not have haditime to become established. Additional seeding efforts arel scheduled for.the spring of 1979 In areas where a good vegetation cover does_not result, reseeding should.be performed. Gullies should:be raked smooth prior to any future seeding activities. Appropriate erosion control methods should also
- be implemented.in newly cleared areas.
l
. . - - - - , . - - - . _ . - . -. - _ _ . . .--. . - - - . - - _ _ -. m .-- .- - . . , - - - , , , - - . - _ _ , - . ~ . - -
236 Limit Disturbance Around Potent'ially Listed Species Efforts _should be taken to-limit the disturbance in and around.the curly grass fern and Pine Barrens reed grass stations. This generally includes the control of erosion in these areas and limiting the number of visits made to the stations. Limit-Future Disturbance to Lowland Communities Efforts should be taken to limit future disturbance of lowland, communities, such as the cedar swamp community, the lowland shrub community, and the pitch pine lowland forest .along; Oyster Creek. The_ reason for-this recommendation is that if any additional plant species under review for inclusion in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are discovered on the Forked. River site, they would most likely be found in one of the lowland communities.. These communities are also probably more susceptible to disturbance than the upland communities. If additional' area is needed'for construction . activities other than what has presently been cleared, it would be best to utilize one of the upland communities, such as-the upland shrub community or pitch pine-oak forest. Increase Monitoring During Any Major Construction Activity A.s is the case with most environmental impact, the best -means of limiting disturbance is to prevent impact before it occurs. For this reason, major construction activities _that could'potentially result in impact should be closely monitored by on-site personnel. If increased erosion or other forms of Limpact.are occurring, measures should be taken immediately to limit such disturbances. Discontinue Dewatering Activity When Feasible Dewatering activity should be discontinued as soon as possible. Although the full- impact. of this activity may not
)
237 ) l i o be realized for some time, there is every indication that the Atlantic-white cedar in the immediate area will continue to
. Lbe affected as-long as this activity.is continued, regardless of~the'cause of previous stress. l Provide Additional Drainage In the two areas on the southeast corner of the site where flooding had occurred.. artificial drainage should be provided. Culverts could be placed under the roads or dikes just east of.these flooded areas to improve the drainage and reduce the impact from flooding.
i
- 4.
SUMMARY
A program was initiated-during 1978 to monitor the effect of construction activities on the plant communites on the Forked River site. Areas of impact were mapped and changes were noted throughout the year. Data were collected l Efrom qualitative transects established around the construction Larea periphery.and from quantitative transects established , throughout the site. 4 Data; collected from the qualitative and quantitative transects will be used-during future years for comparative purposes. Changes in the vegetation will be compared from ( ' year to year.- I .During 1978 most of the' impact on the Forked River site was restricted to: the construction area periphery. The primary causes of impact were flooding, erosion, and clearing. Flooding occurred in two areas in the-southeastern
- corner of the' site and in one area on the northern edge of theEconstruction periphery. The increased water' levels-in the southeastern corner of the site had resulted from roads or dikes inhibiting natural' drainage. In these areas a-
. lowland shrub community was being affected by the high water
-levels.' On the: northern edge of the construction periphery
-s l l
^
- 238 4
chighl water levels occurred in a cedar swamp forest as a result of dewatering activities. Dieback in several cedar 4 trees was evident in this area, although some of the dieback may have resulted from previous erosion' impact. Erosion.was the major source of impact on the Forked River -' site . -Soil was eroded from the barren construction area and deposited in adjacent.~ plant communities.- Much of the erosion. impact had occurred along the southern edge of I
~
the-construction area periphery where the barren construction ! area was elevated above the adjacent plant communities. A lowland shrub community was being affected in much of this
, area. Hay bales were placed around the construction periphery tofreduce erosion impacts. They aided in reducing the amount of erosion impact, but in some areas they had become
' ineffective. To further-reduce erosion grass was seede'd-in manyEparts of the construction area in late fall. The
! establishment of vegetation cover should be an effective
[ means of controlling erosion, although the seeding performed l Tat the Forked-River site was probably implemented too late i,
~
?in the growing season for the seeded grass to become well established. Further. seeding is planned for.the spring of
-1979
- Since the spring of 1978, approximately 6 acres were cleared from an upland shrub community on the Forked River.
l- site.- This reduced the amount of habitat available, although ll Lthe-upland shrub community was not considered to have high
' ecological importance.
l _ l Areas that'were known to contain potentially listed p species were inspected throughout 1978.. No impact was evident'
- f .in-anyl areas.known to.contain curly grass fern. The station
'of~ Pine Barrens reed grass was not disturbed during 1978, g - although'it is in an area where future impact is likely to c,
occur. !? 7
~
<- .m. . . . _ _ _. _ _ ,
239 Recommendations for the mitigation of impact from construction activities include: control erosion, limit disturbance in areas containing potentially listed species, limit future disturbance of lowland communities, increase monitoring during any major construction activity, discontinue dewatering activity, and provide additional drainage in certain areas. rt
)
,.nc
1-240 B. FAUNA During the first year of the study at the Forked River { site, the monitoring effort for fauna was not distinct from the baseline sampling; effort. Seasonal variation in species
-. occurrence, population levels, and degree of conspicuousness generally preclude the~ possibility of quantifying, or perhaps even detecting, impacts upon the faunal communities during the first year.of the program. Nevertheless, certain observat' ions and predictions-can be made, including several i
.that reinforce the recomm'ndations e made in the section on monitoring of vegetation (Section IIIA). As described in the previous section, the major types of impacts that are occurring on the site.are flooding, soil erosion and
~ deposition, and habitat removal by clearing of land. The present section discusses the ways in which these types of i changes can affect herpetofauna, avifauna, and mammals.
E Specific areas of probable or potential impact around the L . construction periphery are also. discussed in this section; these are generally the same areas as shown in Figure IIIA-5 . L
- 1. HERPETOFAUNA l Although no' separate sampling efforts for a monitoring
- program were-conducted for herpetofauna during 1978, some I comments on impact or potential-impact of construction ,
activities on herpetofauna at.the Forked River site can be made. . Various; types of impacts discussed previously in the section on flora apply either directly or indirectly to l .herpetofauna. These impacts are likely to affect the
'herpetofauna only in the inmediate vicinity of the construction site, but'the encroachment of development upon the Pine Barrens is a. regional concern.
I .. Impacts on. vegetation indirectly affect herpetofauna !' which physically use vegetation, such as treefrogs using vegetation for calling sites during breeding choruses in l
. - _ ,. .= . -
241 l spring and summer. In addition, many amphibians and reptiles feed on insects that are found on and near vegetation and on small mammals that live in vegetated areae. Finally, various species of herpetofauna utilize living vegetation or vegetation litter or debris for cover, resting areas, or egg-laying sites. For example, many species of amphibians attach eggs to vegetation, and snakes often escape into thick vegetation.- Therefore,. vegetation removal or impacts resulting in death of vegetation can have serious effects on herpetofauna.
~ Impacts associated with flooding various areas on site are somewhat difficult to assess. In some cases, for some >
species,. flooding areas can increase suitable habitat. For example, the two flooded areas in the southeast portion.of the; site (Figure IIIA-5) might constitute additional suitable breeding habitat for several species of toads and frogs on the. Forked River site, especially if it does not result in total vegetation die-off. The permanent flooding of such areas will also variously affect the use of the areas by other Jherpetofauna. For example, water snakes might utilize the area more after flooding than before, whereas northern black racers might use it less. Areas flooded by the dewatering , outflow were used very little by anurans in 1978, but causal 1 factors for this situation are not known. It is probable that because this water is moving, frogs and toads do not find it I suitable as habitat. Disturbance of soil by. erosion, and deposition of soils
in other places, change local habitats and may make them unsuitable for use'by various species. Some examples of soil utilization by herpetofauna follow:
several species of turtles.(spotted, painted, and snapping) build nests and lay eggs in-loose, sandy soils. If nests are uncovered.by erosion, l or-buried by soil deposition, reproductive success would be decreased. Some species of snakes, especially those that feed on small mammals,often spend time underground, e.g. in
,4; 3 ze~ --- - -- - -- - - -- - -
;\[( -
% 242 N ~y y
, a
, , t;.
rodent. burrows.
.c Finally, many species;of amphibi,ans and
. reptiles: hibernate'in"ssoil, and,f,bherefore, any disturbance
. .. .~ %
to soil during inactive seasons would be detrimental to individuals in hibernacula.
%C ertain specific- ,.areas.. e on the Forked River ,s site which
'- are presently being. impacted by soil erosion and deposition.
are particularly important in.that they may aff'ectysn . sm m, e,ndangered species, the Pine Barrens'treefrog.; Tha small wet i
' ' aria eadof the cleared upland shrub community'in the souhhwdst p tionofthesptuasusedasabreedingareaby this specie'si as wasian area north of the borrow pile and west
,,. - x . x g, ,
9f the-parking lot.- Erosion into these areas must be_contrc11ed
- 3. . ,
x ' to preventjestruction of. habitat utilized by this species.
, Thef area (tedge savp.nra') Daupporting;the' largest ' numbers of 1
this spedbis Ia r. ear :onstruction activity b does not show 7g s , .
~ signsofimpactduetothis'activitp.'
(therareasonsiteal'sosh'o5'impactsduetosoil s 3- erosio'n\and Jhis may~ affect'6ther species of herpetofauna
~
thdt utid these areas. .One area in particular, southMof the At ~. fconstruction., area, is eroding into the lowland shrub and'the 3m. 3 FireyPqnd/0yster Creek area. -Any encroachment into;this area
~s.. m can have'" serious effects t on populations of herpetofauna usink lthis habitatk ' In pa'Et,icular, tu5tles (snapping, painted and spotted) areyfound in the pond and' creek and probably use sandy habitats Alohg the edges for nesting sites, and.
, s
.y possibif for hibernation areas.;f Other areas of soil' erosion
, t
-- -impacts,-such:astalcng the northern side of the constrnetion are&Rnear South $ ranchv..Forked River, are.not believeddo be
, . O. : 4 "- xs havingfserious.' impacts on herpetofaunsiti populations.
f's', - ,,. . : s ; e r ,, ,
" .g -
2 .' AV2FAUNAY. , s x= 3 . . s Several' areas on the ' Forked River site -- are being irrpacted
. , v ,, x.
.in w$ys that are probably afffcting avian' populations, or ;
thav[co'uld affNot populations in the future. During the 1 l p baseline studies these' impact could'not be ass (ess6d in any ;
- '; . 5 .. ,. I p '
r (.y / 4
,_ i -
* ,jp 5x x
_r,l i . ' ' .
- L n.:y. ) .
9
,h , . .
i / h
243 14 detail, since avifauna population levels had not been previously. quantitatively determined. However, direct observations and a knowledge of habitat requirements do allow
.for some subjective assessments.
Erosion and the resulting sediments along the edge of the lowland shrub may in the future reduce the suitability of this community to the existing avifauna. Whether or not edge species such as the song sparrow, swamp sparrow, yellow warbler, or gray catbird have already been affected could not be determined. However, with some vegetation already dead or dying, it is apparent that some habitat has been lost. The losses that occurred during 1978 have not yet resulted in drastic changes in the lowland shrub bird population. In general, the effect of soil deposition in other communities is the same as in the lowland shrub. Additional loss of habitat will result if erosion is not controlled. While removal of a portion of the upland shrub area in
-the southwest corner of the site did result in habitat loss l to birds, it is not considered significant. The species utilizing this area are generally also found in the pitch pine areas of the site and occur there more commonly than in the upland shrub. This removal of less than 10 acres of what appeared to be marginal habitat should have little effect upon bird populations of the immediate area.
Dewatering activity and the resultant high water level
,,n 1 the cedar forest along the South Branch Forked River are reducing habitat and may have resulted in the displacement of l breeding populations of ground-nesting songbirds, such as the ovenbird and black-and-white warbler. However, it is unlikely 1 that this displacement of a relatively limited number of l birds would, in itself, have any significant effect upon the species at other than the site level. If dewatering is discontinued'without further die-off of the cedar forest, this l habitat will likely become suitable for ground-nesting birds.
l
' \
. . . __. ._ ___ ___ .. . _. _ . _ _ - _ ~ . - - ._ ._._ .-_.__ . _ _
- y. a 244 J
2 .- 3 MAMMALS l
- During the first year of the study the major evidence of I construction impact on mammals occurred in the cedar swamp
, . forest community sampled with Sherman traps (Line C1, Figure j IID-1). .Between the spring and summer sampling periods, '
-erosion . occurred alongsthe edge of this area and resulted in
- the deposition of several inches of mud. This occurred f primarily on the eastern edge of the trap line (Stations 1, 2, ,
-3, 4). .During spring, several small mammals were captured at these stations; in-summer, no small mammals were captured at these stadions, thus indicating that the habitat had been U
severely' altered. Although this was the only area in which quantitative data.were available to document impact, it is i
} reasonable to A assume-that the same. type of impact took place [
along the construction periphery wherever erosion problems
,.' 4
- existed.
- < '
g In; addition-to erosion-related impacts there were also i
-impacts.resulting from_ flooding and clearing. The flooding
. occurring near the' dewatering outflow affected a cedar swamp forest community. -Since this type of community was not found
.to'tui particularly attractive to most mammals the overall
. impact of the flooding on the mammalian community was probably
- lnot severe. Red squirrels, and.to some degree white-tailed deer, are the mammalian species most likely to be affected l' byythe flooding of. this area.
l The clearing of the upland shrub community in the south- [ west corner of the site .will most lik'ely have little impact on mammals. Very few. mammals were permanent residente of upland shrub. communities. Only in the fall months, when white-
., footed mice became abundant in,this type of area, was the
~ upland-shrub of any importance to mammals.
4.-
SUMMARY
Seasonal variation in faunal species occurrence, , L population: levels, Land conspicuousness' generally preclude the L-- I
~...y .
k _r ,s., , - . , , -- -,4 . --.- * -,, .,,,e
245
- quantitative documentation of construction impacts on faunal ;
communities of the site during the first year of the program. , Such documentation will require comparison with data collected ! during equivalent seasons in future years. Nevertheless, the flooding,: soil erosion and deposition, and land clearing on lthe Forked: River site likely affected the faunal populations j or use of habitat in certain areas of the site. At least one ncteworthy species, the Pine Barrens treefrog, could potentially be adversely affected by these changes caused by e construction activity. In general, construction of the Forked River Nuclear Station is likely to affect only the faunal populations in the ; immediate vicinity of'the construction' site. This potential I impact has regional significance only when considered in combination with the~ impacts from the many other locations in the Pine Barrens where encroachment by development is occurring. i-I r i r s
.- , ... . .-4.-_ . - - - - . _ , _ - - - . . - - - - - . . , - - . . - - . _ , - , - , _ _ - . , - -
246 REFERENCES CITED r Barbo'ur, R. W., and W. H. Davis.- 1969 Bats of America. ( 4 The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. ,
' Barbour,.R. W., M. J. Harvey, and J. W. Harden. 1969 Home range, movements, and activity of the eastern !
worm snake, Carphophis a. amoenus. Ecology 50: 470-476. Bent, A. C. 1953 Life histories of North American wood warblers. .U. S. National Museum Bull. 203 Reprinted by Dover Publications, Inc.,- New York, NY. Bishop,.S. C. 1943 Handbook of salamanders. The salamanders of the United. States, of Canada, and of Lower California. Comstock Publishing Associates,.Ithaca, NY.
; Braun, E. L. 1950. ' Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York, NY. ,
Brower, J. E., and T. J. Cade. 1966. Ecology and physiology ' oof Napaeozaous insignis (Miller) and other woodland mice. Ecology 47: 46-63.-
- Buckman, H. O., Land N. C. Brady. 1969 The nature and
. properties of soils. The Macmillan Co., New York, NY; Buell,.M. F., and J. E. Ca'ntion. .
1950. A study of two communities of the New Jersey Pine Barrens and a comparison of methods. Ecology 31: 567-586. , , Bull,'J.. 1964. ~ Birds of the New York area. Dover i Publications, Inc., New York, NY. , Burt, W. H.,'and R. P.-Grossenheider. 1964. A field guide. L to the mammals. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.
- Callahan, D. Personal Communication. Environmental Scientist, '
L General Public Utilities Service Corporation, Parsippany, L NJ. l l Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of turtles. The turtles of the l United States, Canada, and Baja California. Comstock
- Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY..
Cheviak, C. Pe'rsonal Communication. Curator, New York State Museum, Albany,- NY. m : Cobb,LB. 1963 A field guide to the ferns. Houghton Mifflin' Co., Boston, MA. k i eA
= .- - _, _ .x..-. ._._--_..__.__._._m-..__.-.m._._.
247 Conant, R. 1962. Notes on the distribution of reptiles and amphibians in the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey. N. J. Nature News 17: 16-21. Conant, R. 1975. A field' guide to reptiles and amphibians
- of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.
Connor, P. F. 1953 Notes on the mammals of a New Jer:av pine barrens area. J. Mammal. 34: 227-235. Connor, P. F. 1959 The bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi in southern New Jersey. Michigan State University Museum Publ. Biol. Ser. 1(5): 161-248. Cooper, J. E., S. S. Robinson, and J. B. Funderburg. 1977 Endangered and threatened plants and animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. Correll, D. S. 1950. Native orchids of North America north of Mexico. Chronica Botanic Co., Waltham, MA. Dole, J. W. 1965. Summer movements of adult. leopard frogs, Rana pipiens Schreber,.in northern Michigan. Ecology IF: 236-255 l Dole, J. W. 1971. Dispersal of recently metamorphosed leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. Copeia 1971(2): 221-228. Doutt,.J. K., C. A. Heppenstall, and J. E. Guilday. 1967 Mammals of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, PA. i Edwards, S. R., and G. R. Pisani (eds). 1976. Endangered L and threatened amphibians and reptiles in the United States. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Misc. Publ., Herpetological Circular No. 5 Errington, P. L. 1936. Notes on food habits of southern Wisconsin house cats. J. Mammal. 17: 64-65 l Fairbrothers, D. E. Personal Communication. Chairman, Department of Botany, Rutgers: the State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ. , o Fairbrothers, D. E., cnd M. Y. Hough. 1973 Rare or endangered vascular plants of New Jersey. Science Notes No. 14, New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, NJ. Fairbrothers, D. E., and E. T. Moul. n.d. Aquatic vegetation of New Jersey, Part I, ecology and identification. Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
248 Fernald, M. L. .1950. Gray's manual of botany, 8th ed. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, NY. n - L. - L. 1962. Notes on the water balance of the redback le. Ecology-43: 565-566. Getz, L.-L. 1968. ' Influences of water balance and micro-climate on the local distributions of the redback vole 4 and the white-footed mouse. Ecology 49: 276-286. Gleason, H. A. 1952. The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of'the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 3 vols. Hafner Press, New York, NY. Hall, E. R. 1951. .American weasels. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History, Vol. 4. University.of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Hall, E.;R., and-K.'R. Kelson. 1959
. The mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Co., New York, NY.
Hamilton, W. J., Jr. 1943 The ma==als of eastern United States. Comstock-Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY. Harshberger, J. W. 1916. The vegetation of the New Jersey
- pine-barrens . - Cristopher Sower Co., Philadelphia, PA.
Hassinger, D. D. 1972. Early life history and ecology of three congeneric species of Rana in New Jersey. Ph.D.
. Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Heilbrun,:L.iH., and the CBC Regional Editors. 1978. The. seventy-eighth Audubon Christmas-bird count.- American g Birds 32: 537-546. L Latham, R. M. 1952. The fox as a factor in the control of
- . weasel populations. 'J. Wild 1. Manage. 16: 516-517 Lecks C. .1975. Birds of New Jersey. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
t L Little, S. . Personal Communication.- U..S. Forest Service, l Pennington, NJ. [ p -Little,.S. 1950. Ecology and silviculture of white cedar [ and,associaced hardwoods in southern New Jersey. Yale L . University School =of Forestry, Bull. No. 56. t ! Little,lS. 1973. Eighteen-year changes in the composition of L a stand of Pinus echinata and P. rigida in southern New
- f. Jersey. Bull. of the Torrey Botanical Club 100: 94-102.
i-(.
~
I u l ,
249 9 Little, Si, G. R. ' Moorhead, and H. A. Somes. 1958. Forestry and deer in the . pine region of New Jersey. U. S. Forest Service,-Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Station Paper No. 109 Little, S'., and H. A. Somes.. 1965 Atlantic white-cedar , being eliminated by excessive animal damage in South L. , Jersey. U.-S.~ Forest. Service Research Note NE-33 MacArthur, R.-H., and J. W. MacArthur. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42: 594-598. Martof, B. S. 1956.' Growth and development of the green frog, Rana clamitans, under natural conditions. Amer. Midland j . Natur. 55: 101-117 Martof, B. S. 1970. Rana sylvatica. Cat. Amer. Amphib.
- Rept.: 86.1-86.4.
.. McCormick, J. 1955. A vegetation inventory of two watersheds in the New Jersey pine barrens. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers
' University, New Brunswick, NJ.
- McCormick, J. 1970. ..The pine barrens a preliminary ecological inventory. Research Report No. 2, New Jersey
. State Museum, Trenton, NJ.
J 1 i McCormick, J., and L. Jones. 1973. The pine barrens: i vegetation geography. Research Report No. 3, New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, NJ. [
; McManus, J. J. 1974. -Didelphis virginiana.- Mammalian species No. 40.. The American Society of Mammalogists, New York, NY.
NJDEP. 1979 Endangered and threatened species-in New Jersey. L New ~ Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. Odum,.E. P. 1944. . Water. consumption of certain mice in relation to habitat selection. J. Mammal. 25: 404-405 b Patric, E. F. 1962. Reproductive characteristics of red-backed mouse during years of differing population densities. J. Mammal. 43: 200-205 Provost, E. E., and C. M. Kirkpatrick. 1952. observations on the hoary bat in Indiana and Illinois. J. Mammal. 33: 110-113 L Robbin's, C. S.,-B. Bruun, and H. S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America.. Golden Press, New-York, NY.
~w7Me % M. g v~- ~ 4 y-
- w
250 Robichaud, B.,.and M. F. Buell. 1973 Vegetation of New Jersey. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Schuyler, A. E. Personal Communication. Associate Curator, Department of Botany, Academy of Natural Sciences,
- Philadelphia, PA.
SCS.' 1977 Ocean County, New Jersey, interim soil survey report, , Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Shure, D.'J. 1970. Ecological relationships of small mammals in a New Jersey barrier beach habitat. J. Mammal. 51: 267-278. Smith, H. M. 1946. Handbook of lizards. Lizards of the United States and of Canada. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, Ef. Stephenson, S. N. 1965 Vegetation change in the Pine Barrens
'of New Jersey. Bull of the Torrey Botanical Club 92:
102-113 Stephenson, S. N., and M. F. Buell.- 1965 The reproducibility of shrub. cover sampling. Ecology 46: 379-380.
- Stone, W. .1911.- The plants of southern New Jersey with
- especial reference _ to the flora of the pine barrens and
' the geographic distribution of species. Part II of l Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum for 1910.
p Trenton, NJ.- [ Teskey, R. O.,-and T. M. Hinckley. 1977 Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and wetland communities. Vol. 1: Plant and soil responses to flooding. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/0BS-77/58. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. L Tramer, E. J. 1969 Bird species diversity: components of Shannon's formula. Ecology 50: 927-929 USDI. 1975. Threatened or endangered fauna or flora. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 40: 27824. USDI.- 1976.- Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife - Service. Federal Register 41: 24524-24572. USDI. 1977 Pine Barrens treefrog. U. S. Department of the Interior, Endangered Species. Technical Bull. 2(5): 5
'*'4*' 'g - g -g'> g ,-+-y,pp. ,y,-e.,, g. 99%%-+.,7 -
ymy-n -.m- g-p--,-,wmq. ,g,.e.
251 4 i USDI.. 1979 Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, republication of the list of species. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 44: 3636-3654. Waksman, S. A., H. Schulhoff, C. A. Hickman, T. C. Cordon, and 4 S. C. Stevens. 1943. The peats of New Jersey and their utilization. N. J. Department of Conservation and i; Development, Geol. Series Bull. 55, Part B. Ward, F. P., C. J. Hohmann, J. F. Ulrich, and S. E. Hill. 1976. Seasonal microhabitat selections of spotted turtles . (Clemmys guttata) in Maryland elucidated by radioisotope tracking. Herpetologica 32: 60-64. Wassersug, R. J., and D. G. Sperry. 1977 Tne relationship i of locomotion to differential predation on Pse2dacris triseriata (Anura: Hylidae). Ecology 58: 87*2 339 Wells, K. D. 1977 Territoriality and male mating success in the green frog (Rana clamitans). Ecolcgy 58: 750-762. Wright, A. H., and A. A. Wright. 1957 Handbook of snakes of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY. Wright, C. W. 1960. Population census of deer in New Jersey in 1959 Proc. Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society,
- i. Annual Conf.,. Providence, RI.
i Zappalorti, R. T. Personal Communication. Executive Director, " Herpetological Associates, Staten Island, NY. l L l t l t l
- . , . . _ - , , _ _ _ . - _ ~ . ~ , _ _ _ . . - --.. _ .._ ,,._ _ _. _ - - -. . , . _ _ .
l , i 7
.' I
.. a l
. .f
? l
(
< +
r. i 'i I.. , 1, h I L ] l F N U Service PICJ:M ~ . u Nuclear r N f t e, ' 1;#. _ . , .. .. , g pgj
.1 ,C[yg9*Q.
+..
%, , b rj, , 4
- v. da ._1 r h '
bhih?k l bY. l GENEMAL PUBLC UTEJTES t* - r -- -._____~,,._,,s-.,_m.,_,..__.-,,,,.--_,___-__..
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR STATION APPENDIX TO ANNUAL REPORT MARCH 1978 - FEBRUARY 1979 Submitted to GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICE CORPORATION for JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY by TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS, INC. . PHOENIX, NEW YORK September 1979 J.
LIST'0F' APPENDIX TABLES APPENDIX A - BASELINE VEGETATION DATA Appendix Table A-1. Forest Communities Age and Height Information from Select Sampling Areas, Ferked River Site, 1978. Appendix Table A-2. Overstory Layer, Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-3 Understory Layer, Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, - Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A 4 Shrub Layer, Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, Fodked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-5 Shrub Layer, Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, Forked River Site,~ Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-6. Ground Layer, Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, Forked River Site, Spring, 1978. Appendix Table A-7 Ground Layer, Pitch: Pine-Oak Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-8. Ground Layer, Pit:h Pine-Oak Forest,
-Forked River Site, Fall, 1978.
. Appendix Table.A-9 Overstory Layer, Pitch Pine Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978.
e- Appendix Table A-10. Understory Layer, Pitch. Pine Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. w . . . - ._. .
Appendix Table A-11. Shrub Layer, Pitch Pine Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-12. Shrub Layer, Pitch Pine Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-13.. Ground Layer, Pitch Pine Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Spring, 1978. -Appendix Table A-14. Ground Layer, Pitch Pine Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-15. Ground Layer, Pitch Pine Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-16._Overstory Layer, Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-17. Understory Layer, Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-18. Shrub Layer, Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. ' Appendix Table A-19. Shrub Layer, Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-20. Ground Layer, Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Spring, 1978. Appendix Table A-21. Ground Layer, Ceaar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978.
t Appendix Table A-22. Ground Layer, Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-23. Understory Layer, Cedar Swamp Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-24. Shrub Layer, Cedar Swamp Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-25. Shrub Layer, Cedar Swamp Shrub Community,
. Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. ,
Appendix Table A-26. Ground Layer, Cedar Swamp Shrub Community, Ferked River Site, Spring, 1978. Appendix Table A-27. Ground Layer, Cedar Swamp Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978.
' Appendix Table A-28. Ground Layer, Cedar Swamp Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978.
Appendix Table A-29. overstory Layer, Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-30. Understory Layer, Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer,-1978. Appendix Table A-31. Shrub Layer, Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-32. Shrub Layer, Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978.
Appendix Table A-33. Ground Layer, Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Spring, 1978.
~ Appendix Table A-34. Ground Layer, Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer,_1978.
- Appendix Table A-35. Ground Layer, Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978.
2 Appendix Table A-36. Overstory Layer, Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978.
-Appendix Table A-37. Understory Layer, Lowland Shrub Com'munity, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978.
Appendix Table A-38. Shrub Layer, Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River: Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-39. Shrub Layer, Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-40. Ground Layer, Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Spring, 1978. Appendix Table A-41. Ground Layer, Lowland Shrub Community,
--Forked River Site, Summer, 1978.
Appendix Table A-42. Ground. Layer, Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-43. overstory and Understory Layers, Sedge Savanna, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-44. Shrub Layer, Sedge Savanna,
. Forked River Site, Fall, 1978.
. . - . . _ - - ~. .-
1 l i Appendix Table A-45. Ground Layer, Sedge Savanna community, ' Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. Appendix Table A-46. Vascular Aquatics by Sampling Area, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978. Appendix Table A-47. Vascular Aquatics by Sampling Area, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978. N L.
APPENDIX B - VEGETATION MONITORING DATA Vegetation Data from Qualitative Construction Area Periphery Transects, Forked River Site, 1978 Appendix Table B-1. Transect No. 100. Appendix. Table B-2. Transect No. 101. Appendix Table B-3 Transect No. 102. Appendix Table B-4. Transect No. 103 Appendix Table B-5. Transect No. 104. 4 Appendix Table B-6. Transect No. 105 - Appendix Table B-7. Transect No. 106. Appendix Table-B-8. Transect No. 107 Appendix Table B-9 Transect-No. 108. Appendix Table B-10. Transect No. 109. Appendix Table B-11. Transect No. 110. Appendix Table B-12. Transect No. 111. . Appendix Table-B-13. Transect No. 112. A'ppendix Table B-14. Transect-No. 113 Appendix Table B-15. Transect No. 114.
. Appendix Table B-16. Transect No. 115 Appendix. Table B-17. Transect No. 116.
Appendix Table B-18. Transect No. 117 Appendix Table B-19.-Transect No. 118. Appendix Table B-20. Transect No. 119
+
4Aw_ _ _ e APPENDIX A BASELINE VEGETATION DATA (PHASE I, PART A) l l l i I
Appendix Table A-1 Forest Communities Age and Height Information from Select Sampling Areas,(*) Forked River Site, 1978 Core Length Age Height (Tree Radius) Species by Community (Years) (Meters) (Centimeters) PITCH PINE-0AK FOREST Sampling Area P1 Pitch Pine 90 11.7 15.0 72 13.4 13.6 - Black Oak 40 11.7 11.0 Sampling Area P2 Pitch Pine 38 7.2 8.5 36 7.0 8.0 Sampling Area P3 Pitch Pine 57 8.2 95 62 8.9 8.2 Community Average 56.4 9 . 7_ _ 10.5 PITCH PINE LOWLAND FOREST Sampling Area L1
. Pitch Pine 73 8.8 8.0 63 99 95 Sampling. Area L2 Pitch Pine 80 15.0 15.8 84 14.4 17 Community Average- 75 12.0 12.6 a.- Figure IIA-3
Appendix Table A-1 (cont.) Core Length Age Height (Tree Radius) Species'by Community (Years) (Meters) (Centimeters) CEDAR SWAMP FOREST Sampling Area C1 , Atlantic White Cedar 58 11.5 10.5 i 90 12.7 16
' Sampling Area C2 Atlantic White Cedar 86 12.2 16.5
~
80 9.8 12.5 Sampling Area C3 Atlantic White Cedar 73 12.2 9.6 73 14.1 26.0
-Community Average 76.7 12.1 15.2 1
p c App:ndix.Tiblo A-2 Overstory' Layer, (U} Pitch: Pint-0;k Foract,.Forkr.d Riv:r Sita, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actua Relative Agtual Relative Importance U" 1*8 Actual Relative (No/1 ) (%) (cm'/100m2) (%) Value Pinus rigida Pitch pine 94' 83 3.4 93 421.6 95 271-
' Quercus stellata- 11 0.2 5 18.5 4 20 Post oak 13 Quercus marilandica 6 0.1 2 5.3 1 8 blackjack oak 6 113 100 3.6 100 445.3 100 300 TOTAL ,
- a. Trees 310.0 cm dbh.
- b. ' Sampling unit size: 4 m x 25 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 16.
.-~ - - -.
. Appendix Tablo~A-3 CD)
Understory Layer, (")' Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978 Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actual Relative - Actual Importance Species Actual Relative (hb/40m 2) (%) 6m /40 m ) ' (g) 2 2 Relative Value
. Pinus rigida 216 ritch pine 88 54 6.0- 77 193.5 85 Quercus stellata 12 0.6 8- 20.2 9 29 Post oak 19 Quercus marilandica 0.5 6 93 4 26 Blackjack oak 25 15 Quercus ilicifolia- 3.1 1 19 Bear oak 19 12 0.5 6 Sassarras albidum 2 1.3 1 10 Sassarras 13 8 0.1 163 100 7.8 100 227.4 100 300 4 TOTAL 4
I i 4 1 i i-
- a. Trees 2.5 to <10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 20 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 16.
App ndix T blo A-4 Shrub Layer, ("} Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D}' Frequency (5) Density Dominance (c) __ Relative Actual Relative Importance Actual 2 Relative (No./20m ) (g) (g. cover) (%) Value Species Actual Gaylussacia baccata 150 Black huckleberry -91 25 364.2 73 33.7 52 Vaccinium vacillans 61.8 12 4.4 7 40 Low blueberry 70 20 Quercus ilicifolia 10.2 16 24 Bear oak 23 6 8.4 2 Ggylussacia frondosa 21.5 4 3.7 6 21 Dangleberry 40 11 , Ilex glabra 1.8 3 8 Inkberry- 16 4 4.8 1 S llax rotundifolia 0.2 0 7 Common greenbriar 21 6 5.6 1 Quercus marilandica 2 2.2 0 2.9 4 7 Blackjack oak 9 Clethra alnifolia 1.1 2 7 Sweet pepperbush 14 4 7.1 1 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 19 5 4.3 1 0.3 0 7 Lyonia mariana 1.0 2 6 Stagger-bush 11 3 5.3 1
- a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 16.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
e
4 Appendix T2blo A-4 (Ccnt.)-
' Frequency (%) Daneity Dominance ")
, Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance. 2 Species Actual- Relative (No./20m ) (%) (5-cover) (%) Value
. Pinus'rigida Pitch pine 9 3 1.1 0 1.8 3 6 Quercus stellata 1.6 2 4 Post oak 3 1 1.1 0 ,
Sassafras a_1bidum 0.8 1 Sassarras 7 2 0.9 0 3 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 6 2 3.3 1- 0.7 1 3 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry. 7 2 1.9 0 0.0 0 2 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel at 1.9 0 0.2 0 2
. 5 Pyrus arbutifolia Red chokeberry 4 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 1 Quercus alba White oak 1 0 0.3 0 0.5 1 1 Quercus prinoides Chinquapin oak 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0 l
TOTAL 362 100 496.2 100 64.9 100 300 t
m _ ._- App:ndix Tablo'A-5 Shrub Layer,(0) Pitch' Pine-Oak Forest, Forked' River Site, Fall, 1978(b) Frequency'(5) Density Dominance c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance 2 Species . Actual Relative-(No./20m ) (5) (5 cover) (%) Value Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 91 37 - - 41.3 53 90 Qunrcus ilicifolia Bear oak- 30 12 - - 10.7 14 26 Vaccinium vacillans Low blueberry . 36 15 - - 6.8 9 23 Gavlussacia frondosa Dangleberry- 24 10 - - 4.5 6 15 Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak 13 5 - - 4.6 6 11 Ilex glabra
-Inkberry 9 4 -- - 2.4 3 7 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 7 3 - -
1.8 2 5 Lyonia nariana Stagger-bush 6 2 - - 0.8 1 3 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 6 2 - - 0.5 1 3
- a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling' unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect. Number of sampling units: 16.
- c. Based on.line-intercept method, e
App;ndix Tablo.A-5 (cont.) c)
~
Frequency (5) Density Dominance Actual Relative Actual Relative 'Importance Species Actual Relative-(No./20m2 ) (1) (5 cover) (%) Value S'11ax rotundifolia Common greenbrier 6 ? - . - 0.5 1 3 Snssafras albidum-Sassafras 3 1 - - 1.2 1 3 Pinus rigida
-Pitch pine 4 2 - -
0.7 1 3 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 3 1 - - 0.9 1 2 Quercus alba White oak 2 1 - - 1.0 1 2 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 2 1 - - 0.4 1 2 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 2 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Quercus stellata Post oak 1 0 - - 0.2 0 0 Quercus sp. Oak hybrid 1 0 - - 0.1 0 0 1 1 TOTAL 245 100 - - 78.4 100 200 4 h
Appendix Table A-6
- Ground Iayer,(a) PJtch Pine-Oak Fomst, Pbrked' River Site, Spring 1978(b)
Dominance c) Prequency (%) Density Actual Relative Inportance Actuale Relative Value Species Actual. Relative (No./m ) (5) (5 cover) (%) Vaccinite vacillans 116 Low blueberry 67 35 '24.9 30 6.9 52
\
Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 50 26 31.9 38 2.8 21 85 Gaylussacia frondosa, G. baccata 48 Dangleberry, black huckleberry 42 22 15.7 19 1.0 7 f Xerophyllin asphodeloides 18 TurkeytWa~nt 5 3 1.6 2 1.8 14 ) i Pyrus spp. 4.1 5 0.1 1 8 Chokeberry- 5 -3 fielampyrum lineare 4 Cow wheat 3 2 1.4 2 0.2 1 Pteridium aquilinum 3 4 2 0.3 0 0.1 1 Bracken fern Clethra alnifolia 3 2 0.4 0 0.1 1 3 Sweet pepperbust' Ilex glabra 2 1 0.5 1 0.1 1 3 Inkberry lhxisonia ericoides 0.4 1 0.1 1 3 False heather 2 1
- a. Woody seedlings <35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
tjumber of sampling units: 16'
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
- - _ _ ~ _ _ _
Appendix 'Ibble A-6 (Cont.) Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Inportance Species Actual Relative ( tb./m2) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Panicum spp. 2 Panic grass 1 0 1.3 2 0.1 0 Myrica pensylvanica 2 1 0~ - 1 0.0 0 2 Payberry Kalmia angustifolia 2 1 0.3 0 0.1 0 2 Sheep laurel Quercus ilicifolia 0.2 0 0.0 0 1 Bear oak 2 1 Smilax rotundifolia 0.0 0 1 Conmon greenbrier 1 1 0.3 0
~ Smilax spp. 1 0.0 0 0.5 1 0 Greenbrier 1 Pyxidanthera barbulata Pyxte noss 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1 p.ggg(d) - - - - 4.4 - -
192 100 84.5 100 13.4 100 300 SUPAL
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed ary) is not included in the total of all actual values.
