Presque Isle State Park environmentally sensitive area study design : final report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

File #CZ1:C7SP
ME #87156

ATTACHMENT #6

PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

PRESQUE ISLE STATE PARK
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA STUDY DESIGN
FINAL REPORT

PRESQUE ISLE STATE PARK
ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
QH76.5.P4E24 1988

Prepared by:

Paul F. J. Eagles
for
Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of State Parks
January 31, 1988

Coastal
Funded and Coordinated through
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Office Of Resources Management
Bur. of Water Resources Management
Div. of Coastal Zone Management
Zone

This project was financed through a Federal Coastal Zone Management Grant from
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources with funds provided by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

QH
76.5
.P4
E24
1988

PRESQUE ISLE STATE PARK
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA STUDY DESIGN
ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

FINAL REPORT
JANUARY 31, 1988

The preparation of this report was funded and coordinated
through the Pennsylvania Department of Bnvironmental
Resources, Office of Resources Management, Bureau of Resources
Management, Division of Coastal Zone Management and the
Bureau of State Parks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO.

Introduction ............................................. 2

Work Objectives of the Project ........................... 2

Criteria for the Designation of Environmentally
Sensitive Areas ........................................ 3

Application of the Criteria .............................. 4

Boundary Delineation ..................................... 9

Ranking ESAs ............................................. 10

Discussion of Ranking .................................... 12

Application of the Criteria .............................. 12

Descriptions of ESAs ..................................... 13

Other Components of the Report ........................... 14

Application of ESAs to Park Plans ........................ 15

Summary .................................................. 15

Literature Cited ......................................... 16

Appendix 1 ............................................... 16
Appendix 2 ................................................ 17

Scope of Work
Presque Isle State Park
Environmentally Sensitive Area Study Design

Introduction

Landuse planning deals with the allocation of land
resources. In Pennsylvania, parkland is normally set aside for
both the protection of significant natural communities and for
the recreational use of the park visitors. The activities of
outdoor recreation have the potential of degrading the
environmental quality of the sites on which they take place.
Each of these activities have different levels of potential and
actual impact on the significant ecological features of a park.
Park managers require the knowledge of the location and
characteristics of the significant features so that better
landuse allocation decisions can be made. The proper
determination of levels of acceptable use is dependent upon the
careful delineation of those areas of significance that are
particularly susceptible to impact.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas are natural landscapes
containing ecosystems whose biological and physical integrity as
well their ecological processes that should be maintained and
protected. Within a park, they are the most significant and
sensitive natural sites. They require special consideration in
the determination of management actions because of the sensitive
features that they contain.

Work Oblectives of the Project

The work objectives of the project include:

1) Collect the relevant, existing data on the
natural environmental features of Presque
Isle State Park.

2) Apply the criteria that have been developed
for the establishment of Environmentally
Sensitive Areas of Presque Isle State Park.

3) Identify the Environmentally Sensitive Areas
of Presque Isle State Park using the criteria
as applied to the existing information.

4) Map each of the Environmentally Sensitive
Areas.

5) Use the accepted ranking system to produce a
ranking of the Environmentally sensitive
Areas within the park.

6) Prepare a final report that maps each of the
ESAs and provides a written account of the
reasons for the determination of each site as
an ESA.

7) Provide for the close coordination of all of
the identified parties.

Criteria for the Designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentally Sensitive Areas are delineated by the
application of a set of standardized criteria to an adequate set
of knowledge of the resources of a park.

Criteria for the selection of significant sites within
municipalities have been developed and refined over time (Eagles,
1980 and 1981). The application of these criteria within a
planning context has been extensively documented in the text -
The Planning and Management of Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(Eagles, 1984). Evaluation of criteria from a number of
different examples has been undertaken by Smith and Theberge
(1986). The warden service in Banff National Park in Alberta
have undertaken one of the first large scale determinations of
sites of significance within a park (Auchuff et. al. 1986).

In order to use the ESA concept within a park the
standardized municipal criteria have been modified with knowledge
gained in the Banff example.

The criteria for the determination of the Environmentally
Sensitive Areas within a park take into consideration the special
circumstances of the resources in a large natural area. Most
state and national parks have extensive blocks of natural
habitat. The challenge of the resource managers is to locate and
outline the most significant features within the context of a
relatively natural landscape.

The criteria for selection of the Environmentally Sensitive
Areas of Presque Isle State Park are outlined below.

1) The area contains rare or endangered
indigenous species that are rare or
endangered within the park, the state or the
country.

2) The area has an unusual and/or high quality
community with limited representation within
the park, the state or the country.

3) The area has an unusually high diversity of
species.

4) The ecological function of the area is vital
to the healthy maintenance of a natural
system beyond its boundaries.

5) The area is large and provides habitat for
species that require extensive blocks of
suitable habitat.

6) The area is a distinctive and unusual
landform.

7) The area is significant for scientific
research.

8) The combination of landforms and natural
biological communities is of high aesthetic
value.

Application of the criteria

The use of each of the park ESA criteria requires the
careful identification, description, analysis and classification
of the natural values of an area. It is important to recognize
that most parks can be considered to be significant in their
totality when mapped at a small scale. However, when mapped at a
large scale it is possible to recognize features of local
significance within the park. In this study, the large scale
type of mapping is the preferred technique.

