Results for “Records of New Jersey Birds”

USGS2000

New Jersey Bird Records Committee - Annual Report, 2000

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Records of New Jersey Birds↗

USGS1976

Comments on recent canvasback habitat trends and threats on Chesapeake Bay

During the last 22 years, the North American winter population of canvasbacks has fluctuated from 481,000 in 1955 to 179,000 in 1972. The Chesapeake Bay population has averaged 33 percent of the North American population and 64 percent of the Atlantic Flyway population. In Maryland, significant annual fluctuations have been recorded between the eastern and western shore of Chesapeake Bay. In 1968, 11 percent of the Bay canvasbacks were on the western shore, whereas in 1971, 87 percent of the birds wintered in this area. This increase in 1971 is believed to be in response to large populations of small Rangia cuneata clams. I n recent years, mortality of small clams and reduced spawning have resulted in a larger size class for Rangia making them less desirable as a waterfowl food. Canvasback populations in 1975 and 1976 were more dispersed in Chesapeake Bay when the predominant food of canvasbacks was Macoma balthica. In the last 5 years, the number of canvasbacks wintering in Chesapeake Bay has declined slightly, while the North American and Atlantic Flyway populations have increased. Increases have been noted in New Jersey and North Carolina. This trend may indicate that the quality of canvasback habitat in Chesapeake Bay is declining at a faster rate than other areas along the Atlantic coast.

Book chapter↗

USGS2004

Changes in lagoonal marsh morphology at selected northeastern Atlantic coast sites of significance to migratory waterbirds

Five lagoonal salt marsh areas, ranging from 220 ha to 3,670 ha, were selected from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to the southern DelMarVa peninsula, Virginia, USA to examine the degree to which Spartina marsh area and microhabitats had changed from the early or mid- 1900s to recent periods. We chose areas based on their importance to migratory bird populations, agency concerns about marsh loss and sea-level rise, and availability of historic imagery. We georeferenced and processed aerial photographs from a variety of sources ranging from 1932 to 1994. Of particular interest were changes in total salt marsh area, tidal creeks, tidal flats, tidal and non-tidal ponds, and open water habitats. Nauset Marsh, within Cape Cod National Seashore, experienced an annual marsh loss of 0.40% (19% from 1947 to 1994) with most loss attributed to sand overwash and conversion to open water. At Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in southern New Jersey, annual loss was 0.27% (17% from 1932 to 1995), with nearly equal attribution of loss to open water and tidal pond expansion. At Curlew Bay, Virginia, annual loss was 0.20% (9% from 1949 to 1994) and almost entirely due to perimeter erosion to open water. At Gull Marsh, Virginia, a site chosen because of known erosional losses, we recorded the highest annual loss rate, 0.67% per annum, again almost entirely due to erosional, perimeter loss. In contrast, at the southernmost site, Mockhorn Island Wildlife Management Area, Virginia, there was a net gain of 0.09% per annum (4% from 1949 to 1994), with tidal flats becoming increasingly vegetated. Habitat. implications for waterbirds are considerable; salt marsh specialists such as laughing gulls ( Larus atricilla ), Forster's terns ( Sterna forsteri ), black rail, ( Laterallus jamaicensis ), seaside sparrow ( Ammodramus maritimus ), and saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow ( Ammodramus caudacutus ) are particularly at risk if these trends continue, and all but the laughing gull are species of concern to state and federal managers.

Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia↗

USGS2018

Hydrologic assessment of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

The Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter Forsythe refuge or the refuge) is situated along the central New Jersey coast and provides a mixture of freshwater and saltwater habitats for numerous bird, wildlife, and plant species. Little data and information were previously available regarding the freshwater dynamics that support the refuge’s ecosystems. In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an assessment of the hydrologic resources and processes in the refuge and surrounding areas to provide baseline information for evaluating restoration projects and future changes in the hydrologic system associated with climate change and other anthropogenic stressors. During spring 2015, water levels were measured at groundwater and surface-water sites in and near the Forsythe refuge. These water-level measurements, along with surface-water elevations obtained from digital elevation models, were used to construct water-table-elevation and depth-to-water maps of the refuge and surrounding areas. Water-table elevations in the refuge ranged from sea level to approximately 65 feet above sea level; in most of the refuge, the water-table elevation was within 3 feet of sea level. The water-table-elevation map indicates that the direction of shallow groundwater flow at the regional scale is generally from west to east (much of it from the northwest to the southeast), and groundwater moves downgradient from the uplands toward major groundwater discharge areas consisting of coastal streams and wetlands. The depth to water is estimated to be less than 2 feet for approximately 86 percent of the refuge, which coincides closely with the percentage of wetland area in the refuge. Depth to water in excess of 20 feet below land surface is limited to higher elevation areas of the refuge. Streamflow data collected at continuous-record streamgages and partial-record stations within the Mullica-Toms Basin were summarized. Hydrograph separation of streamflow data for eight streamgages (2004–13) reveals that base flow accounts for 68–94 percent of streamflow in basins upstream from the refuge. The high base-flow inputs underscore the importance of groundwater as a source of freshwater that supports both the streams that flow into the refuge and the hydroecology of the contributing basins. Mean annual flow typically ranged from 1.7 to 2.1 cubic feet per second per square mile at the streamgages (2004–13) and between 1.2 and 2.3 cubic feet per second per square mile at the partial-record stations (1965–2015) but was notably greater or lower than these ranges at several stations. Mean annual water budgets were estimated for multiple regions of the refuge for 2004–13 using data compiled from nearby meteorological stations and groundwater flows derived from previously calibrated groundwater-flow models. Precipitation, groundwater recharge, and evapotranspiration were estimated from available data; direct runoff was calculated as the residual component of the water balance. Groundwater recharge rates were greatest in the upland-dominated areas of the refuge with estimates of 14.4 to 18.9 inches per year, which are equivalent to 30 to 40 percent of precipitation. Groundwater recharge rates were nearly zero in the central coastal areas because these areas are major groundwater discharge zones, the water table is near land surface, the subsurface is close to saturation and cannot accept much recharge, and much of the area is underlain by thick marsh deposits likely with low permeability. Estimates of evapotranspiration varied from about 26 inches per year in the upland-dominated areas to more than 35 inches per year in the coastal wetlands, equivalent to 55–79 percent of mean annual precipitation, indicating that it is a major component of the hydrodynamics of the Forsythe refuge. On the basis of output from previously calibrated groundwater-flow models, nearly all of the groundwater exiting the surficial aquifer system in the central coastal areas of the refuge is discharged to wetlands, which highlights the importance of groundwater discharge in supporting the ecosystems of the Forsythe refuge. In the central coastal areas, horizontal flow contributes more than 90 percent of the groundwater flow to the surficial system, indicating that the upbasin areas are a substantial source of water that ultimately discharges to streams and wetlands in the refuge.

New Jersey↗