_i
Appendix Table A-7 Ground Layer,(a) Pitch Pine-Oak Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(b) Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c)
'Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Actual Relative ( !!o . /m}) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Unecfea Vaccinium vac111ans 21 9.6 30 75 Low blueberry 70 25 23.1 Gaultheria procumbens 72 Teaberry 51 18 44.7 41 4.3 13 Gaylussacia baccata 20 62 Black huckleberry 64 23 21.5 20 6.5 Pteridium aquilinum 16 28 Bracken fern 29 10 1.0 1 5.3 Xerophyllum asphodeloides 6 9 5 2 1.2 1 2.0 Turkeybeard Smilax glauca Sawbrier 10 4 1.9 2 0.5 2 7 Melampyrum lineare 10 4 1.6 1 0.4 1 6 Cow-wheat Quercus ilici folia 7 2 1.1 1 0.6 2 5 Bear oak ,
Ilex glabra Inkberry 4 1 2.2 2 0.5 2 5
- a. Woody seedlings <35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Ilumber of sampling units: 16.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
t h ,' ' "'
- h-
$[L \ m,. k.
') t i f . . -5 g I- '
,, *I,,. e -
A ESt.SRltf,l:v.;.'2&Q+3.9:..
.. a ,.- . ... ...
a - X,.[N.q r. _. ; yV: ;~M.'
, s
.,.g
: % . 8
, % $ ' M@.4..+%::y'J.n' ..e.
;.,; v.a.,:
$T :. , . 6'.. *;
. y .. ..
.9 m . ~ .,., _g ,.
2;
; W.
-:<-3.
x ;el . . ...; .-
-, p __ . _ , ._y,
s r Appendix Table A-7 (Cent.) Frequency-(%)' Density Dominance (c) Actual Relative Actual Relative. Importance Species Actual Relative ( No./m2) (%) (5-cover) (%) Value
' Smilax rotundifolia ~ 2.2 2 0.2 1 5 Common greenbrier -5 2 Gaylussacia.frondosa
--Dangleberry- 4 1 1.8 2 0.4 1 4~
-Qunrcus marilandica O.8 1 0.4 1- 3 Blackjack oak 2' l' Pyrus arbutifolia 0.1 0 3 Red chokeberry 4 1 1.1 1 Clethra alnifolia 1 3 Sweet pepperbush 4 1 0.7 1 0.2 Pyxidanthera barbulata 0.0 0 3 1 0 2.2 2 Pyxie. moss Hudsonia ericoides 0.6 1 0.3 1 2 False heather 2 -1 Kalmia angustifolia 0 2 Sheep laurel 2 1 0.4 0 0.1 Lyonia mariana 0.1 0 2 2 1 05 0 Stagger-bush Quercus stellata 1 0 0.1 0 0.2 1 1 Post oak Myrica pensylvanica 0 1 Bayberry 1 0 0.3 0 0.1
' Appendix' Table A-7 (Cont.)
_ Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Relative Actual Relative Importance Actuag ______Specieu Actual Relative (No./m ) (%) (% cover)- (%) Value Leucothoe racemosa 1 1 ~0 0.2 0 0.0 0 Fetterbush Andropogon scoparius ~ 1 0 0.0 0~ 0.0 0 1 Broom boardgrass. Panicum spp. 0 O 0.1 0 0.0 0 Panic. grass l' Sassafras albidum 0 0 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 Sassafras Quercus alba 0 0.0 0 .0 White oak 0 0 0.0-Unidentified Oramineae 0 1 grasses 1 0 0.3 0 0.0 14oss(d) - - - - 4.0 - - TOTAL 283 100 109.7 100 32.3 100 300 l
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
e
1 Appandix;Tcblo A Ground: Layer,(") Pitch Pino-Oak Forset, Fork:d-River Site, Pall, 1978CD) Frequency Density- Dominancg(c)- Actua Relative. Actual Relative Importance Species' Actual Relative (!h) ./m}) (%) (% cover) (5) Value
- VFecinium vacillans-Low blueberry; 74 28. - -
13.2 39 67 LGavlussacia baccata Black huckleberry 61 23 - - 6.5 19 42 Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 52 20 - - 4.2 12 32 Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern 18 7. 4.1 la 19 Xerophv11um asphodeloides Turkeybeard .6 2 - - 2.0 6 8 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 11 4 - - 0.5 2 6 Clethra alnitalia Sweet pepperbush 5 2 - - 0.3 1 3 Ilex glabra Inkberry 4 1 - - 0.4 1 3 Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbrier 4 2 - - 0.2 1 2
- a. Woody seedlings 535 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect. Number of sampling units: 16.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
,f x
/
-Appendix Tablo.A-8,(Cont.)-
. Frequency (%)' Density Dominance (c)
Actua Relative Actual . . Relative Importance'- Species Actual Relative _(No./m}) (5) (5 cover) (%) Value-Qunrc u's -' ilic i folia Bear oak. Il 1 - - 0.3 1 2
'Lyonia mariana Stagger-bush 1 3 0.3 1 ~2 ' Kalmia : ang.ust i folia
- Sheep laurel 3 1 - -
03 l- 2 Pyrus arbuti folia Red chokeberry 3 1 - - 0.2 1 2
.Gaylussacia'frondosa Dangleberry 2 1 - -
0.2 1 2 Quercus stellata Post oak 2 'l 0.3 1 2 Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak 2 1 - - - 0.2 1 1 Iludsonia ericoides False. heather. 2 1 - - 0.2 1 1 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbu'sh 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Pyxidanthera barbulata Pixie moss 1 0 - - 0.1 0 1
' Sassafras albidum Sassafras 1 0 . -
0.1 0 1 e
^ ^
y_ , e Appsndix Tablo A-8 (C::nt. ) Frequency (%) Density Dominance (" Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance
-Species- Actual Relative ( No. /m}) (%) (5 cover) (5) value' Myrica:pensylvanica Bayberry 1 0- - - 'O.1 0 1 Panicum spp.
Panic' grass 1' O - - 0.1 0 1 Quercus prinoides Chinquapin oak 1 0 - - 0.1 0 1 , Andronoston scenarius Broom beardgrass 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 {
. Pinus rinida Pitch pine 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Unidentif' led Graminae Grasses 1 0 - - 0.0 0 1 Moss (d) - -
5.4 - - TOTAL 266 100 - - 34.1 100 200
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
i e 1 e
00 App:ndix-Table A-9 Overstory Layer, (") Pitch Pine. Lowland Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance 2 2 (%) Value Species ' Actual' Relative .(No/100 m ) (%) 0 _ (cm /300_m2) Pinus rigida PitcE pine 100' 6;2 53 68 1094.7 76- 205 ylvatica Nyssa s'o Tupel 50. 31 2.1 27 304.7 21 79 Acer rubrum Red. maple 13 8 0.4 5 40.7- 3 15 TOTAL' 163 100 7.8 100 1440.1 100 300
- a. Trees >10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 4 m x 25 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 9. e
v Appendix Tablo A-l'0 Understory Layer, (" Pitch Pine Lowland' Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency (%) Density Dominance
' Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (tb/40 4 ) (5) (mi2/40m2) (5) Value
- Nyssa sylvatica 78 33' 6.3 37 176.8 41 112 Tupelo Acer rubrum 84 Red maple 56 24 5.6 '33 118.6 28
--Pinus rigida 118.8 28 75 Pitch pine 56 24 4.0. 24 Magnolia virginiana 16 Sweet. bay 22 10 0.7 4 11~.5 3 Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel 11 5 0.3 2 3.1 1 7 Ilex glabra 6 Inkberry 11 5 0.1 1 0.7 0 TOTAL 233 100 17 0 100 429.4 100 300 t
- a. Trees 2.5 to <10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 20 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 9 i
' App:ndix Tzblo.A-11 Shrub Layer,.(" ' Pitch Pine Lowland Forest, Forke'd' River Sita, Summer, 1978(b)
Prequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actual Relative Actual Relative- Importance
-Species Actual Relative (Nn_/pnm2) (%) (5 cover) (%) Value Gaylussacia frondosa vangleberry 90 25 84.2 36 35.2 42 102 Gaylussacia baccata Ulack nucKleberry 39 11 63.0 27 9.5 11 49 Clethra alnifolia
. sweet pepperbush- 49 13 19.1 8 6.3 8 29 Vaccinium corymbosum ,
nighbush blueberry 21 6 11.7 5 7.7 9 20 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 31 .8 8.1 3 5.1 6 18 Leucothoe racemosa . Fetterbush 24' 7 7.8 3 3.7 4 14
.Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 18 5 14.8 6 1.5 2 13 Acer rubrum Hed maple 13 4 1.8 1 3.3 4 8 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 16 4 2.6 1 0.8 1 6 Lyonia mariana i - Stagger-bush 11 3 5.2 2 0.8 1 6
. a. Woody plants.>35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh. I b. Sampling unit size:- 2 m.x 10 m belt transect. Number of. sampling units: 9
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
l
Appsndix'T;blo A-ll.(Cont.).- Frecuency (5) Density Dominance c)-
. Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance 2 (5 cover) Value Species' Actual Relative (No./20m ) (5) (%) .Nyrsa sylvatica. 2.6 .3 6 Tupelo 8 .2' 1.3 1 Amelanchier.spp'. 6 serviceberry 13 4 3.8 2 0.3 0- ~Gaylussacia dumosa 0.8 1 5 Leary-bracted nuckleberry. 2 1 8.8 4 Pyrus arbutifolia 1 3 Hed chokeberry 6 2 0.8 0 1.1 Pinus rigida 2 3 Pitch pine 2 1 0.2 0 1.9 Magnolia virginiana 1.4 2 3 l - 5weet bay 3 1 0.4 0 i~
Myrica pensylvanica 0.4 0 3 Bayberry 6 2 1.3 1 Sassafras albidum 0.6 0 0.6 1 2 . 6 2 Sassafras Ilex glabra- 2 Inkberry 6 2 0.7 0 0.3 0 Smilax rotundifolia 0.0 0 1 Common greenbrier 2 1 0.2 0 Quercus ilicifolia 0 0.0 0 0 Bear oak 1 0 0.1 100 236.4 100 83.3 100 300 TOTAL 367
Appendix Table A-12 Shrub Layor,(") Pitch'Pina Lowltnd Forest, Forked Rivbr.Sito, Fall, 1978 (D) Frequency (%) Density Dominance (") Actual Actual P. elative Importance Species- Actual Relative (tjo;./20m2 ) Relative
-(%) (% cover) (%) Value Gavlussacia frondosa ~
Dangleberry 74 35 - - 29.1 43 78 Clethra alnifolia Sweet.pepperbush 33 15 - - 6.9 10 26 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 16 7 - - 72 11 18 Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleterry 17 8 - - 6.5 10 17 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp-honeysuckle 16 7 - - 4.8 7 14 Acer rubrum Red maple 11 5 - - 2.7 4 9 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 7 3 - - 3.0 4 8 Pinus rigida Pitch pine 4 2 - - 2.1 3 5 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 8 4 - _ 1.0 2 5
- a. Woody plants '>35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh. ,
- b. Sampling unit size: 2m x 10 m belt transect.
Nunber of sampling units: 9.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
e
.a
= Appendix Table A-12 (Cont.)
Frequency (5). , Density- Dominance - c) Actual Relative Actual Relative .Importance.
- Species- Actual Relative '(No./20m2) s (5) (5 cover)~ (%) Value-Oaylussacia dumosa-Leafy-bracted-huckleberry 6' 3 - - 1.2 2 4
~Ilex glabra Inkberry 3- 2 - - 0.7 1 3-Sassafras albidum Sassafras 4 -2 .- - 0.3 0 3 Lyonia mariana Stagger-bush 3 2 - _ 0.5 1 2 Myrica pensylvanica-Bayberry 3 2 - - 0.3 0 2 Pyrus arbutifolia Red.chokeberry 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherlear 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 1 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Pyrus spp. Chokeberry 1 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Amelanchier app. Serviceberry 1 1 - - 0.1 0 1 TOTAL 216 100 - - 67.2 100 200
, e
e
, Appendix.. Table A-13'
. Ground-Layer, " Pitch Pine Lowland' Forest, Forked River Site, Spring,-1978 ID)
Frequency-(%) Density
- Dominance c).
Actual Relative Importance Actuag Relative Species Actual' Relative (No./m ) (%) (% cover)' (%) Value Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 59 32 59.2 65 6.6 59 155 Rhododendron viscosum 24' Swamp honeysucklez 21 :11 6.7 7* 0.6 6
- Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 14 8 4.8 5 1.0 9 22 Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 12 7 2.2 2 0.9 8 17 Vaccinium vacillans Low blueberry 16 8 3.2 4 0.3 3 14
^
-Amelanchier app.
Serviceberry 10 5 1.8 2 0.3 2 10 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 8 4 2.4 3 0.2 2 9 Vaccinium corymbosum 7 4 2.6 3 0.1 1 8 liighbush blueberry Xerophyllum asphodeloides Turkeybeard 4 2 0.1 0 0.5 4 7 Gaylussacia frondosa, G. baccata Dangleberry, black hiickleberry 6 3 1. 0 - 1 0.1 1 5
- a. Woody seedlings <35 cm' tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
'Humber of sampling units: 9
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
i h
App 3ndix-Tablo A-13 (Cont.)- Frequency'(%) Density Dominance c). Actual Relative Actual Relative- Importance ( % '; (% cover)- (%) Value Species Actual' Relative (No./m2)
~
Pyrus arbutifolia ~ 1 5
. Red'chokeberry 6- 3 09 1 0.1 Acer rubrum 1. 0.0 0 4 Red maple 3 2 '3 Melampyrum lineare 0.1 0 3
-Cow wheat 4 2 0.2 0.
Pteridium aquilinum 1 2 l 2 1 . 0 .~ 3 0 0.1 ( ' Bracken fern Rubus spp.. 0 2 Brambles 2 1 0.7 1 0.0 Leiophyllum buxifolium' 0.1 1 2 1 l' O.3 0 Sand myrt-le Carex scabrata, C. walteriana 0 2 2 1 0.1 0 0.0 Big wetland sedge Leucothoe racemosa 0 0.1 0 1 Fetterbush 1 1 ~0.3 0 1 Woody seedling 1 1 0.6 1 0.0 l Chamaedaphne'calyculata G.0 0 1 Imatherlear 1 1 0.3 0 l Myrica pensylvanica 0 0.0 0 1 1 1 0.0 l Bayberry i 0
. Appendix Table A-13 (cont.)
Frequency (%) Density Dominance ("} Actua Pelative ~ Actual. Relative Importance Species Actual Relative. (No./mg)._*T)
-(% cover) (5) Value.
Smilax spp. Oreenbrier O' O 0.4 0 0.0 0 0 Ilex glabra , Inkberry 0 0 .0. 4 0 0.0 0 0 , Unidentified Gramineae. Orasses 0 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0 Moss (d) _ _ _ _ y;p , _ TOTAL 187 '100 90 9 100 11.2 100 300
- d. Actual dominance is the only.value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
4 4 4 h
App ndix Table'A-14' _ G round ' Layer.,
" Pitch Pine._ Lowland Forest,fForked River Site, Summer, 1978 ID)
Freauency (%)' ' Density Dominance (c) Actual- Relative Actual Relative Importance
- Species Actual Relative (No./m2) (5) '(5' cover)' (%)' Value Gaultheria procumbens' .
Teaberry 57- L19 76.4 '57 10.1: 24- 100 Ormunda cinnamomea cinnamon fern 31- 10 3.8 3 16.8 39 53 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 33 11' .10.6 8. 2.4 6 25 Gaylussacia-frondosa Dangleberry 29 10 5.2 4 29 7 20 Acer rubrum Red maple 16 5 13.6 10 0.5 1 16 Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Tern 18 6 0.8 1 2.8 7 13 Ealmia. angustifolia Sheep laurel 13 4 6.0 4 1.4 3 12 Amelanchier spp. - Serviceberry 18 6 2.9 2 0.5 1 9 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbusn 16 5 2.4 2 0.9 2 9 Gaylussacia baccata
.Dlack huckleberry 11 4 2.2 2 09 2 8
- a. Woody seedlings <35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1-m x 10 m belt transect.
Number.of sampling units: 9
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
~ App:ndix Tablo A-14 (Cont.)-
Frequency (% )' Density Dominance "} Relative Actual Relative Importance Actuag Species Actual . Relative (No./m ) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Vaccinium corymbosum liighbush blueberry 9 3 1.4 1 0.9 2- 6 Rubus spp.. 1.4 1 0.3 1 4 Brambles 8 3-Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 6 2- 0.9 1 0.5 1 4
' Smilax glauca-Sawbrier 6 2 1.3 1 0.2 0 3 1
Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 4 1 1.1 1 0.3 1 3 Xerophyllum asphodeloides Turkeybeard 4 1 0.1 0 0.5 1 3 Magnolia virginiana 1 0.3 0 0.2 1 2 , Sweet bay 4 Pyrus arbutifolia 2 1 0.7 0 0.1 0 1 Red chokeberry I Gaylussacia dumosa 2 1 0.4 0 0.1 0 1 4 Leafy-bracted-huckleberry Quercus ilicifolia 0 1
- Bear oak 2 1 0.3 0 0.1 Melampyrum lineare 1 0.2 0 0.1 0 1 Cow-wheat 2
Appendix.Tablo A-14 (Cont.)- Frequency (%) Density Dominance (") Relative Actual Relative Importance
.Actuag Value-Species. Actual Relative (No./m )- (f)~ .(5 cover) (%)
-Leiophyllum buxifolium Sand-myrtle 1- 'O 0.6 0 0.1 0 , 1 Carex scabrata, C. waiteriana Big wetland sedge 2 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 1 Mitchella repens 1 0 0.3 0- 0.0 0 1 Partridge-berry Sassafras albidum 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 1 Sassafras Pogonia ophioglossoides 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 1 Rose pogonia Woody seedling. 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0 Trientalis borealis 0 0 0.3 0 0.0 0 0
' Star-flower Chamaecyparis thyoides 0 0 0.3 0 0.0 0 0 Atlantic white cedar Moss (d) - - - - 1.0 - -
TOTAL 299 100 134.1 100 42.8 100 300
- d. Actual' dominance is the only value' computed and is not included in the total of all actual values-.
i
'Appondix TableiA-15
~
. - Ground: Layor',(") Pitch 1 Pino ' Lowlcnd' Forsst , Forked Rivar: Sito , Fall, 1978:(b)
~
Frequency (5 )l Density Dominance c) Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative ( No . /m}) '(5) (5 cover) (5)- Value
'Gaultheria'orocumbens Teaborry 60 22' - -
11.0 25 47 ,
'Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 32 12 - -
13.9 32 44 Rhododendron.viscosum - Swamp. honeysuckle 33 12 - - 3.0 7 19 Gaylussacia-frondosa Dangleberry- 23 9 3.7 9 17 Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern 11 4 - - 3.2 7 11 . Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 20 7 1.5 4 11 Vaccinium corymb'osum liighbush blueberry 13 5 1.7 4 9 Clethra.alnifolia Swcet pepperbush' -14 5 1.3 3 8 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 12 4 - - 1.4 3 8
- a. Woody seedlings $35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling. unit size
- 0.1 m x.10 m belt transect. Number of sampling Units: 9
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
. 8
Appendix Tchlo A-15 (Cont.') Frequency (%) Dens.i.ty Dominance Actuag. Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative- (No./m -) (%) (% cover) (5) Value Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry 6 2 - - 0.4 1 3 Acer rubrum Red maple 7 2 - - 0.2 0 3 Pyrus arbutifolia Red'chokeberry 6 2 - - 0.1 0 2 Xerophyllum asphodeloides Turkeybeard 3 1 - - 0.4 1 2 Rubus spp. Brambles 4 2 - - 0.1 0 2 Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbrier 3 1 - - 0.2 1 2 Osmunda regalis Royal fern 2 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Gaylussacia'dumosa
. Leafy-bracted huckleberry 2 1 - -
0.2 0 1 Ilex verticillata Black alder 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Carex scabrata, C. walteriana Big wetland sedge 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1
Appendix . Table . A '(Cont'.-)
- Frequency'.(%) Density- Dominance (c)
Actua Relative.. -Actual- Relative Importance
. Species Actual Relative (No./m}). (5) (5 cover) (5) Value M2gnolia' virginiana Sweet bay 1 0 - -
0.2. 1 1 Ch?.maedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf 1 0 - - 0.1 0- 11 Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel 1 0 - - 0.1 0 1 Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak 1 0 - -- 0.1 0 .1 Sassafras albidum Sassafras 1 0- - - 0.1 0 1 Pyxidanthera.barbulata Pixie moss 1 0 -- - 0.1 0 1 Trientalis borealis Star-flower 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic. white cedar 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Quercus ilicifolia Bear oak 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Unidentified Gramineae Orasses 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 . Moss (d) - - - - 0.6 - - . TOTAL 274 100 - . 43.6 100 200
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
e
4' Appendix Table A-16 ID) Overstory Layer,-(") Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978 Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actual Relative, Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative JNo./100 m ) 2 (g) (c,g/100 m2 ) (%) Value
' Chamaecyparis thyoides.