The interpretation of each of the criteria is outlined
below.

Criterion 1 (rare or endangered species)

This criterion discusses three levels of rarity: within the
park (such as Prairie Deer Mouse), within the state (such as
Blanding's Turtle) and within the country (such as Piping
Plover).

The status of the species within a park is determined by
f ield work over a period of years. Within Presque Isle, such
work has been done both by park officials and by outside
researchers. Lists of species are available and the assignment
of status to each species is possible.

The status of the birds, the mammals, the woody plants, the
herbaceous plants, the reptiles, the amphibians, and the fish are
reasonably well known at Presque Isle State Park. The
invertebrates and nonvascular plants are more poorly known but
the information is available from the relevant researchers, This
criterion is usually applied to breeding locales of highly mobile
organisms.

It is not necessary to have complete and total information
on all life forms before status determination can be made.
First, comprehensive information is almost never available and
second, it is prohibitively expensive to collect.

It should be recognized that the presence of one or several
rare or endangered species in a locality is usually indicative of
the presence of an unusual or rare community type. Therefore,
the known rare or endangered species are often indicators of the
presence of other species that have yet to be discovered. It is
for this reason that an incomplete data base is sufficient.

A rare species within a park is defined as one that is found
in 5 or fewer localities. An endangered species is one that is
found in 2 of fewer localities. A locality is def ined as the
location of the species as well as its immediate habitat.

At a state or national level species rarity is usually
determined by the use of standard published references. These
come from a variety of sources, such as fish and game
departments, atlas projects, and museums or professional
associations. In some cases the assessment of certain groups,
such as some invertebrate groups, has not been made and,
thereforef the application of the park level information to the
determination of state or national significance is not possible.

The Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory has been
working for some time to determine the status of each of the
indigenous species that occurs in the state.

A special case should be made for the habitat of endangered
pecies that appear to have been extirpated f rom the park. The
Piping Plover is an example. This shorebird no longer breeds in
s

the park but as with all migratory species it is possible that it
could return in the future if the appropriate habitat is
available. In such a case, designation of appropriate habitat is
possible under this criteria as long as there is a reasonable
amount of knowledge on the location of the previous breeding
sites, the appropriate habitat is still available and the
designation can serve a useful conservation purpose.

Criterion 2 (Unusual and/or high quality community)

The comparison of the conditions of the various habitats and
communities within the park to the similar habitats and
communities outside the park is necessary f or the determination
of status.

The knowledge of the historic conditions present before
European settlement is useful but is usually not available in
comprehensive detail.

This criterion is most often used to highlight the presence
of communities that are highly natural (i.e. with little
human-caused degradation). It is also used to highlight
communities that are scarce (i.e. those at the edge of a climatic
region, such as the habitat of Prickly Pear Cactus or those that
were once more common but have been considerably reduced due to
disturbance, such as the Cranberry).

criterion 3 (High diversity)

High diversity of species in an area is indicative of
significant ecological conditions.

The presence of a large number of species in an area must be
done with a good knowledge of the species numbers that are
normally found in other similar habitats in that part of the
country-

This criterion is applied by reference to all of the species
in a community.

This criterion can be applied with specific groups of
organisms as indicators. For example, a wetland with a high
number of species of fish or a woods with a high number of
species of breeding wood warblers can be used to satisfy the
criterion.

The use of this criterion can normally not be done with
mathematical precision. The knowledge of community composition
is usually not to a sufficient level for precise numerical

application. However, some populations, such as those of
breeding birds and f ish are well enough known that quantitative
comparative assessments are possible. In other groups only
qualitative judgments can be made.

It most cases this criterion is acceptably applied by the
use of the knowledge and experience of a group of well-informed
individuals. This is known as the best-professional knowledge
method of determination.

Criterion 4 (Ecological Function)

The determination of sites of vital ecological function is
best done by reference to specific ecological functions. These
will vary greatly in different climatic regions. The ones
discussed here are most important in inland sites in northeastern
North America.

Groundwater and surface water are critical components of all
ecosystems. The presence of areas of groundwater recharge and
groundwater discharge are particularly important. However, in
some parks that are naturally very wet due to their presence in
or on a lake, the important hydrological functions are influenced
by features outside the park. In these cases the determination
of the location of specific, significant hydrological sites is
very difficult and usually not possible.

The presence of significant migratory or wintering stop-over
points can be used to fulfill this criterion. However, most
migratory species use broad areas of habitat for their migration
stop-over points. As a result, it is important to select
significant locations of importance, as opposed to general areas-
An example of such an application might be a significant resting
and feeding area for migratory terns, where such areas are
scarce.

The biological linkage of habitats by a section of similar,
but often less natural or valuable, habitat is important for the
movement of individuals and species. An example here might be a
break in a shore sand bar that allows access for lake fish into
important inland spawning areas.

Some species of organisms have developed breeding strategies
that require them to group together during the breeding season.
Colonial water birds are a good example. In most of these
species the nesting area is in a well-defined, relatively small
area. However, the birds forage over a much larger area. This
criterion can be used to designate such colonial nesting areas
because the functioning of this site is vital to the healthy
maintenance of the natural system well beyond the immediate
boundaries.

other significant ecological functions may be used to
fulfill this criterion in specific areas.