100 73 14.3 97 2811.2 98 268 Atlantic white cedar Nyssa sylvatica 13 9 0.1 1 22.7 1 11 Tupelo Betula populifolia 13 9 0.1 1 15.3 1 10 Gray birch Pinus rigida 13 9 0.1 1 10.2 0 10 Pitch pine 138 100 14.6 100 2859 5 100 300 TOTAL-1 1 a. Trees >10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 4m x 25 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 8.
- 1 l
Appendix Tablo A-17 Understory' Layer,,(a) Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency (%)__ Density Dominance Importance Actual Relative . Actuag Species Actual Relative (No/40 m2) (%) (cmd/40 m )(%) Relative Value Chamaecyparis thyoides
' Atlantic white cedar' 100 40 23.9 87 531.2 88 215 Acer rubrum Red maple - 63- 25 1.4 5 32.9 5 35 Pinus rigida Pitch pine 38 15 0.4 1 15.4 3 19 Magnolia virginiana Sweet bay 25 10 1.3 5 11.7 2 16 Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 25 10 0.5 2 13.0 2 14 TOTAL 250 100 27.4 100 604.2 100 300
- a. Trees 2.5 to <10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 20 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 8. e
Appendix {Tablo A-18
~
Shrub 1 Layer, (0} Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency (5) Density Dominance (c) Actual Relative- Actual- Relative. Importance Species Actual Relative -(No./20m )2 (g)- (% cover) (5)' Value Gaylussacia frondosa . 16 58.9- 21 23.6 22 59 Dangleberry 67 Clethra alnifolia- 14.6 14 .46 Sweet pepperbush 71 17 42.1 15 Chamaecyparis'thyoides 18 45 Atlantic white cedar 50 12 42.5 15 18.9 i Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 24 6 76.3 27 4.4 4 37 Rhododendron viscosum 7.3 7 27 Swamp honeysuckle 55 13 21.1 7 Vaccinium corymbosum 21 liighbush blueberry - 26 6 8.3 3 12.6 12 Ilex verticillata- 16 I Black alder- 26 6 10.0 3 -7.1 7 i Leucothoe racemosa 16 Fetterbush 24 6 7.8 3 7.7 7 Chamaedaphne calyculata 0 8 Leatherlear 19 5 8.1 3 0.2 Acer rubrum 2.4 2 7 15 4 2.0 1 Red maple I a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size
- 2 m x 10 m belt transect.
I Number of sampling units: 8
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix Tablo A-19
. Shrub Layor,("}' Cedar Swamp Forcet, Fork d River'Sita, Fall, 1978.ID)
Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./20m2) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 47 21 - - 17.9 23 43 Chamaecyparis thyoides 11.8 Atlantic white cedar 36 .16 - - - 15 31 Clethra alnifolia , Sweet pepperbush 34 15 - - 11.6 15 29 5 ' Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 21 9 - - 11.9 15 24 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 22 10 - _ 6.8 9 18 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 13 5 - - 5.1 6 12 Ilex verticillata Black alder 14 6 - - 3.4 4 10 Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 14 6 - - 3.4 4 10 Acer rubrum Red maple 10 4 - - 2.1 3 7
- a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 8.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
h
. Appendix-Table A-19 (Cont.)
Frequency (5) Density ~ Dominance c) Actual Relative Actual Relative _ 'Importance Species. Actual Relative (No./20m2 ) (%) (5 cover) (%)~ Value Ilex' glabra-Inkberry 4. 2 '- - 1.4 2 3 Magnolia. virginiana Sweet bay .2 lf - - 1.7 2 3 Vaccinium atrococcum Black highbush blueberry 2 1 - - 0.7 1 2 Pyrus arbutifolia Red chokeberry 2 1 - - 0.4 l' 2 -Betula populifolia. Gray birch 2 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherlear 2 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 1 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Amelanchier app. - Serviceberry 1 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 1 1 - - 0.1 0 1 TOTAL 231 100 - - 79.1 100 200
App 3ndix T;.blo A-20 l0round.Layar,(O 'C:dnr Sw;2p Forrat, Fork:d River Sito,_ Spring, 1978(D) Frequency-(%) Density Dominance (U Actual- Relative Importance Actual Relative (%) (% cover) (%) Value Species Actual .Re2+Jtive (No./m2)
' Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 26 17 10.1 24 1.2 16 57
]i Vaccinium corymbosum- 42 liighbush blueberry 25 16 5.6' 13 0.9 13 )
l Osmunda cinnamomea 1.5 20 41 Cinnamon fern 20 13 31 7 Leucothoe racemosa 0.6 8 33 Fetterbush 13 8 7.1 17 Carex collinsil 0.6 8 26
. Wide-leaved selge 14 9 3.8 9 Carex sp. 20 Filiform-leaved sedge 6 4 2.9 7 0.7 9 0
Clethra:alnifolia 0.5 7 18 Sweet pepperbush 10 7 1.9 4 Gaylussacia frondosa, G. baccata 0.4 5 17 Dangleberry, black huckleberry 10 7 2.0 5 Chamaecyparis thyoides , . 0.4 6 13 Atlantic white cedar 7 5 0.9 2
.Acer rubrum 0.2 3 7 Red maple 5 3 0.3 1 Amelanchier spp. 1 4 j
Serviceberry 4 2- 0.4 1 0.1 l 1
- a. Woody seedlings <35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants. ,
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 8
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix Tabl> A-du (Lont.) Frequcncy (5) Density Do-'inanc,(c) Actual R lativo Importrnca Actuag Ralativa (% cover) (%) Vnlu' Species Actual Relative ( No./m ) (%) Hyrsa nylvatica-- 0.6 1 0.0 0 3 1 1 Tupelo Carex excilis 0.4 1 0.1 1 3 1 1 Coast sed @c , Sarracenia purpurea 0.0 0 2 1 1 0.1 0 Pitcher-plant , Quercus ilicifolia 0.1 0 0.0 0 2 1 1 Bear oak ( Myrica pensylvanica 0 0.0 0 2 1 1 0.1 l Bayberry l Osmunda regalis 0.0 0 2 Royal fern 1 1 0.3 1 Chamaedaphne calyculata 0.0 1 1 1 1 0.0 0 Leatherlear P'yrus spp. 0.1 0 0.0 0 1 Chokeberry 1 1 Rubus spp. 0 0.0 0 1 1 1 0.1 Brambles Pyrus arbutifolia 0 0.0 0 0 Red chokeberry 0 0 0.1 Ilex glabra 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Inkberry 0.0 0 5 Unidentified forb 1 1 1.9 4 _ _ _ g,4 _ _ Moss (d) 100 42.0 100 7.5 100 300 TOTAL 152
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
e
' App:ndix Table A-21 Ground' Layer, a). Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978 ID)
Frequency (%) _ . _ Density Dominance c) Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./m}) (%) (5 cover) (5) Value _ Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 39 20 2.1 5 9.2 47 72 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 31 16 8.9 21 2.3 12 50 Gaylussaci'a dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 19 10 6.8 16 1.7 9 35 Clethra alnifolia 28 sweet pepperbush 25 13 2.1 5 2.0 10 Gaylussacia frondosa 10 4.0 10 0.9 5 24 Dangleberry 19 Chamaedaphne calyculata 4 39 9 0.9 5 18 Leatherleaf 7 Carex excilis 14 Coast sedge 9 5 3.1 8 0.3 2 Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 7 4 1.4 3 0.3 2 9 Leucothoe racemosa 8 Fetterbush 4 2 2.4 6 0.1 1 Ilex verticillata 8 - UTack alder 5 3 1.0 2 0.5 3
- a. Woody seedlings <35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sanpling unit size: 0.1 m x 13 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 8. -
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
e
. App:ndix Tabic A-21:(Cont.)
Dominance c) Frequency (%)_ Density Relative Actual Relative Importance
-Actua Value Actual Relative (No./m}) __'5) (5 cover) (%)
Species C. walteriana 2 0.2 1 . 6 Carex scabrata, Big wetland se dge 5 3 1.0 Carex collinsil 0.1 1 5 Collin's sedge 5 3 0.8 2 l Sarracenia purpurea 2 0.2 1 5 2 1 1.0 Pitcher-plant Amelanchier spp. 0.1 0- 3 Serviceberry 2 1 , 0.5 1 Myrica pensylvanica 1 0.4 1 0.1 1 3 Bayberry- 2
. Vaccinium corymbosum 0.2 1 2 Highbush blueberry 1 1 0.3 1 Acer rubrum 0.0 0 2 Red maple 2 1 0.3 1 Pyrus arbutifolia 0.1 0 2 Red chokeberry 1 1 0.4 1 Osmunda'regalis 0.1 1 2 1 0.1 0 Royal fern 1 Rubus spp. 0.0 0 1 1 0.3 1 Drambles 1 Trientalis_ borealis 0.0 0 1 0 0 0.3 1 Star-flouer e
~
Appsndix Table A-21 (Cont.) Frequency (%) ' Density Dominance " Actua Relative Actual Relative- Importance-Species Actual Relative ( No . /m)) (%)-
- (% cover) :(%) Value Smilax glauca 1 0 0 0. 3 ' 1 0.0 0 Sawbrier Magnolia virginiana 0 'O 0 0 0.1 0 0.0 Sweet bay 0 0.5 1 0.0 0 1 Unidentified forb 0 Moss Id) -
- - 7.0 - --
TOTAL 190' 100 41.6 100 19.6 100 300
- d. Actual dominance is the only-value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
. Appendix Table A-22 Ground Layer,("} Cedar Swamp Forest, Forked River Site, Fall,_1978 (b)_
Frequency (% )L Density Dominance (c) Actung Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./m ) (%) _(% cover) (%) Value 4 Osmunda alanamomea . Cinnamon-fern 36 21 - - 95 42 - 63 Clethra.alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 26 16 - -- 3.7 16 32 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 27 16 - - 19 8 25 Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 17 10 - - 30 13 23 Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 11 7 1.3 6 13 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 13 7 1.0 5 12 Carex collinsii Collin's sedge 6 4 - - 0.3 2 5 Ilex verticillata~~ Black alder 6 4 0.3 2 5 Carex excilis Coast sedge 5 3 0.4 2 5
- a. Woody seedlings $35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect. Number of sampling units:
c.
.8 Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix Table A-22 (Cont.) Frequency (%) Density Dominance ) Actua Relative Actual . Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No'./m}) (%) (%' cover) (%) ~Value'- Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 4 2 - - 03 1 3 Sarracenia. purpurea Pitcher-plant 2 1 - 0.3 1 3 Pyrus upp. Chokeberry 4 2 - - 0.1 0 3 Osmunda regalis Royal fern 2 1 - - 0.1 0 2 Vaccinium corymbosum liigh bush . bluebe rry 2 1 - - 0.1 0 2 Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 1 1 - - 0.1 1 1 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 1 1 - - 0.1 1 1 Chamaedaphne calyculata
.Leatherlear 1 1 - -
0.0 0 1 Acer rubrum Red maple 1 1 - - 0.0 0 1 Moss (d) - - - - 5.6 - - TOTAL 169 100 - - 22 7 100 200
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
. Appendix Table A-23 CD)
Understory' Layer,'(" Cedar Swamp' Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978 Frequency-(%) Density Dominance Actual Relative Relative Importance
-Actual Relative (No/40m 2) (g) Actuag)
(c,2 /40m (%) Value Species Chamaecyparis thyoides' 35.4 271-
~
88 88 3.6 91 93 Atlantic white cedar Betula populifolia Gray birch 13 13 0.4 9 2.8 7 29 TOTAL 100 100 4.0 100 -38.2 100 300 c
- a. Trees 2.5 to <10 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 20 m belt transect.
- Number of sampling units: 8.
e
~
- . Appundix Table-A-24 ShrubfLayer,.-(") Cedar Swamp Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D)
Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./20m2) (%) (% cover). (%) -Value Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white' cedar 88 14 152.4- 29 36.0 42 85 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 82 13 100.8 19 14.7 17 50 Rhododendron viscosum swamp honeysuckle 66 11 40.0 8 6.4 7 26 Clethra alnifolia Sweet popperbush 70- 11 34.0 7 5.6 6 24 Gaylussacia dumosa a Leafy-bracted huckleberry 35 6 70.9 14 4.1 5 24 Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 32 5 30.5 6 3.0 3 15 Vaccinium corymbosum Ilighbush blueberry 38 6 12.8 2 3.9 5 13 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 38 6 19 3 4 2.8 -3 13 Ilex verticillata l Black alder 29 5 11.1 2 3.7 4 11 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 29 5 12 3 2 1.7 2 9
- a. Woody. plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 8.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
App:ndix Table A-24 (Cont.) Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (M3./2&n ) (%) . (% cover) (%) Value Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf. 21- 3 14.3 3 0.8 1 7 s Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 20 3 9.0 2 1.6 2 7 'Acer rubrum Red maple .17 3 2.4 0 0.4 0 4 Pyrus arbutifolia 0 4 Red chokeberry . 19 3 2.3 0 0.1 Ilex glabra Inkberry 7 l' 1.8 0 0.7 1 2 Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel 6 1 31 1 0.3 0 2 Magnolia virginiana Sweet bay 6 1 1.0 0 0.6 1 2 Parthenocissus. quinquefolia 1 1.3 0 0.1 0 1 Virginia creeper 5 Betu]a populifolia 1 0.5 0 0.1 0 1 Gray birch 5 Sassafras albidum 0 1 Sassafras
~~
2 0 0.5 0 0.1 Amelanchier spp. 2 0 0.4. 0 0.0 0 0 Serviceberry e
r Appendix. Table A-24 (Cont.) Frequency (%) Density Dominance cI Actua) ' Relative Actual Relative -Importance Species Actual Relative '(No./20m2 ) (%) -(5 cover) (%) Value Quercus ilicifolia. Bear oak 1 0 0. l' 0' O.0 0 0 Lyonia ligustrina Maleberry 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 TOTAL 620 100 520.4 100 86.7 .100 300-6 0 4
' Appendix'. Table A-25 Shrub. Layer,(a) Cedar Swamp Shrub Community,'Forkad Rivar Sito, Fall, 1978 CD}'
Frequency ( % ) __ De'nsity Dominance c)
.Actua Relative Actual Relative. Importance.
Species Actral Relative (No./20n(t-)- (%) -(5 cover) (%) Value Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 72 23 - - 31.4 38 61 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry. .49 15 - - 12.3- 15 '30 Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 40 13 - - 7.9 10 , 22 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 34 11 - - 6.2 7 18 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 32 10 - - 57 7 17 Vaccinium corymbosum liighbush blueberry 15 5 - - 5.7 7 12 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 17' 6 - - 4.3 5 11 Ilex verticillata Black alder. 10 3 - - 1.7 2 5 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 7 2 - - 1.2 2 4 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf 7 2 - - 1.2 1 4 4
- a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect. Number of sampling units: 8..
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix. Table A-25 (cont.) Frequency'(%) Density Dominance c): Actual Relative Actual . Relative Importance Species Actual- Relative 2 (No./20m ) (g) (g cover) (g). Value Acer rubrum . Red maple' 6 2 - - 0.8 1 3 Lvonia licustrina Maleberry 5 2 - - 09 . 3' Kalmia-latifolia Mountain laurel 4 1 - - 0.9 1 2
.Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 5 2 - -
0.5 1 2 Ilex glabra Inkberry 2 1 - - 0.7 1 2 Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 2 1 - - 0.4 1 1 Magnolia virginiana Sweet bay 1 0 - - 0.6 1 1 Betula populifolia Gray birch 1 0 - - 0.1 0 1 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper 1 0 - - 0.1 0 1 Pyrus arbutifolia Red chokeberry 1 0 - - 0.1 0 0 TOTAL 316 100 - - 83.0 100 200
s,- .-- Appendix 'Ibble A-26 '
- Ground layer, 8 Cedar Swanp Shrub Conmunity, Forked River Site, Spring, 1978(D)
Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c)- Actual- Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No . /m2) (%) (% cover) (%) Value
'Carex excilis Coast sedge' 42 17 135.9 45 7.3 38 100 Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 41 17 27.3 9 3.3 17 43 Carex scabrata, C. walteriana
. Big wetland sedge 32 13 18 9 6 1.1 5 25 Amelanchier spp.
Serviceberry 5 2 32.3 11 2.0 10 23 Rubus spp. Brambles 21 9 9.1 3 1.1 6 17 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry .6 6 4.8 2 0.8 4 12 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 2.5 6 8.6 3 0.4 2 11 Andropogon sp. Broom beardgrass 11 5 10.0 3 0.4 2 10 Kalmia. angustifolia Sheep laurel 10 4 4.6 2 0.5 2 8 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 7 3 4.4 1 05 3 7 4 a. Woody seedlings 135 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 8.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
I
Appendix _ Table;A-26 (Cont.) Frequency (%) ' Density Dominance c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance. Species Actual' Relative (No. /m4 (%) (% cover) (%) .Value Chamaedaphne.calyculata Leatherlear 7- -3 2.3 1 0.5 3 7 Drosera rotundifolia 6 99 0.1 0 Round-leaved sundew 6 3 3 Ilex glabra Inkberry 6 3 3.6 1 0.2 1 5: Rhododendron viscosum 1- 4 Swamp honeysuckle 5 2 3.0 1 0.1 3 Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 4 2 4.0 1 0.1 1 3 Unidentified fern' 2 1 4.1 1 0.0 0 3 Gaylussacia frondosa, O. baccata 0.3 0 0.2 1 :? Dangleberry, black huckleberry 2 1 Acer rubrum 2 Red maple 4 2 0.6 0 0.0 0 Sarracenia purpurea 1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 1 Pitcher-plant ., 0 0 2.6 1 0.0 0 1 Woody seedling Pyrus arbutifolia , 0 0.0 0 1 Red chokeberry 1 0 09 Kalmia latifolia 1 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 Mountain laurel Phragmites communis 1 0 0.3 0 0.0 0 1 Reed
c
' Appendix-Table 1A-26 '(Cont.).
Dominance ( )'~
~
Frequency-(%) ' Density-- Relative Actual. Relative- Importance-
'Actuag (%) (% cover) (%) .Value' Species Actual'. Relative (No./m )
Gnultheria procumbens *
'O O J0.1 0 0.0 0 0 Teaberry.
. Unidentified Gramineae 1. 7-Grasses , 2 1 13.3 4 0.2 Unidentified forb 2 1 2.8 1 0.1 1 3 Moss (d) - - - -- 58.1 - - TOTAL 250 100: 303.6 100 19.3 100 300-i
- d. Actual dominance is the only.value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
Appendix Table A-27 l Ground Layer, (*) Cedar Swamp Shrub _ Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency'(%)_ Density Dominance (c) Relative Actual Relative- Importance hetuag Value Species- Actual Relative (No./m ) (%) (% cover) (%) Carex excills' 6.1 14 65 Coast sedge 55- 13 86.3 38 osmunda cinnamomea- 12.3 28 44 Cinnamon fern 42 10 13 9 6 Rubus spp. 21 Brambles 31 7 14.9 7 33 7 C. walteriana 21 Carex scabi ata,sedge Big wetland 36 8 12.9 6 30 7
-Chamaecyparis thyoides 21 Atlantic white cedar- 35 8 13.8 6 2.9 7 Rhododendron viscosum 2.1 5 18 Swamp honeysuckle 35 8 10.9 5 Andropogon sp. 2.0 5 14 Broom beardgrass. 19 4 11.4 5 Euaatorium rotundifolium 10.1 4 1.9 4 13 lound-leaved boneset 17 4
! Chamaedaphne calyculata 1.6 4 11 Leatherleaf 20 5 6.5 3 Clethra alnifolia 1.2 3 9 Sweet pepperbush 20 5 2.9 1
- a. Woody seedlings 135 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit. size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 8. '
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix: Table : A-27 (Cont. ).
~
Frequency-(%) Density Dominance " Actual -Helative :Importance Actua}' Relative- (% cover) (%) 'Value Species Actual Relative .(No./m )' (%) Ilex verticillata- 7 6.4 2 11- 3' 3 0 .' 7 Black alder Gaylussacia dumosa . 2' Leafy-bracted. huckleberry 15 '3 3. 8 ' 2 0.8 7 Myrica.pensylvanica 7 13 3 2. 5- 1- 1.1 3 Bayberry Kalmia. angustifolia Sheep '1.aurel 10 2- 2.6 1- 0.3 1 4 Aralia nudicaulis Wild ' sarsaparilla 7 2 0.9 'O 0.7 2 4 Drosera rotundifolia 0 4
' :00 2 2. 5- 1 0.2 Round-leaved sundew Acer rubrum 0 4 hed maple 9 2 3.1 1 0.2 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 6 1 1.3 1 0.3 1 3 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry .6 1 1.4- 1 0.2 l' 3 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper 6 1 0 3' O. 0.4 1 3 Pyrus arbutifolia 2 Red chokeberry 5 1 09 0' O.2 0
a Appendix Table A-27 (Cont.) < Frequency (%) Density Dominance c)
. . Ac.tua Relative Actual Relative Importance-Species Actual. Relative (No./m}) (%) (% cover) (%) Value -
'Lyonia ligustrina . Maleberry 2 l 1.0 0 0.3 1 2. Rhus radicans Poison-ivy 2 1 0.5 0 0.1 0 1 Phragmites communis Reed .2 1 0.6 0 0.1 0 1 Panicum spp. Panic grass l' O 0.8 0 0.0 0 1 Sassafras albidum - 1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 1 Sassafras-Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 1 0 0.5 0 0.0 0 1 Ilex glabra inkberry 1 0 0.3 0 0.11 0 1 Sarracenia purpurea Pitcher-plant 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0 Polygala cruciata Milkwort 1 0 0.1 0- 0.0 0 0 Quercus ilicifolia Bear oak 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0 Schizaea pusilla Curly grass fern 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0
b Appendix Table A-27 (Cont.) Frequency'(%) Density ' Dominance (c) Actua Relative Actual Relative 'Importance Species Actual Relative (No . /m}) (%)' (% cover) (%)' Value Trientalis borealis 0 0 Star-flower 0 0 0.1 0 0.0 Oaylussacia baccata 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 Black huckleberry Unidentified Oramineae 1.3 9' Orasses 4 1 11.4 5 3 2 1 0.6 0 10 . 1 0 1 Unidentified forb Moss (d) - - - - 33.4 - - TOTAL 434 100 . 225 2 100 44.0 100 300
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
App:ndix Table.A-28 - Ground'Layor,(U} Cedar Swamp ShrubECommunity, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978.ID)' Frequency (%) _ Density Dominance ) Actuag Relative . Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./m )' (5) (% cover) (%) Value Carex excilis, Rhynchospora alba Coast sedge,. Beak-rush 54 l'1 - - 12.6 21 32 Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 38 8 _ _- 10.6 18 26 Carex scabrata, C. walteriana 4.2 Big wetland sedge 40 8 . _ 7 15 Chamaecyparis thyoides-Atlantic white cedar 35 7 - - 3.8 6 14 Rubus spp. Brpmbles 34 7 _ _ 3.6 6 13 Rhododendron viscosum i Swamp honeysuckle 40 8 _ _ 2.6 4 13 Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 24 5 _ _ 2.8 5 10 Clethra alnifolia
- Sweet pepperbush 25 5 - - 2.4 4 9 Andropogon virginicus Broom sedge 19 4 - _ 2.9 5 9
- a. Woody seedlings $35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
8.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect. Number of sampling units:
- c. Based on line-intercept method. >
' Appendix Table A-28 ( Cont.)
' Frequency (%) -Density Dominance (c)
Actuag Relative . Actual Relative Importance Species . Actual Relative (No./m )' (%) (% cover) (5) Value Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf 21 4 - - 1.7 3 7 Eupatorium rotundifolium Round-leaved-boneset 14 3 - - 2.6 4 7 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 15 3 - - 1.3 2 5 i Panicum spp. Panic grass 6 1 - - 1.9 3 5 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 14 3 - - 0.8 1 4 Acer rubrum Red maple 15 3 - - 0.6 1 4 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 13 3 - - 0.7 1 4 Kalmia angustifolia 4 Sheep laurel 9 2 - - 0.8 1 3 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper 5 1 - - 0.6 1 2
, Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla 5 1 - -
0.5 1 2 i Rhus radicans Poison ivy 5 1 - - 05 1 2 Ilex verticillata Black alder 6 1 - - 0.3 1 2 6
. Appendix Tab 1'e h-28L(Cont.)
Frequency'(5) Density Dominance Actuag- Relative. Actual Relative Importance Species Actual' Relative (No./m ). (5) (5 cover) (%) Value Phragmites communis Reed 4 l' - - 0.4 1 l~ Drosera rotundifolia Round-leaved-sundew 4 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Ilex glabra Inkberry 2 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 2 1 - - 0.2 0 1 i Carex sp. Sedge 2 1 - - 0.2 0 1
'Osmunda regalis Royal fern 2 1 - -
0.1 0 1 Polygala cruciata Milkwort 2 1 - - 0.1 0 1 Lyonia ligustrina Maleberry 1 0 - - 0.1 0 0
- Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 1 0 - -
0.1 0 0 i Cuscuta sp. I Dodder 1 0 - - 0.1 0 0 a - Trientalis borealis Star-flower ' 1 0 - - 0.1 0 0 Rhus vernix Poison sumac 1 0 - - 0.1 0 0 i
Lf
- Appendix Table A-28.(Cont.) I Frequency (5) Density Dominance c)
Actuag; Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative ~ ~ ( No . /m ) , (%) (5 cover) (5) Value Pyrus arbutifolia Red chokeberry 1 0 - 0.0 0' '0 - Gaylussacia-baccata Black. huckleberry- 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak .1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Unidentified Gramineae Grasses 4 1 - -
. 0.2 0 1 Unidentified forb 4 1 _ _
0.1 0 1 Moss (d) 24.8
~
TOTAL 472 100 - - 59.9 100 200
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included -in the total of all actual values.
1
. Appendix Table A-29 (D)
.Overstory Layer, ("} Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978 Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actual- Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (ib/100 m 2) (g) (cm2 /100 m2) (%) Value Pinus rigida 10 100 0.1 100 8.5 100 300 Pitch pine TOTAL 10 100 0.1 100 8.5 100 300
- a. Trees >10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 4 m x 25 m belt transect.
' Number of sampling units: 10. s _ _ _ -
e , c Appendix Table A-30
~
Understory Layer, ("}-Upland. Shrub ~ Community, Forked' River. Site, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency (%)- Density Dominance Actual . Relative Importance 2 (cth/4mn )A tuag (%) Relative Value Species Actual . Relative (ib/40 m ) (%) Pinus rigida-10 100 0.1 100 57 100 300
. Pitch pine TOTAL' 10 100 0.1 100 5.7 100 300
- a. Trees 2.5 to <10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 20:m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 10. i __ __ w
Appendix-Table A-31 Shrub: Layer, (") Upland Shrub' Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency (%) Density Dominance c) Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Actual Relative (No/20m}) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Species Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 77 24 125.8 44 6.4 21 90 Vaccinium vacillans 11 48 Low blueberry 66' 21 43.8 15 3.4 Quercus ilicifolia 8.8 29 39 Bear oak 20 6 99 3 Gaylussacia frondosa 4 28 Dangleberry 34 11 37.7 13 1.2 Smilax glauca 24 Sawbrier 33 10 22.4 8 1.7 6 Clethra-alnifolia 21 Sweet pepperbush 19 6 16.5 6 2.8 9 Kalmia angustifolia 11 Sheep laurel 17 5 12.3 4 0.5 2 Quercus stellata 2.7 9 11 Post oak 3 1 19 1 Sassafras albidum 0.8 10 Sassafras 18 6 4.2 1 3 Leucothoe racemosa 0.2 1 4 Fetterbush 5 2 39 1
- a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt _ transect.
Number of sampling units: 10.
- c. Based on line-intercept method. .
. Appendix 1Teble'A-31 (Cont.)
' Frequency-(%)' Density Dominance (
Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance. (% cover) (%) Value Species Actual . Relative (No/20m ). (%) Ilex glabra Inkberry -5 2 1.7 1 0.3 1 3 Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 2 1 0.2 0 0.6 2 3 Pinus.rigida 2 2 1.0 0 0.0 0 Pitch pine 5 Smilax rotundifolia 0 2 Common greenbrier 4 1 1.1 0 0.0 Comptonia peregrina 1 2 Sweetrern 2 1 10 . 7 0 0.2 Myrica pensylvanica 1 2' 1 0.3 0 0.1 0 Bayberry. Quercus marilandica 0 1 Blackjack oak 1 0 0.6 0 0.1 Lyonia mariana 0 1 < Stagger-bush 2 1 0.4 0 0.0 Amelanchier spp. 1 1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 Serviceberry Pyrus spp. 0 0 Chokeberry 1 0 0.4 0 0.0 317 100 285.0 100 30.0 100 300 TOTAL
- ~ --
s, . Appendix Table A-32' Shrub Layer,(") Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978 (D) Frequency (% ) Density Dominance c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance
-Species Actual Relative (No.72y)' (%) (% cover) (5) -Value Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 42 31 .- 10.4 30 -61 Quercus ilicifolia Bear oa.k 24 18 - -
93 27 44 Vaccinium vacillans Low blueberry 17 13 - - 3.5 10 23 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 9 7 - - 35 10 17 Quercus stellata Post Oak 7 5 - - 2.1 6 11 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 7- 5 _. _ 1.1 3 8 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry '7 5 - - 1.0 3 8 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 7 5 _ _ 1.0 3 8 Sassafras albidum sassafras 4 5 _ - 1.4 4 7 a .- Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2 5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 10.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
i li Appendix Table A-32.(cont.)' Frequency (%) Density Dominance c) Actual- Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (Mo./20m?) . (5) (5 cover) ~(5) _, Value Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush. 3 2- - - 0.4 1 3 Ilex glabra , Inkberry 2 1 - - 0.4 1 3 Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 2 1 - - 0.4 1 3 Pinus rigida j Pitch pine 2 1 - - 0.2 1 2 s . - t ,
'Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry - . 1 1 - -
0.0 0 1 l.f TdTAL 134 100 - - 34.9 100 200
/
w e O
/
- I t
f i
Appendix Table A-33 Ground Layer,(a) U land Shrub Community, Forked River' Site, Spring,~1978 CD) Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actuag Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative ( No./m ) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Vaccinium vacillans-Low blueberry 67 32 32.8 17 4.4 30 79 Hudsonia ericoides False. heather 19 9 13.6 7 4.3 30 46 Polygone11a articulata Jointweed 6 3. 71.4 38 0.7 5 46 G. baccata Gaylussacia frondosa, Dangleberry, black h iickleberry 48 23 20.6 11 1.3 9 43 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 14 7 6.9 4 1.5 10 20 Gaultheria.procumbens Teaberry 17 8 9.8 5 09 6 20 Panicum spp. Panic grass 4 2- 14.8 8 03 2 12 Andropogon sp. Non-broom beardgrass 9 4 9.0 5 0.2 2 11 Rubus spp. Brambles 6 3 0.8 0 0.5 3 7 Smilax spp. Greenbrier 6 3 3.9 2 0.1 1 6
- a. Woody seedlings 135 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 10
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix Table'A-33 (Cont.) Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative ( No. /m2) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Ilex glabra Inkberry_ 1 0 0.3 0 0.1 1 2 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 2 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 2 Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern 2 1 0. 7- 0 0.0 0 1 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 2 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 'l Quercus ilicifolia Bear oak 2 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 1 Pyrus spp. Chokeberry 1 0 0.5 0 0.0 0 1 Sassafras albidum Sassafras 1 0- 0.1 0 0.0 0 1 Comptonia'peregrina Sweetrern 1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 1 Woody seedling 0 0 0.2 0 0.0 0 0 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 0 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0 Unidentified forb 1 0 1.5 1 0.0 0 1 Moss Id) - - - - 11.8 - - TOTAL 209 100 188.4 100 14.6 100 300
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
-m Appendix Tablo A-34 Ground Layer, ("} Upland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(b)
Frenuency (%) Density Dominance (U - Actual Relative Importance Actuag Helative Value Species Actual Relative ( No./m ) (%) (% cover) (%) Vaccinium vacillans 75 Low blueberry 63 23 26.5 19 12.3 33 Gaylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 41 15 15.4 11 6.4 17 43 Andropo gon scoparius Broom beardgrass 23 8 27.1 20 2.5 7 35 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 27 10 12.3 9 2.5 7 25 Panicum spp. Panic grass 13 5 24.9 18 0.9 2 25
- Iludsonia ericoides False heather 20 7 7.6 5 4.2 11 24 Gaultheria procumbens 22 S 13 9 10 1.2 3 21 Teaberry Pteridium aquilinum 22 8 2.0 1 4.1 11 20 Bracken fern Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 8 3 2.2 2 0.8 2 7
- a. Woody seedlings 135 cm tall and all herbaceous plants,
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 10.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
App ndix Table A-34 (cont.) Frequency (%') Density Dominance ") Relative Importance Actuay Relative . Actual Value Species A6tual Relative (No./m ) (%) '(% cover) (%) Clethra alnifolia 0.6 2 6 Sweet'pepperbush. 8 3 1.5 1 Rubus spp. 1.2 1 09 3 6'
. Brambles 6 2 -
Quercus ilicifolia 1 1.4 1 0.2 1 3 Bear oak 3 Melampyrum lineare 0 2 Cow-wheat- 4 1 0.6 0 0.1 Sassafras albidum 0.4 0 0.3 1 2 Sassafras 3 1. 4 daylussacia frondosa 1 2 Dangleberry 3 1 0.3 0 0.2-Amelanchier spp. 0 1 3 Serviceberry 2 1 0.4 0 0.0 Quercus stellata 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 1 Post oak 1 , l Polygonella articulata 0.0 0 1 1 0 0.2 0 Jointweed Smilax rotundifolia 0 0.0 0 0 Common greenbrier 1 0 0.1 Myrica pensylvanica 0 0.0 0 0 1 0 0.1 Bayberry G
- Appendix.Tablo A-34-(Cont.)
Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Species . Actual Relative. (No./m}) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Leucothoe racemosa 0.0 0 0 Fetterbush 1 0 0.1 0 Ilex glabra 0.0 0 0 Inkberry 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 Unidentified forb 1 'O . 3 Moss (d) - - - - 6.0 - - 274 100 138.6 100 37 5 100 300 TOTAL
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values. ,
r
.- : . -- Appsndix-Table A-35 Ground Layer,(O Upland Shrub Cominunity, Forked River Site, Fall, '1978 (D)
., Frequency (% ) Density Dominance c)
Actuag Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./m ) (5) (5 cover) (%) Value Vrecinium vacillans Low b'lueberry 63 28 , 14.5 37 65 Grylussacia baccata Black huckleberry 43 19 - ' - 8.4 21 40 Andropogon scoparius Broom beardgrass 17 8 - 3.9 10 17 Smilax glauca Sawbrier 21 9 - - 2.7 7 16 Hudsonia ericoidea False heather 13 6 - 3.0 7 13 Gaultheria procumbens Teaberry 19 8 - - 1.4 4 12 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 12 5 - - 1.8 5 10 Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern 10 4 - - 1.5 4 8 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 5 2 - - 03 1 3 4
- a. Woody seedlings $35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants. -
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 10.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
7 4,: Appendix. Table A-35 (cont.) 'li Frequency (5) . Density Dominance c) ; Actuag Relative Actual . Relative Importance
. Species Actual- Relative ( No. /m ) ~(5) (5 cover) (5) ~Value Rubus spp..
Brambles '3 1 -- - 0.6 2- 3
- Sassafras albidum- -
.. Sas sa fras 3 1 - -
03 1 2 Panicum spp'. Panic grass 3 1 - - 0.3 1 2 Gavlussacia frondosa
-2 Dangleberry 3 1
~
0.2 1 Pvrus spp. Chokeberry 3 1 - - 0.2 0 2 1 Quercus ilicifolia Bear oak 2 1 ;- - 0.2 1 2
. Smilax rotundifolia Common.greenbrier- 2 1 - -
0.1 0 1 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 1 0 - - 0.1 0 1 1 Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak 1 0 - - 0.0 0 1 Polygonella articulata Jointweed 1 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Moss d) 7.2 - - TOTAL 225 100 ' 39.8 100 200
- d. Actual dominance is the only value. computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
.l
Appendix. Table A Overstory Layer, (") Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River: Site, Summer,L1978(D) Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Species -Actual Relative (No/100m 2) (%) (cm2/100m 2) (5)- Value Pinus rigida 100 300 Pitch pine 17 100 0.2 100 13.4 Total if 100 0.2: 100 13.4 100 300 I a i
- a. Trees >10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 4 m x 25 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 6.
c i App:ndix Table A CD) Understory Layer, (a) Loirland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer,1978 Frequency (%) Den'sity Dominance Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance-2 Value Species Actual- Relative (No/40 M2 ) (%) (CM /40 W1 (%) Pinus rigida . 100 60 3.3 63- 55.6 77 199 Pitch pine
'Acer rubrum 72 Red maple 50 30 1.3 25 12.2 17 Magnolia virginiana Sweet bay 17 10 0.7 13 4.4 6 29 167 100 5.3 100 72.2 100 Sv0 TOTAL
- a. Trees 2.5 to <10.0 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 20 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 6.