Criterion 5 (Large areas)

This criterion is used to delineate areas that provide
habitat for species that require extensive blocks of natural area
to survive. Upper trophic level predators are examples. These
animals have demanding habitat needs that are only fulfilled by
very large blocks, in the scale of hundreds of hectares, of
habitat. They usually cannot survive with significant amounts of
human disturbance in their range. This criterion is used to
delineate habitat of this type.

Some species that require large amounts of habitat do not
need all of the habitat to be natural. An example of this is the
Osprey that can tolerate large amounts of human activity in its
feeding area. This criterion is not used to designate the entire
home range of species such as this. However, it can be used to
designate smaller areas that are critical to certain parts of the
life cycle, such as the area of an Osprey nest.

Criterion 6 Mandform)

Distinctive and unusual landform designation is done with
the knowledge of the general geomorphological and geological
characteristics of a park and their significance. Features to be
considered for application would include those that have a
significance because of their unusual characteristics. Examples
of the potential use of this criterion could be: rare glacial
land forms, type sites of stratigraphic exposure, significant
erosional or depositional features, and unusual land shapes. An
example in Presque Isle might be the highest sand ridges.

In keeping with the use of the criterion for designation at
three levels of significance, in park, in the state, and in the
country, it is important to attempt to rank the landform feature
to its level of importance.

criterion 7 (scientific-Research)

Since virtually all aspects of the environment are potential
grist for the scientific mill only those sites that have a
history of scientific research are considered. As the knowledge
gained at a site develops, it becomes quite important that
non7planned and unnatural perturbations not disturb the
environment. Such a happening could potentially endanger the
long term conclusions that might be drawn from the studies. For
example, studies of the predator-prey relationships of a
population of unhunted animals would be endangered by the
introduction of a new predator or of hunting.

This criterion can be used for a wide variety of scientific
research. Examples might include: the typing of past climates
through the investigation of lake sediments, processes of f ire
succession, long term water monitoring, herbivore and food plant
relationships over time, and habitat requirements of certain
sensitive species. Within Presque Isle, there is a long term
study that looking at the relationship between the White-tailed
Deer and the rare Hairy Puccoon.

Criterion 8 (Aesthetic Area)

Aesthetic appreciation of an environment is one of strongest
public reactions to some sensitive environments. In the context
of the designation of ESAs aesthetic appreciation is defined by
the inherent beauty of a site as related to its natural value.

Specific features such as scenic views over water,
overlooks, stretches of wild river, pristine forests, undisturbed
natural areas and impressive stands of wildflowers are all
examples of the use of this criterion. Examples in Presque Isle
are the scenic area around Gull Point and the views of the
lagoons from the Ridge Trail.

This criterion is only to be used in concert with at least
one of the others. The site must have some scientific,
ecological or geological significance in addition to its
aesthetic appeal. It is possible to have man-made sites that are
quite aesthetically pleasing but are of minimal ecological
significance. Boundary Delineation

The delineation of boundaries around ESAs involves the
interpretation of site-specific natural resource data. The
boundaries should contain the characteristics that fulfill the
criteria. The boundaries are drawn using information from field
surveys, aerial photographs, ecosystem mapping and personal
observation.

The determination of boundaries is very important. Some of
the more important factors to be taken into consideration are
listed below.

1) The visibility of the ESA boundaries on the
ground.

2) The potential impact of adjacent or nearby
land uses.

3) The territory, range, and habitat of species
of special consideration.

4) The natural boundaries of changing
environmental features such as tides, f lood
lines, erosion areas, depositional areas,
shorelines and river edges.

5) The ecological integrity of nearby
communities.

6) The need for linkages between ecosystems.

7) The existing land use.

8) Ecosystem changes underway.

Land use planning requires the outlining of features in such
a way that they can be found on the ground and, thereby,
potentially treated differentially. The use of aerial
photographs will enable the determination of visible changes in
habitats. It is best to draw boundaries based on an abrupt
change in habitat. It must always be kept in mind that the
purpose of designation of ESAs is to give land managers guidance.
Therefore, field people must be able to find such sites by the
observation of relatively distinct features on the ground.

Late in 1987 the mapping of the natural communities of
Presque Isle was completed. Generally, the boundaries of the
natural communities will be used to outline the ESAs within the
park. In addition, roads, trails, rights-of-way and other well
defined marmade features can serve as useful boundaries. The
natural communities will serve as the basic ESA units. It is to
be expected that the ESAs will be: part of a natural community
area, an entire such community, or portions of more than one
community.

Ranking ESAs

Decisions must be made constantly in a park. New trails are
required, shoreline erosion requires the movement of facilities,
and old facilities need to be restored. It is of use to the park
manager to the have the ESAs in the park both delineated and
ranked. The delineation acts as a simple red flag method of
highlighting importance to a manager. Ranking assists in the
determination of alternatives when management cannot avoid
making some level of impact on an ESA.