. App:ndix Table A-38 Shrub Layer, (") Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D)
Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Relative (No/20m}) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Species Actual Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 88 11 433.5 40 28.1 19 70 Chamaedaphne calyculata 40 80 10 204.2 19 17.2 11 Leatherleaf Ilex glabra 40 Inkberry 93 12 126.5 12 25.7 17 Rhododendron viscosum 6 19 Swamp honeysuckle 65 8 51.2 5 9.4 Vaccinium corymbosum 18 35 4 31 3 3 16.7 11 Highbush blueberry Acer rubrum 11 18 Red maple 45 6 15.3 1 16.3 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 70 9 52.8 5 4.6 3 17 Gaylussacia frondosa 14 Dangleberry 40 5 41.0 4 7.7 5 Kalmia angustifolia 6 40.2 4 30 2 11 Sheep laurel 45
- a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 6.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appandix Table A-38 (cont.) Frequency (%) Density ' Dominance c) Relative Actual Relative Importance Actuag
'(% cover) '(%)
Species Actual Relative. (No/20m ) (%) Value Pyrus.arbutifolia Red chokeberry 72 9 17 2 2 1.2 1 11 Pinus rigida Pitch pine 27 3_ 4.2 0 7.4 5 9 Magnolia virginiana sweet bay 25 3 7.7 1 5.0 3 7 Amelanchier spp. serviceberry 38 5 13 3 1 1.3 1 7 Nyssa'sylvatica 2 6.3 1 4.9 3 6 Tupelo 17 Myrica pensylvanica 1.1 1 4 Bayberry 23 3 57 1 Chamaecyparis thyoides 2 11.2 1 1.0 1 4 Atlantic white cedar 18 Ilex verticillata 2 30 0 0.1 0 2
- Black alder 13 Lyonia ligustrina 0.7 1 Maleberry 5 1 2.3 0 0 i Viburnum cassinoides, V. nudum Wild-raisin, swamp-haw 7 1 4.0 0 0.0 0 1
- 807 -100 1070.8 100 151.6 100 300
- TOTAL
App:ndix Table A-39 Shrub Layer, n) Lowland Shrub Community, Forked' River Site, Fall, 1978 ID) Frequency (%) Density Dominance " Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Actuaj) Relative (No/20m (5) (5 cover) (%) Value Ilex glabra Inkberry 73 18 - - 24.5 21 39 Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 68 17 - - 21.5 19 35 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherlear 43 10 - - 11.8 10 21 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 30 7 - - 15.2 13 20 Rhododendron viscosum
- Swamp honeysuckle 35 8 - -
11.1 10 18 Acer rubrum Red maple 25 6 - - 8.8 8 14 Clethra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 38 9 - - 4.4 4 13 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 18 4 - - 4.2 4 8 Magnolia virginiana Sweet bay 15 4 - -
- 3. !' 3 7
- a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2 5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 6.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix Table A-39 (Cont.) . Frequency (%) Density Dominance c) Actua3 Relative Actual Relative Importance-Species ' Actual. Relative (No/20m ) (%) (% cover) (5) Value-Gavlussacia ..frondosa Dangleberry 17 4 - - 2.8 2 7 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 10 2 - - 1.4 1 4 Pinus rigida Pitch pine 8 2 - - 1.8 2 4 L Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 7 2 - . 1.7 1 3 ' .Chamaecyparis thyoides , Atlantic white cedar 7 2 - - 1.2 1 3 Pyrus arbutifolia Red chokeberry 8 2 - - 0.5 0 2 Pyrus spp. Chokeberry 5 1 - - 0.5 0 2 Ilex verticillata Black alder 3 1 - - 0.2 0 1 ! Amelanchier app. ! Serviceberry 2 0 - - 0.1 0 0 i TOTAL 413 100 - - 115 2 100 200 1 a l g _. _ ,
. LAppendixtTc.blo A-40 Ground Layer,(n) Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site,' Spring, 1978(D)
Frequency (%) Density Dominance c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./m )2 (%) (% cover) (5) Value Cnrex scabrata, C. walteriana Big wetland sedge 72 29 53 ? 30 4.0 21 80 Carex exc111s Coast sedge 33 13 56.6 32 4.3 22 68 Chamaedaphne-calyculata Leatherlear 52 21 24.8 14 5.1 26 61 Vaccinium macrocarpon Large cranberry 8 3 17.3 10 2.7 14 27 Ilex glabra Inkberry 27 11 6.0 3 1.6 8 23 Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic white cedar 8 3 0.8 0 0.6 3 7 Pyrus arbutifolia Red chokeberry 12 5 2.7 2 0.1 1 7 Rubus spp. 10 4 2.3 1 0.2 1 6 Brambles Kalmia angustifolia 2 2.2 1 0.2 1 4 Sheep laurel 5 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 5 2 1.5 1 0.0 0 3 Rhododendron viscosum 2 Swamp honeysuckle 3 1 0.8 0 0.1 1
- a. Woody seedlings 135 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 6.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix Table A-40.(Cont.) F equency (5) Density Dominance (U) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Species- Actual Relative (No./m2) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Panicum spp. 2 1 2.0 1 0.1 0 2 Panic grass-Clethra alnifolia 2 Sweet pepperbush 3 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 Gaylussacia frondosa, G. baccata 1 0,7 0 0.0 0 1 Dangleberry, black huckleberry 2 Drosera rotundifolia : 2 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 1 Rou.nd-leaved sundew , Leucothoe racemosa 1 2 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 Fetterbush Myrica pensylvanica 2 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 1 Bayberry Osmunda cinnamomea 0 Cinnamon fern 0 0 0.7 0 0.0 0 Amelanchier spp. 0 0.3 0 0.0 0 0 Serviceberry O. Acer rubrum 0 0 0.3 0 0.0 0 0 Red maple Pyrus spp. 0 0 0.2 0 0.0 0 0 Chokeberry Viburnum spp. 0 0 0.2 0 0.0 0 0 Viburnum 3 1 1.3 1 0.0 0 2 Unidentified forb Moss (d) - - - - 12 3 - - TOTAL 250 100 175.3 100 19.4 100 300
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values. .
'l Appendix Table-A 41 oround. Layer,(8) Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site, Summer, 1978(D) Frequency (%) Density ' Dominance (c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Mecies Actual Relative (No./m2) (%) (% cover) (%) _ Value Carex scabrata, C, walteriana 52 Big wetland sedge 82- '18 35.8 18 7.3 16 Osmunda cinnamomea 13.2 30 43 Cinnamon fern 37- 8 10.7 5 Chamaedaphne calyculata 6.2 14 40 Leatherleaf 63 14 25.3 13 Carex excilis 21 4.0 9 37 Coast sedge 33- 7 41.7 Vaccinium macrocarpon 22 Large cranberry 10 2 28.7 14 2.6 6
- Ilex glabra 15 Inkberry 33 7 7.2 4 1.7 4
^
Gaylussacia dumosa 4 14 Leafy-bracted huckleberry 27 6 7.2 4 19 Pyrus arbutifolia 11 ' Red chokeberry 30 7 5.7 3 0.7 1 Acer rubrum 0.4 1 10 Red maple 20 4 10.0 5
- a. Woody seedlings 135 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 6.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appin' dix TI,ble A-41 (Cont.) Frequency (5) Density Dominance c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Importance Relative (No./m2) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Species Actual Rhododendron viscosum 10 Swamp honeysuckle 25 5 4.2 2 1.1 3 Kalmia angustifolia 22 4.0 2 1.1 2 9 Sheep laurel 5 Clethra'alnifolia 1.0 2 8 Sweet pepperbush 17 4 3.3 2 Rubus spp. Brambles 15 3 2.7 1 0.6 1 6
'Gaylussacia frondosa 4 Dangleberry 8 2 0.8 0 0.7 2 Chamaecyparis thyoides 4 Atlantic white cedar 7 1 3.2 2 0.3 1 ,
Drosera rotundifolia Round-leaved sundew 3 1 3.3 2 0.3 1 3 Osmunda regalis Royal fern 3 1 0.5 0 0.4 1 2 Trientalis borealis 0 2 Star-flower 3 1 2.0 1 u.0 Panicum spp. 2 2 0 2.0 1 0.1 0 Panic grass Amelanchier spp. 2 3 1 0.7 0 0.2 0 Serviceberry
n-- 1 Appendix Table A-41 (Cont.)' __ Frequency (%) Dens _itjt Dominance (c) Actual Relative Actual Relative Imoortance 2 (% cover) (%) Value Species Actual Relative ( Ho . /m ) __ (5 ) Ilex verticillata 0 1 Black alder 3 1 0.3 0 0.2 Magnolia virginiana 0 1 2 0 0.2 0 0.2 Sweet bay Viburnum cassinoides, V. nudum 1 2 0 0.3 0 0.1 0
. Wild-raisin, swamp-haw Pinus rigida 0 1 Pitch Pine 2 0 0.5 0 0.0 Vaccinium corymbosum 1 2 0 0.5 0 0.0 0 liighbush blueberry Myrica pensylvanica 0 1
.2 0 0.2 0 0.0 Bayberry' Nyssa sylvatica 0 1 2 0 0.0 0 0.1 Tupelo
-Moss (d)
- - - - 1.0 -
457 100 200.8 100 44.5 100 300 TOTAL
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
Appendix _ Table A-42. Ground-Layer,(0) Lowland Shrub Community, Forked River Site,-Fall, 1978 (D) Frequency (% ) Density Dominance c) Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./m}) (%) (% cover) (5) Value --Carex scabrata, C. walteriana Big wetland sedge 75 17 - - 9.8 22 39 Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern 37 8 - - 10.8 24 32 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherlear 52 12 - - 4.2 9 21 Carex excilis Coast sedge 37 8 - - 4.8 11 19 Gaylussacia dumosa Leafy-bracted huckleberry 37 8 - - 31 7 15 Ilex glabra Inkberry 38 9 - - 2.8 6 15 Clothra alnifolia Sweet pepperbush 38 9 - - 2.0 5 13 Rhododendron viscosum Swamp honeysuckle 18 4 - - 1.0 2 6 Kalmia angustifolia Sheep laurel 15 3 - 1.2 3 6
- a. Woody seedlings $35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 6.
- c. ' Based on line-intercept method.
' Appendix Tchle A-42 (Cont.)
Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actuag Relative Actual. Relative. Importance Species Actual Relative (No./m ) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Rubus spp. Brambles 17 4 - - 1.0 2 6-Acer rubrum Red maple 17 4 - - 0,7 1 5 Vaccinium macrocaroon Large cranberry 8 2 - - 1.2 3 5 Chamaeevoaris thyoides Atlantic white cedar 10 2 0.8 2 4 Pyrus spp. Chokeberry 7 2 - - 03 1 2 Nyssa sylvatica Tupelo 5 1- -' - 0.2 0 2 Pyrus arbutifolia Red chokeberry 5 1 - - 0.2 0 2 Ilex verticillata ' Black alder 3 1 - - 0.2 1 1 Pinus rigida Pitch pine 3 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry 3 1 . - 0.2 0 1 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 3 1 - - 0.2 0 1 Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry 3 1 - - 0.2 0 1
Appendix Table A-42 (Cont.) Frequency (%) Density -Dominance c) Actua Relative Actual Relative 1mportance Species Actual Relative (No . /m) ) (%) (5 cover) (%) Value Pcnicum spp. Panic grass 3 1 - - 6.0 0 1 Andropogon virginicus Broom sedge 2 0 - - 0.2 0 1 0:cunda regalis Royal fern 2 0 - 0.1 0 1 Trientalis borealis Star-flower 2 0 - - 0.0 0 0 Moss (d) - - - - 6.7 - - TOTAL 440 100 - - 45.4 100 200
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
t
App:ndix T;.ble A-4 3 Overstory(" and Un'derstory Layers,(b) Sedge Savanna, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978(c) OVERSTORY Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actual 2 Relative getual 2 Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./100 m ) (%) (cm /100 m ) (%) Value Pinus rigida Pitch pine 33 100 1.0 100 128.2 100 300 TOTAL 33- 100 1.0 100 128.2 100 300 UNDERSTORY Frequency (%) Density Dominance Actual Relative getual2 Relative Importance 2 Species Actual Relative (No./40 m ) (%) (cm /40 m ) (%) Value Pinus rigida Pitch pine 33 100 0.3 100 21.7 100 300 TOTAL 33 100 0.3 100 21 7 100 300
- a. Trees 310.0 cm dbh.
- b. Trees 2.5 to <10.0 cm dbh.
- c. Sampling unit size: Overstory - 4 m x 25 m belt transect.
Understory - 2 m x 20 m belt transect. Number of sampling units: 3.
. < App:ndix Table A-44 Shrub Layer,("} Sedge Savanna Community, Forked River Site, Fall, 1978(D)
Frequency (%)_ Density Dominance c) Actual Relative ' Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No./20 m2) (5) (% cover) (%) Value Vaccinium corymbosum
'H16hbush blueberry 57 47 - -
32.5 73 -120 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 23 19 - - 6.7 15 34 Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbrier 27 22 - - 31 7 29 Lyonia mariana stagger-busn 7 6 - - 1.6 4 9 Ilex glabra Inkberry 3 3 - - 0.4 1 4 Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 3 3 - -
- 0. l__ 0 3 TOTAL 120 100 - -
44.4 100 200
- a. Woody plants >35 cm tall and <2.5 cm dbh.
- b. Sampling unit size: 2 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 3
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
Appendix _Tchle'A-45 Ground Layer,(#) Sedge Savanna Community, Forked' River Site, Fall, 1978(D) Frequency (%) Density Dominance (c) Actua Relative Actual Relative Importance Species Actual Relative (No . /m) ) (%) (% cover) (%) Value Carex sp. Sedge 77 51 - - 11.0 59 110 Leucothoe racemosa Fetterbush 33 22 - - 3.7 20 42 Lyonia mariana Stagger-bush 17 11 - - 2.4 13 24 Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry 10 7 - - 0.3 2 8 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 3 2 - - 0.8 4 7 Smilax rotundifolia Common greenbrier 7 4 - - 0.3 2 6 Drosera rotundifolia Round-leaved sundew 3 2 - - 0.1 1 3 Moss d) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TOTAL 150 100 - - 18.7 100 200
- a. Woody seedlings $35 cm tall and all herbaceous plants.
- b. Sampling unit size: 0.1 m x 10 m belt transect.
Number of sampling units: 3.
- c. Based on line-intercept method.
- d. Actual dominance is the only value computed and is not included in the total of all actual values.
Appendix Table A-46 Vascular Aquatics by Sampling Area,(") Forked River Site, Summer, 1978 Abundance Levels (b) by Sampling Area Oyster Creek ~bavanna S. Branch Forked River Species 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 I Eleocharis flavescens Spikerush 1 2 Juncus bufonius Toad rush 1 1 Utricularia spp. Bladderworts 1 3 3 Carex spp. Sedges 2 1 Decodon verticillatus Swamp loosestrife 2 4 Scirpus cyperinus Wool grass 3 1 Eleocharis tuberculosa Large-tubercled spikerush 3 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherlear 1 Dulichium arundinaceum Three-way sedge 4 4 4
- a. Figure IIA-2.
- b. Abundance levels are: 1-dominant; 2-abundant; 3-sparse; 4-isolated individuals.
% f
,/' f s'
- 6
Appendix Table A-46 (Cont.) Abundance Levels (b) by Sampling Area Oyster Creek Savanna _S . Branch Forked River Species 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 Nymphaea odorata water lily 2 4 4 Najas sp. , i Bushy pondweed 2 3 l l l Ilypericum virginicum l Marsh St. John's-wort 3 4 ' l Scirpus subterminalis Water club-rush 1 1 1 1 Olyceria obtusa . Blunt manna-grass 4 Phragmites communis Reed 4 Typha latifolia Common cattall , 4 Rhexia virginica Meadow beauty 4 Sparganium americanum Bur-reed 4 3 Peltandra virginica Arrow-arum 4 Vallisneria americana Tape-grass 3 e
-}
't '
Appendix Table'A-46 (Cont )
~ '
Abundance Levels (D)'by Sampling Area Oyster Creek Savanna S. Branch Forked River Species 1- 2 3 4 5 9 10
'Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 2 I
Panicum virgatum j Switchgrass 2 Eriocaulon decangulare Ten-angled pipewort I l l Vaccinium macroc-Irpon Large cranberry 1 l I 1
App::ndix Table A-47 Vascular Aquatics by Sampling' Area,(") Forked River Site, Fall,:1978 Ab'.andance Levels by Sampling Area Oyster Creek Savanna- S. Branch Forked River , Species 1 _2_ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Carex spp. Sedges 1 3 1- 2 2 Chamaedaphne calyculata Leatherleaf 1 Scirpus cyperinus Wool grass 4 4 3 4 t I Juncus militaris, J_. articulatus _
. Bayonet rush, Jointed rush 4 4 2 2 5l.
Juncus sp. - Rush 4' 4 4 2 4 3
.i Vaccinium corymbosum .' .
^
Highbush blueberry 4
+
Juncus bufonius ' Toad. rush 1 3 4 4 1(2), 1
]-
Scirpus subterminalis' Water club-rush 1 1 1 1 1 1(2) 4 Eleocharis flavescens - Spikerush 2 t. 3 4 1
- a. Figure IIA-2.