This method of ranking has components; the number of
criteria that they satisfy and the strength that they fulfill
each criteria. The methods for assigning relative strength are
outlined below,

Criterion 1 (Rare and Endangered Species)

Each species of park level significance is given a mark of 1.

Each species of state level significance is given a mark of 5.

Each species of national level of significance is given a mark of
10. Criterion 2 (Unusual Community)

Each community of park level of significance is given a mark of
1.

Each community of state level of significance is given a mark of
5.

Each community of national level of significance is given a mark
of 10.

Criterion 3 (High Di ersity)

Each ESA that is seen to be of unusually high diversity is given
a mark of 5.

Criterion 4 (Ecological Function)

Each ecological function that a site fulfills in an unusual and
critical fashion is given mark of 5.

Criterion 5 (Large Area)

Each area defined as large is given a mark of 10. This criterion
may not be applicable in Presque Isle because of the park's
relatively small size. However, some Presque Isle habitats may
be part of a much larger habitat unit that extends beyond the
park's boundaries. In such a case this criterion may be used.

Criterion 6 (Unusual Landform)

Each landform. of park level of significance is given a mark of 1.

Each landform of state level of significance is given a mark of
5.

Each landform. of national level of significance is given a mark
of 10.

Criterion 7 (Scientific-Researchl

This involves an assessment of the value of the research. Give
between 1 to a maximum of 10 points for the level of
significance, in a scientific sense, of the research.

Criterion 8 (Aesthetic Value)

The aesthetic value of all sites designated under this criterion
is assigned comparatively. The site within the park with the
highest value is given a 10, while all other are ranked below
this between 9 and 1.

Discussion of Ranking

If a feature is of a high level of significance, such as a
nationally endangered species, it gets points at the highest
level but does not receive points for fulfilling the state or
park level of significance.

The system of ranking gives higher levels of significance to
the sites with important populations of rare species and their
habitats (Criteria 1 and 2) because the number that can be
assigned is open ended.

It must always be remembered that the assigning of numbers
for the purpose of ranking is only for general guidance purposes.
By definition, many subjective decisions must be made and the
numbers should not be allowed to hide the fact that the base for
ranking is subjective.

Therefore, it is suggested that after numbers have been
assigned to each of the ESAs that a series of categories of
significance be developed. The ESAs should be listed and sorted
according to their significance number. They can then be grouped
into 5 categories. Each category will contain 20% of the ESAs.
The 20% with the top numbers will be given category 1 and the
bottom 20% will be given category 5.

The Application of the Criteria

The application of the criteria is a 3-step process.

1) Data collection and compilation

In this stage the existing data on the resource features of
the park is collected. The information can be obtained from
sources such as: herbarium records, published literature, field
notes of staff and visitors, unpublished scientific data, museum
collections and the memories of interested individuals.

In some cases original data collection in the f ield may be
required if some necessary information is not available.

2) Data interpretation

In this stage the resource data is sifted through the
criteria in order to reveal the ESAs. This interpretation is
best done by an interdisciplinary advisory committee. The
members of this group should represent a wide range of the
biological and resource management professions and knowledge
groupings. This method of decision making is known as that of
the best professional judgment.

At Presque Isle the consultant will initially collect and
prepare the information. The consultant will then interpret the
data in the light of the criteria. Boundary delineation will be
done at the next stage. After that, a report will be written.

3) Report Preparation

A report should be prepared that outlines the ESAs. The
contents of the descriptions for each ESA are outlined below.

Description of ESAs

The description of each ESA should f ollow a general f ormat
as described below.

NAME

Each ESA should have a unique name. The name should
describe some important feature of the ESA, f or example Orchid
Woods or Tern Flats.

LOCATION

A short description of the location of the ESA within the
park is necessary.

SIZE

The size of the ESA can be estimated f rom maps and aerial
photographs.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Each ESA should have a short introduction that serves as a
general description of its features. The major ecosystem type,
the important features and the general landscape f orm should be
components of this description.

CRITERIA FULFILLED

This is a listing of the numbers, with a short descriptor,
of the criteria fulfilled by the ESA. For example this summary
of the criteria fulfilled should look like this:

Criteria I (rare species), criteria 2 (unusual community),
etc.

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA

Under the heading of the criteria number and the short
descriptor an outline of the reasons for the fulfillment of this
criterion is given. In some cases the description may be quite
short, for example, in simply outlining the fact that a natural
feature is the only one of its type in the park. In other cases
this description may be quite long, for example a listing of each
of the rare species found in an important site.

SENSITIVITY

This is a general discussion of the sensitivity of this ESA.
It will highlight certain features or processes that must be
given special consideration and will provide an interpretation
of the facts listed under each of the criteria listed above.
This section is important because the implications of the
occurrence of a particular species, community or process are not
always readily apparent to the park manager.

Management recommendations and any foreseeable factors which
could jeopardize the existence of the ESA will be given.

MAPPING

Each ESA should be delineated on a map at a scale of ill
400". Each map will outline the boundaries of the ESA with a
clear, solid line and the inside of the area will be covered with
a fine shading. The community boundaries and the location of
specific features will be shown. Distinctive features will be
shown by name. Some features that are susceptible to vandalism,
such as rare plants, should not be shown on the maps that are
distributed to the general public. However, this information
must be readily available to the park managers and to the
scientific community.

Other Components of the Report

The report should contain a table that displays the number
and the strength of fulfillment of each of the criteria for each
ESA.

In addition, information on the species, habitats and
landforms of significance should be summarized in appendices.

An overall map at a scale of 111 = 20001 should be included
that shows all of the ESAs within the park.

Application of ESAs to Park Plans

The primary reason for the delineation of the ESAs within a
park is to highlight certain areas for higher levels of
protection. With this concept in mind, it is worthwhile to
outline general principles that should guide the development of
policy within the park.

1) As a general rule, no development is
permitted in sensitive areas due to the
detrimental impact.

2) The boundaries of the ESAs should be shown on
all park plans and maps.

3) If impact is anticipated on an BSA, say in
the form of a new trail, an environmental
impact statement should be prepared.

4) The collection of information on the features
of the ESAs should be ongoing.

5) The park should continue the development of a
data base on the natural resources of the
park. All new data that is collected should
be added to the data base.

6) Both the general public and the park
officials must have regard for the
sensitivity of the BSA features. Appropriate
enforcement procedures must be put in place.

7) Procedures should be put in place f or the
updating of the BSA boundaries at 10 year
intervals.

Summa

The delineation of the ESAs within a park is an important
step in the management of the natural resources. The site
monitoring and the plan administration functions are critical to
the long-term success of the program - the plan is only as good
as the implementation.

Literature Cited

Achuff, P., I. Pengelly and C. White. 1986. Special Resources
of Banff National Park. Warden Service, Banff National Park,
Banff, Alberta. 141 pp.

Eagles, P.F.J. 1980. Criteria for the Designation of
Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Pages 68-79 in S. W.
Barrett & J. L. Riley, Protection of Natural Areas in
Ontario, Working Paper Number 3, Faculty of Environmental
Studies, York University, Downsview, Ontario. 185 pp.

Eagles, P.F.J. 1981. Environmentally Sensitive Area Planning in
Ontario, Canada. Journal of the American Planning
Association 47 (3):313-323.

Eagles, P.F.J. 1984. The Planning and Management of
Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Longman, London, England.
160 pp.

Smith, P.G.R. & J.B. Theberge. 1986. A Review of Criteria for
Evaluating Natural Areas. Environmental Management
10(6):715-734.

Appendix 1

This alternative for ranking of the ESAs was considered and
rejected during the preparation of the ESA criteria and
delineation methodology.

Ranking Alternative I

The simplest method of ranking of alternatives uses the
addition of the number of criteria that each site fulfills. For
example, a site that fulfills 8 criteria is ranked higher than
one that fulfills 2.

This method has the advantage of simplicity. It is easy to
administer and understand.

It has the disadvantage of ignoring the relative strength of
the fulfillment of any one criterion. For example, one site
might fulfill criterion 1 (rare or endangered species) with the
presence of 2 significant species while another site contains 15
significant species. Both sites, however, would be ranked
equally.

Appendix 2

Appendix 2 contains lists of references to the flora and
fauna of Presque Isle State Park. There are reference lists for
the reptiles and amphibians, vegetation, water quality,
geonorphology, and birds. The Resource Management Plan contains
additional information.

LITERATURE CITED

Bauerle, B., D.L. Spencer, and W. Wheeler. 1975. The use of snakes

as pollution indicator species. Copcia 1975(2): 366-368.

Hudson, H.B. 1930. The distribution and habitat preference of the

urodele Triturns viridescens, at Presque Isle, Erie, Pennsylvania.

Proc. Pennsylvania Acad. Sci. 4: 55-58.

Kormondy, E.J. 1969. Comparative ecology of sandpit ponds. Amer.

Midland Naturalist 82(l): 28-61.

McCoy, C.J. 1982. Amphibians and Reptiles in Pennsylvania. Carnegie

Mus. Spec. Pub. 6: 1-91.

McKinstry, D.M. 1975. N otes on the herpetolology of Presque Isle State

Park, Erie, Pennsulvania. Bull. Md. Herp. Soc. 11(l): 21-26.

McKinstry, D.M. and S. Felege. 1974. Snakes of Northwestern Pennsylvania.

Bull. Md. Herp. Soc. 10(l): 29-31.

Pough, F.H. 1976. Acid precipitation and embryonic mortality of spotted

salamanders, Ambystoma maculatum. Science 192: 68-70.

Price, A.H. 1978. New locality records and range extensions for

Thamnophis brachystoma (Reptilia: Serpentes) in Pennsylvania.

Bull. Md. Herp. Soc. 14: 260-263.

Scott, N.J., Jr. and H.W. Campbell. 1982. A chronological bibliography,

the history and status of studies of herpetological communities,

and suggestions for future research. U.S. Department of the

Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report

13: 221-239.

Vogt, R.C. and R.L. Hine. 1982. Evaluation of techniques for assessment

of amphibian and reptile populations in Wisconsin. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report

13: 201-218.

Selected References

(1) Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 1982. Collection and distribution
records (unpublished). As reported by: McPherson, R. 1982. Amphibians and
reptiles of Presque Isle State Park, Erie, Pennsylvania. Report for
Presque Isle State Park Management Plan. Biology Dept., Clarion State
University, Clarion, Pa.