- b. Abundance levels are: 1-dominant; 2-abundant; 3-sparse; 4-iso _ lated individuals.
c h I
Appendix Tablo'A-47 (Cont') Abundance Levels (b) by Sampling Area
' Oyster Creek: Savanna S. Branch Forked River Species 1 '2 3 '4 5 6 '7 8- 9 10-Eleocharis tuberculosa -Large-tubercled spikerush 3 2(4) 3 2(4)-
Typha latifolia Common catta11 3 Najas sp. Bushy pondweed 3 1 2 Dulichium arundinaceum Three-way sedge 4 2 - Rhynchospora alba Beak-rush N 1 N 1(N) N 2 Phragmites communis Reed 4 4 4 Peltandra virginica Arrow-arum 4 4 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 3 Sparganium americanum Bur-reed 3 3 Aster nemoralis " Bog aster 4 4 4 Hypericum virginicum Marsh St. John's-wort 4 4 4
IfDM'61TM Abundtnca Levaln(b)cby S-tpling Aran Oyster Creek- ,- Savnnna. S. Branch Forked Rivar. -Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- 9: 10 Drosera rotundifolia .'* Round-leaved sundew' 4 4, 2(3) Nymphaea'odorata
-Water-lily 4 4
-Vallisneria americana 3 Tape-grass 4 Panicum sp. Panic grass 4 3 Utricularia spp. Bladderworts 2 2 3 Vaccinium macrocarpon , Large cranberry 4 2 3 1 Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 2 Eriophorum virginicum Cottongrass 4 Drosera filiformis Narrow-leaved sundew 2 -Eriocaulon decangulare
. Ten-angled pipewort 2 Spiranthes cernua Nodding ladies'-tresses 4 Andropogon virginicus Broom sedge 3 Total Percent Cover 90 10 0-100 80 0-80 75-100 0-50 0-100 10-100 20
4 APPENDIX B VEGETATION MONITORING DATA (PHASE I, PART B) 4 d 9 e
INTRODUCTION The cover data presented in the following tables of Appendix _B were obtained from transects placed around the construction area periphery. The data are presented in meter intervals, with Interval Number 1 beginning at the edge of the construction periphery. A dash (-) on the' tables indicates that data were not collected for that interval during that month. A blank indicates that cover in that interval was zero. a e
3 8 q' q s s 5 s s 55 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 n n s pn s S s o8 9 9 9 9 9 94 6 6 6 4 8 6 0 6 2 i a 5 0 q~ q s 0 s 5 s 55 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 50 5 5 n n pn n s A 1 4 4 7 8 7 99 0 9 5 5 5 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 i i i 1 J 5 5 s o 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 5 5 5 0 l 2 8 8 6 6 76 9 9 5 2 4 1 2 3 4 S 3 2 1 1 d
, n s u J n a n 84 0 s 0 9 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 2 0 0 2 0 t o i i 1 7 8 6 4 6 4 9 9 7 1 34 3 2 4 3 1 3 1 c r e G s M n0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 u s n 1 p 2 6 7 3 5 2 2 6 6 5 0 0 0 4 1 1 l 9 0 2
0 2 1 a r T 0 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 y S 1 6 6 7 1 9 8 4 5 4 58 8 2 56 5 - r a e t h a 0 s s 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 p8 r A 2 4 7 8 3 5 7 76 3 3 78 2 4 6 3 i7 t r9 S b e1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 P y u J 4 4 7 6 5 6 8 5 76 3 9 0 4 5 1 7
, b r 1 ae h et n S n n n n n n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 ri o J p a n ok 6 o4 6 6 8 0 9 5 2 5 5 AS i i 1 t
E nr a 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 C oe t M 2 9 7 9 78 8 1 6 - - - - - - - - - - iv e ti g cR e u V Wx S 0 0 0 0 0 0 rd f 2 1 7 3 38 te sk o nr r 9 0 n 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 F oo e y A 4 1 a 4 3 7 1 8 3 7 CF v r Mn e , o o e v0 C t o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p i0 s J a 4 a 9 4 9 58 8 8 p t1 % r J t a. t io l y d e n J 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 lN h U 1 1 a t ut n 0 n Qc o M 6 a - - - - - - - - - - e M ms on ra S 0 0 9 8 0 00 1 8 fr 4 T a t 0 0 0 0 n 0 a A 5 4 2 9 o 1 D y n r 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o J 5 2 3 0 0 s 0 i t 1 1 1 t s a r e 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 3 2 2 e v J 1 1 g O e V M - - - - - - - - - - s r ey e t sp e 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 34 56 7 8 9 0 1 2 34 56 78 9 0 M 1 1 1 111111122222222223 .
0 s n 50 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 S 0 o u 4 86 2 1 1 1 4 3 7 7 5 3 1 1 - 1 - 5 s n r; 0 0 5 s 0 s 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 A 7 4 a h 5 2 1 1 5 4 1 2 2 1 0 0 n 9 s 0 5 8 s s 0 0 0 o 9 n q 0 0 0 J 1 7 a 2 s 1 1 1 3 l 4 s s 3 3 2 s d n t c u J s n o o 0 0 5 - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e o i i s s 3 2 s r n G a M s n n p 0 5 0 7 s 0 5 i 1 2 1 2 2 r T y 0 n 0 0 r S 1 p 1 1 e a h t p8 i7 a q 5 s 6 9 0 0 r9 r A 2 1 1 t e1 S P n n s y b 0 ~ s 0 o ae u J 1 i i 1 1 1 s et b r ri h AS n S 5 - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - o J nr i E< t F oe a b iv t M ti n n n a n n 0 o o 0 T K cR e g i i i i i 1 l l 1 Q u e L rd V 0 O te S 3 t sk f r rr oo o E CF s Mn r A p e , e y e v1 v r p i0 o o p t1 C t u ta. io s r e J lN y d a l n J - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ut ht U Qc n e 0 0 0 ms o M 1 2 0 on M ra fr T S a t a D A n y o r i t o J a t s t e r g e e v J V O M s r e v t - e 1 2 34 5 6 7 6 9 0 1 2 34 56 7 8 9 0 1 2 34 56 78 9 0 M 1 11 1 11111122222222223 n
0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 76 6 6 5 7 3 4 2 54 1 1 2 3 S 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 s 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 o 5 5 5 5 5 0 2 5 5 - A 8 6 o 0 0 8 84 7 6 3 7 5 5 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 l 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 a 5 5 J 5 5 0 0 0 4 36 5 5 3 54 35 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 4 1 l 1 1
, 1 1 1 s d t n s 0 0 0 0 s o 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 c u J 0 0 5 4 o 0 0 7 1 4 s 6 1 4 5 4 4 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 e o 1 1 s r n G a M 0 0 n 0 s 5 5 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 5 3 3 0 0 3 r 1 6 o 8 8 7 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T
y 0 0 0 0 r S 2 1 5 1 e a h p t i8 a 5 0 0 4 4 r7 r A e9 t P1 S 0 0 b a, y u J 5 3 ee b r rt h Ai n S 5 0 0 0
- S o J 2 5 4 n . i or t a
ie tv t M n 0 5 0 ci e i 2 4 uR g r e td V 0 3 se S 2 2 nk f or o Co 0 0 0 F r A 2 1 2 e e y v , v r i2 o o 0 t0 C t 1 a1 s J t % r
- i. e 0 0 0 lo y d 7 aN l n J 1 1 u h U Qt t c n 0 o
'm e o M 2 t os M rn fa r 0 0 aT S 5 1 t
a D 0 A 3 n o y i r t o J 0 5 a t t s e r g e 0 9 e v J 5 1 V O 0 M 7 s r e v t 7 8 9 0 e 1 234 5 6 7 6 90 1 2 34 5 6 78 90 1 2 34 56 "e M ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1111122222222223 n f
> ,! ' ,: ' I -
ll - ' I S 0 5 5 n a n n n s 5 0 5 0 5 5 9 9 aiI 1 1 1 n a 0 0 n 5n n 0 n 5 0 5 2 0 5 A 6 9 o o i 2 i 1 1 J 30 0 n 1 n n 6 s 0 5 5 5 3 6 i u i 1 d s n n t u J 35 0 3 s 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 c~ o 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 e' r s G - n M s n 0 5 5 2 a i 1 r T' y- 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 r' S 5 4 9 7 7 5 7 3 1 1 8 8 4 5 2 e a h8 t p7 a 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 i9 r A 9 4 0 5 8 6 7 2 1 2 8 5 2 3 3 r1 t 1 Pe~,_S b s n n n n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 e y u J h n n s A 6 8 7 4 3 8 96 4 '4 at b r ii ei h rS n S n n n n s 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 A o J s n n u o 7 8 8 5 5 78 2 3 2 r i i i ne t ov a n n n n n 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 ii M PtR t s n n A o 8 9 2 2 2 9 7 3 7 5 e g i i c e ud e re M lu tk sr f V . S s s 0 n 6 R s n o o 0 0 8 9 M ro t o oF x C r n s~0 0 0 0 0 0 5f , e y A i 16 98 77 1 'e 3 v r n v0 o o e i1 C t 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 p t s J 1 7 o 8 9 8 0 p a. 5 r 1 M to iN e y d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l at l n J 1 8 0 9 9 9 0 1 1 h U uc t Qe n
;s mn o M 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 9 88 6
~ oa M 6 6 rr fT S a t' a - D - A n y - o r - i' t o J t a' s
't r e'
g , e e v J O - V. M s r e 7 v t e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 34 56 7 8 90 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 11112 n ii : ,* ' j' ' j j: ji.i,!: ljl! :! !i : 1jl!!l!; !!!. !(
' * ;! ! i ' , i , .l o 0 5 0 5 0 5 l
0 5 s 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 . 0 9 9 7 34 7 2 2 5 2 7 9 9 7 S 1 s 0 0 5 0 0 o s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ s s A i 08 5 4 2 1 4 1 6 1 3 9 0 9 0 _ 1 1 1 _
, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 00 0 _
J l 0 9 6 3 3 3 2 2 6 3 5 3 9 09 9 _ s 1 1 t d c n e u J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 s o t 0 9 6 5 5 5 1 1 3 553 }9 0 . 9 9 1 1 n r ; a G r M 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 3 4 2 4 1 T 2 0 0 8 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 y r n 0 0 s 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 p 5 6 9 6 7 9 9 0 9 0 7 98 e 7 h S 1 1 p a i t n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 r8 a i 6 5 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 9 9 e7 r A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P9 t 1 S a e , y b s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u J i 7 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 9 9 re b r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 At h i n S 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 nS o J 1 i 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 9 _ o- i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ir t te a 0 s n n s s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s cv t M R A R R o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 o ui g e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rR t' e sd V 0 0 0 5 ne S 5 3 2 4 ok f Cr o o eF r A 0 0 0 0 v e y 5 9 1 5 i, v r t4 o o a0 C t 0 0 5 0 t1 s J 4 5 4 5 r i. l e ao y d 0 0 uN l n J 8 6 Q h U t t mc n 0 0 - oe o M 3 5 rs M . fn .
.a ar 0 0 0 tT S 8 8 7 a
D' . n 0 0 0 0 A 4 0 0 5 o 1 1 i y t r a o J 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 7 t 't 1 1 e g s r o 0 0 0 0 e e s 0 98 1 V. v J 1 O n n n n o M s n n u s i i s r e v t e 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 90 1 2 34 56 78 9 0 .
"e M 1 1 1 1 1 111112 _
n f i' lL* l' ;Ijili}!li :!; l
. I !i ii!
S 9 8 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 n gl i n 2 1 7 2 1 5 5 3 58 4 4 5 58 skb a A s 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 o n n n P 3 7 2 1 1 3 2 4 6 4 54 6 8 sks R s t J 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 5 74 4 3 57 6 6 2 6 e d s n n u J 5 s4 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 a o 2 1 2 2 3 5 2 3 32 5 34 3 6 r r T G y M 5 73 1 s n 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 i 1 6 9 3 4 26 9 5 9 2 8 r e h p 9 0 0 0 n 5 0 0 5 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 i S 4 3 3 2 6 6 7 5 1 9 6 D 5 2 3 5 9 1 r a e t P8 a 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 r A 1 4 2 7 7 6 4 8 7 1 5 2 3 5 9 1 a9 t e1 S A r, y b u J 0 0 5 0 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 16 4 5 1 76 96 1 2 6 9 2 e b nt h 6 oi n S
- iS o J 5 3
0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 7 7 5 1 8 4 8 5 1 3 59 B t i 1 cr t e ue a l rv t M 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 b ti e 3 1 5 4 6 4 8 6 94 1 2 9 1 a sR g T n e x od V n 0 C e S o 2 i k f d er o n vo e iF r A n 0 p t e y 8 2 p a , v r A t5 i0 o o C t 0 0 l1 s J 7 2 a % r u . e Qo y d 0 0 N l n J 8 3 m h U ot t rc n 0 0 fe o M 6 1 s M an ta ar DT S n o i A t a y t r e o J g t e s I V r e v J O M s r
, e
'y t 8 e 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 90 1 2 34 5 6 78 9 0 M 1 1 1 1 1111112
I . S n s 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 S s 5 6 6 3 1 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 2 6 ~ 0 n 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
, A 7i 7 3 5 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 4 7 s
t c 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 e J 4 2 6 6 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 56 3 5 5 6 6 7 s d n n a u J n 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 o 0 5 0 o t r G 2 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 7 4 9 T r G - y q 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 G 5 5 8 0 r M s 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 - e h p 5 0 o s 5 n s 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 i 1 6 g o 4 o 8 9 8 9 9 0 0 9 7 5 2 r S 1 1 e a P t 8 a 5 0 5 n n n s n n n 05 0 0 0 0 00 a7 r A 1 3 R R o 7 o no 9 0 9 0 9 8 4 3 1 - e9 t i l r1 S A b 0 5 5 0 6 n n n s s n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y u J 1 1 4 8 o o o8 o o o 0 0 0 0 9 7 2 ne b r 1 1 1 1 7 ot h
- ii n S 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 00 0 5 5 0 B tS o J 1 1 2 3 9 8 9 78 0 9 0 0 00 0 9 2 2 c i 1 1 1 11 1 ~e ur t l re a 4 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 b tv t .
M 1 3 2 4 4 2 56 5 36 7 6 7 3 1 a si e T nR g o e x Cd V
~i e S s 0 0 0 0 0 d ek f 2 6 3 9 5 n vr o e
p io 0 0 5 0 0 tF r 7 6 2 98 A
'p A t a, e v
y r i6 l0 o o 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 C t 6 1 a1 s J 1 Qu.o % y r e d 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 mN l n J 1 7 16 4 0 0 o h U 1 1 rt t fc n 5 0 0 0 0 0 e o M 1 1 6 2 98 as M t n aa Dr 0 0 0 T S 5 9 9 n o i t 0 0 0 A 6 0 8 a 1 t y e r n n n g o J e A n n t i i V s r e n n n v J s n R O i M 0 n n 6 n 7~ i s r e v t e 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 0 M 1 1111111112 f' e
G 5 n n s 0 5 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 n n 3 ai i 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 7 7 s4 S s s 0 n n 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 n 0 A i 1 i i 2 1 1 1 1 2 7 5 4 8 s t c 0 s 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e J - 2 1 1 2 5 5 4 7 7 7 8 9 s d n n a u 0 o 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 s 5 r o J 2 a 1 1 1 4 1 3 3 2 36 s 4 T r y G M 1 0 0 s 5 0 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 r 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 e h p i n n s s 8 6 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 r S a 6 i 7 7 7 4 9 7 7 7 6 9 8 9 5 e a P t 8 a s4 s 0 0 5 5 0 s 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 a7 r A u 2 7 8 6 5 0 a 4 7 9 98 8 3 e9 r1 t 1 . A S b q 0 s 0 8 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 y u J s 7 7 8 8 4 0 4 6 7 7 0 8 8 8 ne b r 1 1 8' ot h
- ii n S n 0 s s s 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 B tS o J a 7 7 7 7 9 0 9 7 4 8 9 9 9 5 c 1 'e ur i t
l re a b tv t M 0 s 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 a si e 1 1 1 1 4 8 5 1 5 2 5 4 4 1 T nR g o e x Cd n 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~i d ek e'V S u 8 2 7 8 2 9 9 5 76 2 n vr f e io o p tF 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r "A p t a, e v y r A 1 8 7 9 2 2 9 98 74 2 i7 l0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a1 C t s J 4 8 2 5 7 0 1 3 0 0 7 5 5 3 u % r 1 1 1 Q . e o y d 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 ml f l n J 4 8 1 7 9 1 2 0 0 54 7 2 o h U 1 1 rt t fc n e o M 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 as M 36 1 7 9 2 9 96 6 4 1 t n ' aa Dr T S n o i t a A t y e g r e o J V t s r e v J
-O M
s r c e ey t s e 1 2 3 4 5b 7 8 90 1 2 34 5 6 7 6 9 0 ne M - 1 1111111112 ~ a [ f
^
w I _ t[ >tr ti ttt s C li n C O OC C C C C C O C O O tr g n F r- 1 e- r- O c c N CN r- e n FiO' W CC CC C a C O ti t C C LE n tE >O C C C C tr .tr tr O O tr tr tr 4 4 t~ N1 e W> e- t-n r- e r- a n V ts D tr t- CD N 5 .. C O C C C If , C C tr C C tr O O O O O O O O O V D O>N>WI n < n H r- N W t' D CD CC 2 DD N
. c to C 4 3 O C C C C C tt sC O tr in W O D O O O O O c c C O O & M n r- Ot We H H ed N m ed D ChD D D %
to 0 - C g tr O tr , C tr , C>C tr ,o tr CO tr N 2 Ln o D O O D M N V W> W>tr > t' -< M N r-4 N N rd i 4 E* h tr O LC , ts ,tr tt\ tf\ t[ , C C lr , C tr tr O O tr O @- 4 m CD tr T CC CC E- \t\F' F)CN r- F" N @ c tw CP @
~ .
b (D Ctj = .C a O.CO M tr O C C C C Lt\C C C LC tr tr tr O O O O O ;; Ht- k < 4 4 n O' b CM If ,4 & r- C\ F CD t- CP O CO -
$4Ch p -
O rd Cf) C % D Lib O C C O tt> Ltsc C C C tr C C O O O tr O O W C' t' K V Cr W N W'W & W W CO CD CD O CP s % 3 % M D W C0 C D % H = DD .C k-- %M C Cf] O O W tr tr C LT>O C tr .C C tr tr O O tr LD & CC M O q N O N w CC CC 4 tw Fie- c- N H tw to CD m in -
=r4
% C% p - 0% 00 cd F l g4 > p E in O O O tr>C tr,C tr,tr tr. C O LD o o O ' W
=
- - CD 4 r4 q) H W c < (vla t- F C\ n N CD@ @ O tw 0 CC b0 ~
L c 3 e e4 %D > po C C e LC,tc, O D O O e - .O N nX % e F - tn -4 g _ E* Cs O kg OO - M O Ct. 4 C C O O O e- ar4 e g 4 tr Z N CD fn E O D * >' % Er C O
> CO o o C C C C
[_ *-t O o a O O L O. O c-1 to % e tr. LT W O C d- D. Cd w h -i cc p . y F MO y c C w O T 0 0 _ c-1 Z ,g c q @ n ni tw N w e .C => lt UM 4 E UU C o O z O O O E Em g me e OC ng EE 4 Cd % %4 E* m cd 4 a . N y Q < R C >, E O y . .- d w
- p p O 7 ur- d tQ r= 4 g O -4 M e 0
> 'J m p 0 K
b o e4 4 O Cd 0 E C> M E to k O e4 N Mc @@ tw r 0% O e4 N mc cc tw r Ch O = Co E ,-4 e4 c4 r-i -4 e4 -1 e4 r-1,-4 m
. ed a
%C P- E-* H ,
+ 0 n n G4 s s 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 R o R R 8 a 4 6 6 6 7 4 4 3 3 5 6 1 3 1 n n n n 0 0 9 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 A o R R 6 6 7 4 2 1 5 4 9 3 54 3 7 6 1 4 5 n n n o o o 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
, J 7 u 7 h s t s % 2 78 7 5 5 5 5 0 6 1 3 s 1 d
t n s n s s c u ;h na p 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 e o J 6 7h 6 6 2 4 36 2 2 3 2 7 6 1 2 s r i i n G a M 0 n a n 54 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 r 4 a-4~ 6 4 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 T y r 0 skh 0 0 0 s s 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 o 0 0 e S 4 h n R 4 8 7 o o 5 78 8 7 74 5 s 7 1 h p a t i8 a 5 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 r7 'r A 1 1 a5 4 4 4 9 9 86 8 0 6 555 8 9 2 e9 t 1 P1 S ' a, b 5 94 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y u J 1 1 h 4 0 4 9 0 74 9 0 0 8 8 8 0 0 5 ce rt b r 1 1 1 1 1 h Ai n S 0 0 0 5 s 0 0 o 00 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 U n S o J 1 2 75 6 8 6 l 09 78 98 9 53 66 3 i E
; or t ie a s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 5 s G tvci t M 2 5 6 6 8 6 18 24 78 08 6 4 5 0 7 9 2 uR e
g 1 r e td se V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 S 8 5 5 2 6 2 8 8 0 0 o 0 nk f 1 or o N 1 o C.F r , 0 0 0 0 c 0 n 0 0 0 0 o e v, e y A 1 9 1 7 7 2 o 0 8 7 0 o r v r . e p i9 o o p t0 C t n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a1 s J o 1 6 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
@ t 5 r 1 1 1 1 i.