(2) Hudson, H.B. 1930. The distribution and habitat preference of the urodele
amphibian Triturus viridescens, at Presque Isle, Erie, Pennsylvania. Proc.
Pennsylvania Acad. Sci. 4: 55-58.

(3) McAlister, N. 1986. Unpublished field notes. Erie, Pa.

(4) McCoy, C.J. 1982. Amphibians and reptiles in Pennsylvania: checklist,
bibliography, and atlas of distribution. Carnegie Museum of Natural
History Special Publication No. 6, Pittsburgh, Pa. 91 pp.

(5) McKinstry, D.M. 1975. Notes on the herpetology of Presque Isle State
Park, Erie, Pennsylvania. Bull. Md. Herp. Soc. 11 (1): 21-26.

(6) McKinstry, D.M. and S. Felege. 1974. Snakes of northwestern Pennsylvania.
Bull. Md. Herp. Soc. 10 (1): 29-31.

(7) McPherson, R. 1982. Amphibians and reptiles of Presque Isle State Park,
Erie, Pennsylvania. Report for Presque Isle State Park Management Plan.
Biology Dept., Clarion State University, Clarion, Pa.

(8) Pennsylvania Game Commission. 1986. Wildlife data base. Harrisburg, Pa.

(9) Stull, J. 1986. Personal communication. Waterford, Pa.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PUBLISHED RECORDS

PRESQUE ISLE VEGETATION

ANDERSON, EVELYN. The second annual sand castle building contest
pamphlets.

AVINOFF, ANDREY. Artist. Wild flowers of western Pennsylvania
and the upper Ohio basin. Vol. two. University of Pittsburgh
Press, 1953.

BOARDMAN, CHARLES M. Ecology of some western Pennsylvania mosses.
Trillia proceedings of the Botanical Society of Western
Pennsylvania. 1936-1946.

BRIGHT, JOHN. The genus Carex in Pennsylvania. Trillia
proceedings of the Botanical Society of Western Pennsylvania.
1925-1930.

BUKER, W. E. Recollections and reflections of an amateur botanist.
Trillia proceedings of the Botanical Society of Western
Pennsylvania. Now 12. 1946-1967.

GRAY, ASA. Manual of the botany of the northern United States.
Sixth edition. American Book Company. 1889.

GIZA, E. V. and GAYLE. Presque Isle a place for all seasons. 1985.

HENRY, L. K. and BUKER, W. E. Rare or otherwise noteworthy
plants of western Pennsylvania. Trillia proceedings of the
Botanical Society of WEstern Pennsylvania. No. 12. 1946-1967.

HENRY, LEROY K. and BUKER, WERNER E., and PEARTH, DOROTHY L.
Western Pennsylvania orchids. Carnegie Museum of Natural
History. June, 1975.

HENRY, LEROY K. and BUKER, WERNER E. Orchids of western Pennsylvania.
Carnegie Museum. 1956

ILLICK, JOSEPH S. Pennsylvania trees. Harrisburg Penna: 1919.

JENNINGS, OTTO E. A botanical survey of Presque Isle, Erie County,
Pennsylvania. 1909 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 5:289-421.

JENNINGS, OTTO E. A systematic catalogue of the ferns and
flowering plants of Presque Isle, Erie County, Pennsylvania,
taken from a botanical survey of Presque Isle, Erie County,
Pennsylvania. Published in annals of the Carnegie Museum.
Volume V. 1908-1909.

JENNINGS, 0. E. Wild flowers of western Pennsylvania and
the upper Ohio basin. Vol. one: Vol. two. University
of Pittsburgh Press. 1953.

JENNINGS, 0. E. Peregrinating Presque Isle. Reprinted from
Carnegie Magazine. Vol. IV. pp 171-175. November, 1930.

JENNINGS, 0. E. Some interrelations of plants and birds on
Presque Isle, Erie, Pennsylvania. Reprinted from proceedings
of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Vol. VII, 1933.

JENNINGS, O. E. Abstracts of the minutes of the society, for
the period from November, 1915, to October, 1919. Trillia
proceedings of the Botanical Society of Western Pennsylvania.
No. 5. 1915-1919.

JENNINGS, 0. E. Proceedings of the Botanical Society of
Western Pennsylvania for the period from November, 1923 to
October, 1925. Trillia proceedings of the Botanical Society
of Western Pennsylvania. No. 8. 1923-1925.

JENNINGS, OTTO E. A now species of Ibidium (Gyrostachys), 1906.
Annals of Carnegie Museum, V. 3, p. 482-6.

JENNINGS, OTTO E. Abstracts of the minutes of the Botanical
Society of Western Pennsylvania for the period from Oct., 1925,
to Sept. 1930. Trillia proceedings of the Botanical Society
of Western Pennsylvania. No. 9. 1925-1930.

JENNINGS, 0. E. A contribution towards a plant geography of
western Pennsylvania. Trillia proceedings of the Botanical
Society of Western Pennsylvania. No. 10. 1931-1936.

JENNINGS, 0. E. Abstracts of the minutes of the Botanical
Society of Western Pennsylvania. October, 1930, to October, 1936.
Trillia proceedings of the Botanical Society of Western
Pennsylvania. No. 10. 1931-1936.

JENNINGS, 0. E. Rare or less commonly collected plants of
western Pennsylvania. Trillia proceedings of the Botanical
Society of Western Pennsylvania. No. 11. 1936-1946.

MAGGI, GENNY. Presque Isle State Park self-guiding trail
guide. Section A. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Department
of Environmental Resources, Bureau of State Parks. 1978.

MILLER, JOHN. Flora of Erie County Pennsylvania. Printed
by the Nature Study Department of the Erie Woman's Club. 1923.

MILLER, JOHN. A twentieth century history of Erie County,
Pennsylvania. Volume I. The Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago. 1909.

O'TOOLE, AUSTIN J. and VOLKMAR, ROBERT D. Presque Isle trees,
shrubs, and woody vines. 1970.

PETERSON, EDWIN L. Penn's woods west. University of Pittsburgh
press. 1958.

SANFORD, LAURA G. The history of Erie County, Pennsylvania.
(pg. 289). Lippincott. 1862.

STULLp JEAN, Finding birds on Presque Isle. Western Pennsylvania
Conservancy, Pocket guide No, 1, 1961*

STULL, JEAN* Finding birds on Presque Isle. Western Pennsylvania
Conservancy. Pocket guide No. 1, 1965,

STULLg JEAN and STULL, JAMES A, and NOWILLIAMS, GERALD Mo. Birds
of Erie Countyp Pennsylvania, including Presque Isle. Allegheny
Press. 1985.

TODD, W. E. CLYDE. Birds of western Pennsylvania. University
of Pittsburgh Press. 1940.

TRUMAN# LEE C. A taxonomic and ecologic study of the spider
fauna of Presque Isle. (Reprint of an abstract of a doctor's
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh bulletin, volume 38,
number 2e January 10t 1942,

UNKNOWN. Places# the panorama of Presque Isle. Trianglet the
magazine of Lake Erie living. Junet 1976.

WARRENt B, K, Report on the birds of Pennsylvaniae (Notes one
and indirect references). Harrisburgt 1890.,

WHERRY9 EDGAR To and FOGG# JOHN K.-9 JR, and WAHL, HERBERT A,
Atlas of the flora of PEnneylvaniae Morris Arboretum of the
University of Pennsylvania@ 1979o,

WHERRYj EDGAR T.- Abstract of lecture to the Botanical Soceity of
Western Pennsylvania# November 4p 1936. Trillia proceedings
of the Botanical Society of Western Pennsylvania. No- 10- 1931-1936.

WIEGMANj PAUL* Presque Isle a place apart* The Pennsylvania
Naturalist. June-July 1979e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNPUBLISHED RECORDS

OF
PRESQUE ISLE VEGETATION

BISSELL, JAMES. Presque Isle species of special concern. Mapped
with site records. 1985.

CARNEGIE MUSEUM HERBARIUM. Bresque Isle flora list filed in
herbarium at Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. 1868-1985.

DAVIS, L. J. Report on peninsula trip. July 3, 1930.

DAVIS, L. M. Report on second peninsula trip. July 8, 1930.

DAVIS, L. M. Peninsula, July 10, 1930.

DAVIS, L.J. July 15, 1930 (Peninsula trip?)

DAVIS, L. m. Trip to fox pond. July 31, 1930.

DAVIS, L. M. Long ridge. July 18 (1930?)

GRISEZ. TED J. Vascular plants of Presque Isle, with emphasis
on Pennsylvania plants of special concerns. 1985.

HENRY, LEROY K. Erie county plants: species collected at
Presque Isle, only, in the county. (1962?)

KLIPS, BOB. Vegetation of Gull Point with systematic account
of the species. Staff geologist (Klips), Department of the
Army, Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers. Summer 1978.

MERCYHURST COLLEGE PRESQUE ISLE PLANT COLLECTION, 1927-1947,
Dr, Mike Campbell, compiler, department of biology and allied
health sciences,

MILLER, AMY. Plant specimens from Presque Isle area from
Penn State-Behrend collection. 1941.

O'TOOLE, AUSTIN J. Botanical and common name list of Presque
Isle flora filed in the herbarium at the Carnegie Museum of
natural History, Pittsburgh, Pa, 1986. (Lists 1868 to Sept. 1985).

PERKOSKI THOMAS, J., JR. Comparative phyto-geographic survey
of Presque Isle, Edinboro State University. 1980.

PAXSON JOHN B, Checklist of the flora of Presque Isle,
Erie County, Pennsylvania. (Compiled list). June 1985.

RUHLInG ETHEL and MACDONALD, NORMAN J. Survey of the effect
of Fisher Drive on the vegetation. 1939-

SIMPSON WILLIAM, Herbarium specimens colleated..July, 1937
on Presque Isle. Compiled list by Richard Clark with assistance
of Dr John Paxson. Jan. 1986,

TSAI, PEI-CHENG A taxonomic review of the flora of Erie
County. 1975.

VILLA MARIA COLLEGE HERBARIUM SPECIMENS. Presque Isle State
Park 1941-and-1972. Compiled list by Dave Gustafson.