lo e y d s 0 0 5 5 0 0 s 0 o s a 0 0 aN u l n J o 8 2 2 2 9 7 0 0 o 9 o Qt h U 1 1 t c me n o M 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 4 2 6 8 0 8 1 9 os rn M 1 fa
.r 0 0 sT S 0 0 t
a D 0 0 0 0 n A 8 8 8 8 o y i t r 0 0 0 o a o J 5 0 0 s t t 1 1 e s g r e e 0 0 0 0 V v J 5 7 4 7 O 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 1 1 1 s r e e, t sp e 1 2 34 5 6 78 9 D- 1 2 34 56 78 90 M 11111111112
s n n n n n n s s s 5 0 0 n 0 s s o 0 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 7 o' 33 33 3i i 3 4 7 a 8 7 4 s 8 8 8 8 7 54 9 9 0 0 0 S 1 1 1 0 n n n s 0 n s s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 5 0 00 9 h A p i 4 2 3 4 2 56 7 7 5 7 7 34 5 4 4 7 9 0 00 _ A i 1 1 1 0 o n n n s tp s s 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 1 3i 1 1 1 2 3 36 5 5 3 7 2 2 3 54 3 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 s d t n 2 n s n 9 s 2 5 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 2 c u J 6 p 2 1 4 1 3 3 1 4 e o i - - - - - - - - - - s r n G n s 0 2 s a M u 1 1 0 1 0 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 2 2 3 2 7 3 - - - - - - - - - r - T y n n 0 s o r 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 S i a 8 6 a 7 9 8 2 6 98 2 74 2 38 8 9 9 35 3 1 2 e h a p t i a 0 n 0 s 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 r8 r A 1 i 8 7 4 1 6 7 8 7 2 1 1 8 7 36 2 32 6 6 9 9 94 7 5 3 3 e7 t P9 S 1 b 5 n 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 a y u J i 8 0 8 1 s 8 7 7 2 1 2 8 8 3 9 3 5 1 2 6 9 0 4 7 7 6 2 2 e, b r 1 1 re n h S At n 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 i o J i 0 6 1 2 78 9 2 1 7 9 9 1 7 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - nS i 1 o t ir a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 n s s 0 5 5 5 0 te t M 7 0 7 1 5 94 6 6 A a o 8 2 4 2 6 - - - - - - - - - - cv e 1 ui g rR e t V n 4~ sd S s3 ne f ok o Cr n q o r A 6 s
~
eF e y v v r i, o o 5 n t0 C t 4 a' a1 s J t1 % r e i l . y d ao l n J _ _ - - - - - - - - uN h U Q t t n mc o M - - oe M rs fn a ar S tT a D A n o y i r t o J a t t s e g r e e v J V O M s r e 8y t 8, e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 34 56 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 56 78 9 0 M 1 1 11 11111122222222223
l t C C C C V,C C C C C tisv, tr >C C C C C g Fl\C 6 F1 c F' C\ V CN r- c FICN r- r- M C C C C tr C C LC C C LC , C C tr, C tr C T C 4 C\ C\ tY.n CN V e- C% FI e- c e- C\ LC ,C\ C\. C\ F C C C tr. O C C C O tr , C C C tr .C C C C O ! a
% C\ C\ tr C\ F tr CN H N 4 C\ \C 4 C\ CC c tr F F CO M D
'O o h D tr C tr tr
" W "
tr tr W # N tr tr C tr
, C tr.C tr C\ C tr O
" W
- k O N
C 0 tr .tr tr tr Ln O tr tr o O O N O O N O D O E r N F F H H F H N M O H N H l h C C C C W C C T O T T C O O O m & C 0-t~ W N' V t- CO CD t~CO Co a ts f d
- c. 4
.4
% cn tt$ t~ tr C C C O tr O tr O C LD O O O yn % 4 CY' CT \D & N F CC t- O \D t.n @2 O H H gm &
ed D cd .O tr> tr tr tr o tr O O t.n O O O O O O c . .h 3 % C\ CD \D CN N \D C tw O & & O mO
%y .O k *H H H H 49 C
=e4 C D tr,4.0 trnts.O tr O tr nr tr o t.n o tn o o o e C cf) O % e- D t~ t~ F rd eA CO t~ Cn2 t-CD D Ch O d
.e4 % D 9 D- N tr- C t.fntr>tr,C tr,tr C C tr O O O O U> U E = V WI r- C\ tr,W tr C C \D > tr O 3 =-4 0 rH kZ D
. p D tO C > D C tr,C C tr.C O Co a C, CD e t~ a &
O .M % c - r2 te O O c c e f e g o
'*- 0A g g 4 4 C O O (N rH
.4 . > b
. Ng h h C a Csc triC O O O O u-A t-CO eA yp gn n
.4 M k e-4 . e D en o h % O tr,C C tr tr 3g s C % N C,CC NC F G .C D -
U M EU C Oo O E O O to H * @ L tl2 t, E - C (d (d 4 O C C C O O O p E* C/J H fr CC O CBC O gg e4 -4 Q O O O O O O C 4 N N \O @ O' Ch O
.r4 h M N O O O O O O cd O % e O O O O O a 9 H H H eA rA O 80 W 4 0 0 C C C O O O
> > % C\ c tr & Cn as O
tr O O O O O E CN NO & O O O
- - -4 CO 4H L
' O (d D
.' o > u W3 4 0 H N Me 4.04 t- D OsO c-4 (\1 mar-4ed m o t- :D Ch O e-1 ed r=t d N CD E rd e-t e-l rd (13 4 4C E* H
t 5 ns a a 0 1 s 6 n n n p 0 0 0 5 5 5 S 1 i i 3 6 2 A 0 n n 6 s 5 n n n 0 0 5 5 _ 3 6 6 4 1 i i i 1 1 1 _ 0 o 0 O 0 7 t 6 T 1 s n n 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 J 1 i i 1 8 1 1 1 s _ t d _ c n _ e u J 0 s 5 s s~ n5 5 1 5 o s 1 a 1 n r . a G _ r M 0 5 0 5 5 aE n s 6 0 s 1 0 _ T 3 8 5 3 1 i a 7 2 1 y r e 0 s0 0 0 s n n n nE 0 n s 0 s 5 h S 5 6 1 7 3 p u oEi 6 i 4 1 p a i t r8 a 0 0 0 0 0 mEh n s s ; 0 0 0 o e7 r A 5 6 1 5 1 h osi 6 1 2 1 l P9 t 1 S a, e y b u J 4 5 0 0 0 6 2 5 0 2 h snS oU n n p 8 0 n o s 7 1 5 0 5 re b r i i t At h - i n S nS o J 0 3 0 0 5 5 4 1 8 2 0 0 s 9 4 0 5 2 5 5 5 5 0 4 3 2 5 0 1 o i 1 4 - ir t - te a cv t M 0 5 5 0 s n n s 0 a n s 0 3 s 5 ui e 2 1 7 3 a oE p 7 i 2 1 3 rR g t e sd V ne f S ok Cr o o eF r A v e y i , v r t2 o o a1 C t t1 s J i % r l . e ao y d uN l n J Q h U t t mc n oe o M rs M Fn a ar tT S a D n A o i y _ t r a o J t t e g s r e e V v J O M s r e v t e 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 90 1 2 34 56 7 6 9 0 M _ 1 1 1 11111112 n f i .
9 n n s 0 0 00 n n 0 0 0 5 n s s s 0 5 _ S i 2 i 4 63 3-26 5 1 p i i a 1 2 _ A 4 5 n n 0 0 5 1 n 50 0 0 n n n n 0 0 5 2 i i 2 1 2 12 3 1 i i i I 3 1 1 _ J 0 5 3 n n 2 9 0 0 2 4 2 n 50 0 0 n ot 0 6 0 0 0 1 i i 12 8 2 i 1 1 4 1 3
, d s n t u J 5 6 s 6 5 0 n 50 0 0 8 s 0 5 0 c o 1 1 2 9 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 e r s G n M ? 5 s in 0 5 5 3 55 5 0 5 5 0 a 1 1 1 2 2 r
T y s 0 o n 5 0 0 s n 50 0 0 s 5 5 5 0 0 r S p 5 s v 5 6 8 7 6 3 8 3 7 4 7 1 4 3 e a h' t p a 0 0 s n 0 0 0 n n 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i8 r A 1 3 a v8 94 6 6 8 6 3 5 2 5 7 2 4 7 r7 t e9 S P1 b 0 5 s n 0 0 0 n n 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 y u J 1 2 2 6 8 9 5 S6 7 9 5 8 4 6 9 5 3 7 a , b r ee h rt n S 0 5 s s 5 5 0 n n 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 Ai o J 24 6 v8 7 0 96 96 2 6 2 4 7 5 3 5 S i 1 n t or a 6 0 5 n 0 5 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 i e t M 2 1 6 6 76 8 8 5 9 3 9 2 98 2 2 5 t v e ci g uR e r V n td S 0 0 0 0 0 0 sec S8 5 1 36 5 f n! or o Co r n p 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 F e y A 6 1 2 8 8 e v , v r i3 o o n 0 0 0 C t 0 0 0 t1 s J 2 4 8 2 2 9 7 a1 % r t e i . y d 0 5 0 0 0 l o aN l n J 3 1 7 5 u h U t Qs n t o M 0 0 5 0 0
'm c M 9 1 2 96 oe rs fn a S ar' tT
_ a D A n y o r i t o J t a s t e r g e e v J V O M s r ca e e t 5 6 7 8 9 0 sp e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 34 M 1 1 1 1 1111112
, I
n i S O A 5
, n i
_ s J t d c n e u s o J n r a G r T M y r e 0 h S 2 p i . a r8 t n e7 a 3 P9 r A t 1 S a, e y b u J n 3 re b r At h nS i n S n o o J i i ir t te a n cv t M a ui e rR g t sd e ne V ok S f Cr o o eF r v e y A i, t1 1 v r a1 o o t1 C t i s J l . % r ao e y d uN l n J Q h U t mc t n oe o M rs M fn a ar tT a S _ D n A o i t y a r t o J e g t s e r - V e v J O M s r a e
*v t 8p e 1 2 3" 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 0 M 1 1111111112 _
l1 llfl1
Vegetation Data From Qualitative Construction Area Periphery Transects, Transect No.' 115, Forke d Iliver Site , 1978 Monthly % Cover of Vegetation by Strata 8, ", . Overstory Understory Shrub Ground Meters M J J A S M J J A S M J J A S M J J A S 1 g q 2 3 5 5 5 4 s in 3 2 9 In 1 5 6 9 1 2 2 7 8 9 10 6 10 1 10 30 30 30 50 50 10 5 5 2 11 95 80 80 90 95 10 15 10 12 80 65 50 50 65 5 5 13 80 75 55 50 65 2 2 10 2 5 14 30 20 30 40 40 10 5 20 15 10 , 15 70 50 60 60 60 95 70 80 95 85 5 2 15 10 5 16 10 10 85 LOO 100 95 95 10 2 30 5 17 55 65 80 50 75 5 5 30 15 15 18 60 60 80 so 70 80 80 90 90 90 15 15 40 10 10 19 50 40 ss so 100 95 100 100 90 10 5 20 30 15 20 85 60 80 40 40 20 10 10 21 - - _ _ 60 50 50 - - 10 5 10 22 - - _ _ 90 os 90 - - in s in 23 - - 10 10 5 - - 45 60 50 - - 10 5 10 20 10 20 24 - - 50 60 50 - - 50 30 15 - - 25 - - nn on an - - 100 90 90 - - 20 10 10 26 - - un sn h4 - - 100 100 LOO - - 40 5 15 60 80 27 - - - - 90 90 LOO - - 20 28 - - - - 80 85 90 - - 30 35 40 29 - - - - 100 100 LOO 10 10 10 30 - - 6n 6n un - - 70 70 60 10 10 10 i O
O 9 n 9 s s n n s 0 S i 1 a M p a a 1 A c' s s n n s n po pn 0 0 0 i i i i u 8 1 1 s J 5 s an n n n 0 o 5 0 0 t i si 7 6 s 8 1 1 c d e n s u J s cd n an pn ; 0 2 n 9 0 5 n o l i 7 1 i 6 1 2 a r r G T M s 8 0 s n po s s 0 0 s 5 a 1 1 i 1 1 i ( y r e h p 1 n o s 0 o 0 0 S i l 2 2 l 7 5 i a r8 t e7 a s s s 0 0 0 0 s a n n 0 0 0 0 0 P9 r A 1 76 4 1 2 7 2 2 8 8-1 t a e , S . b n 9 8 s 0 0 0 s 0 o 0 s 0 0 0 0 re y u J i 1 3 5 5 4 2 s 6 s 3 6 9 0 At b r 1 i h nS n S 6 0 s 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 o s s s o o J 4 1 1 4 2 5 6 7 2 1 a a 6 4 5 0 5 1 8 9 i r i te t cv a s 5 0 s 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 ui t M rR 2 2 5 1 7 76 3 2 2 2 5 3 2 9 0 e 1 t g sd e ne V 0 5 s 0 0 0 0 5 ok 4 4 1 2 5 4 2 1 S Cr f o o eF v r 0 0 0 0 i , e y A 5 36 1 t6 v r a1 o o t1 i C t 5 5 0 0 0 8 58 1 l . s J ao % r uN e y d 0 n 0 0 0 Q l n J 1 i 6 5 2 t h U mc t oe n rs o M 01 n 5 0 0 0 0 fn M i 6 1 7 3 a I ar tT a S D n o A i t y a r t e o J g t e s V r e v J O M s r e ey t s, e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 0 1 2 34 56 7 8 9 0 M 1 1 1 1 1111112
. 1 , l
9 3 3 5 0 5 9 9 s0 0 si i n s 5 1 5 8 8 a 3 4 a sh s 8 _ S A 1 5 5 5 0 0 n 0 5 n n s an p 0 1 8 9 68 5 i i 7 J 5 5 0 0 0 n 0 0 n n n s 0 s 2 7 7 E4 4 i a i 2 6 t d c n e u J 5 0 0 o s0 0 n n n 0 0 s o 3 6 s i4 5 i a 2 1 4 n r a G ~ r M 3 5 0 0 s5 0 n n an 2 5 T 1 6 8 1 1 i i 2 y r a S 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 1 4 4 76 9 5 9 h 6 p a i t r8 a 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 n r A 2 3 2 6 8 95 o a7 t P9 1 S b 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 o a, e y u J 2 3 38 7 96 P re b r At h i n S nS o J 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 3 3 7 78 3 5 7 o i ir t te a cv t M 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 ui e 1 4 4 6 5 94 0 rR g 1 t e sd V S ne f ok Cr o o r eF e y A v v r i , t7 o o a1 C t t1 s J i % r l . e ao y d uN l n J Q h U t t mc n oe o M rs M fn a ar S tT a D n A o y i t r a o J t t e s l g r e e V v J O M s r e v t = e 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 0 1 2 34 56 7 8 90 M 1 1 111111112 n f
0 0 5 5 0 5 n n n s 9 s o 5 0 0 5 S 4 2 7 9 0 9 n oho 8 8 l 9 9 9 9 _ 1 t c4 5 0 0 0 0 n 4 6 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 2 5 5 9 9 o R 6 v 9 6 4 8 9 9 9 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 n n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J i 2 1 6 9 0 9 0 o R n 9 8 6 8 9 0 0 1 i 1 1
, d s n t u J 0 0 0 0 0 n n 0 n 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 c o 1 58 8 8 R R 7 a 5 4 1 6 6 6 5 e r s G n M 0 0 0 5 5 5 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 5 9 8 8 h R 5 2 1 7 2 6 6 6 9 r
T y 0 5 0 5 9 s 0 5 0 2 r S 1 2 1 9 i 1 5 1 a a h t p8 a 5 5 5 n 0 0 0 5 0 i7 r A 2 6 2 6 1 7 1 r9 t e1 E P b 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
, y u J 1 2 1 1 8 2 2 2 8 1 ae b r et h ri n S s 0 5 0 n 0 5 0 0 0 AS o J 4 2 3 p 6 4 2 18 i
nr t oe a iv t M 0 9 0 5 6 5 0 ti e 1 1 5 1 18 cR g u e rd V 7 5 te S sk f nr o oo CF r A e y e , v r v8 i1 o o C t t1 s J ta. i o y r e d ll f a l n J h U ut t Qc n e o M ms on M ra fr T S a t a D A n y o r i t o J t a s t r e e g e v J V O M
- s r
e v t e 1 2 34 56 7 8 90 1 2 34 56 7 6 9 0
" M 1 1 11 1111112 n
f
I I s n 0 0 7 2 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 3 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 S
- A 3 s 3 3 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 5 0 2 2 1 2 1
J 5 n 03 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 4 0 0 0 2 4
, i 2 2 2 4 6 s d t n s c u J n s 5 5 5 0 5 5 2 5 5 5 e o i 1 4 3 s r n G a M n s 5 9 5 - - - - - - - - - -
r a T y r S n n n 0 0 5 0 n 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 e a ok 8 3 1 2 i 2 1 8 98 5 3 6 1 3 5 h a l' p t a s4h6 0 0 5 n 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 3 0 i8 i 4 s 6 5 7 i 2 34 8 8 2 2 9 1 2 5 r7 r A t e S P l'J b s n n 0 0 5 sk ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y ai6 2 5 3 3 7 0 0 5 5 9 2 2 4 3 4 a , u J 1 1 ee b r rt h Ai n S S o J n n n 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 0 0 i aiA 8 7 4 2 36 9 9 56 4 7 4 8
- n t 1
_ or a ie t M s n n 5 0 3 s n 5 5 0 _ tv a R s 9 3 1 4 1 - - - - - ci e i - - - - - uR g r e m _ td se V S 5h4 7 7 7i n 0 0 0 0 8 8 94 . nk f or o
. Co r 0 n n n 5 0 0 0 F e y A 6 R R 8 9 7 2 e v r i
v , i9 o o rg t1 a1 C t s J 2 0 n n s 6 6 i
~ 0 9
0 0 9 2 o t % r i . e lo y d - 0 n n n 0 0 0 aN l n J 1 R 6 i 9 9 3 u h U Qt t - c n 2 n n n 0 me o M M R oi~ 0 - - - - - - - - - - os 1 rn - f a 0 0 0 r n n n- s a n 9 9 1 aT S p R o4 t a D n n s n 5 5 5 A a o4 u 9 9 n y o i r n t o J n n 0 a R 9 p 9 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 5 a t s 1 t e r g e 0 n n 0 0 0 0 u 0 9 n n 0 3 9 0 1 e v J i i 4 1 1 V O M n n n 0 - - - - - - - - - - 7 n n 2 i i s r e v t e 1 2 34 5 6 7 O 9 0 1 2 34 56 7 6 9 0 1 2 34 56 78 9 0 M 1 111 11111122222222223 n f -}}