WALTER RHODA ANN. Bond succession on Presque Isle Erie
Pennsylvania as determined by sediment core analyses for
diatoms and various minerals. Allegheny Colleges 19729

WASIESKY STEVE T. 100 year comparative study of the Orchidaceas
and Ericaceae on Presque Isle State Park, Erie Pao 1980.
Edinboro Pa Advisor Dr. John B. Paxson.

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY Summary of the Plants of
Special Concern at Presque Isle State Park. (Based on presently
available information in the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity
Inventory database [PNDI), 1986.)

WISE, JAMES L, Some now observations on the ecology of Presque
Isle sandspit ponds. Coastal geomorphology. Summer 1976.

113@ 0 4

Harbor of irie..PA Stat Ann Tit 55, secs.'361-3631' 368-369, 372-374 (1964)..

Water.Pollution Investigation: Erie, Pennsylvania Area. Browne, F.X.
Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc., Plymouth Meeting, PA. March 1975.

Geological Character and Mineral Resources of South Central Lake Erie.
Williams, S.J.; Meisburger, E.P. Coastal Engineering Res. Cent., Fort Bel-
voir, VA. Misc. Rep. U.S. Army coast Eng. Res.. Cent., 1982.

A Bacteriological Analysi-s of Presque-Isle Bay at Erie Pennsylvania. Zag-
arski, S.J.; Galus, C. B. Proc.PA Acad.Sci. vol. 46-,1972, 16.

A Comparative Study of Algae in Sandpit Ponds on Presque-Isle State Park at
Erie Pennsylvania, Fall 1971. Zagorski, S.J.; Gance, R.W. Proc.PA Acad. Sci.
vol. 46, 1972, pp. 37-39.

Pond Succession on Presque-Isle Erie Pennsylvania. Ellenberger, R.S.;
Laube, H.R.; Walter, R.A.; Wholer, J.R. Proc. PA Acad. Sci. vol.47, 1973
(recd 1974) pp. 133-135.

The Effects of High and Low Carbon Dioxide Concentrations on Pond Plankton
Plankton Population Dynamics at Presque-Isle State Park Erie Pennsylvania,
1973. Zagorski, S.J.; Ryden, B; Marchese,,J. Proc. PA Acad. Sci. vol. 48,
1974(recd 1975) 156.

Effect of Bacterial Population on the Quality of 2 Fresh Water Beaches.
Zagorski, S.J.; Gammonp R.A.;Xraus, G. 57th Annual Meeting of the Pennsyl-
vania Academy of Science, Lancaster, PA, April 5-7. Proc. PA Acad Sci.
vol. 55 (1), 1981 pp. 57-61.

Comparative Ecology of Sandspit Ponds. Edward Kormondy. The Ammerican Mid-
land Naturalist vol. 82, no. 1. July 1969. pp. 28-61. Notre Dame Press.

Peregrenating Presque Isle. Jennings, O.E. Carnegie Magazine, vol. IV
Nov 1930, pp. 171-175.
The Aging @f 15 Ponds on P.I.S.P. in Erie, PA 1982-1983. Gannon University-
Gordon Buckley, Nary Golab? Susan Grant, Tami Haysster, Creig Kirst, Tad
Sims, Abraham Zahand.

Cooperatiy 3eG
Summary-,*-p-f Environmental---Co:hsiddratlohit".'4 US@Army- Engineer--D"tri
B o

The Changing Comfiguration of Presque Isle Peninsula. Zagorski, S.J.; Samp-
son, Mary. The Journal'of Erie Studies. Spring 1982 vol, 11 no. I

The origins and Migration of Presque Isle Peninsula. Byrd, Randolph.
May 17, 1976o

Observations of the Ecology of Presque Isle Inland Ponds and Lakepo Wise,J.

The Shifting Sands of Presque Isle. Jennings, O.E. (Pond Formation)
Decant Evaluation Along Lake Erie.. The Explorer vol. 4 no: 2 March 1962
pp. 12-16.

Annual Report Upon the Impr6vement of Erie Harbor PA and of Certain Rivers
and Harbors in Western NY. Symonst T.W. GPO 1898.

General State Authority (1974); Presque Isle Environmental Study of Environ-
.. ental Implications in Construction of an East Access Bridge. Baker,M.

Preliminary Report on the Phytoplankton and Pollution in Presque Isle Bay,
Lake Erie. Gottschall, R.Y.
Envir*onmental Impact Statement, 1980. Buffalo District(R-T C225. P7U5818)

Department of Environment:ary Resources@ Erie, PA office.

The Audubon Society

Fish and Wildlife Commission

City of Erie: Bureau of Water

City of Erie: Bureau of Wastewater

Erie County Health Department

Mr.' David Gustafson,, Villa Maria College

BIRDS OF PRESQUE ISLE STATE PARK
Erie PA

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION. 1983. Checklist of North American
Birds. 6th Ed. American Ornithologists' Union. Lawrence Kan.

AUDUBON FIELD NOTES (now AMERICAN BIRDS). 1954-1986. 8-4o.

BOLLINGER R. and J. STULL. 1975. The Site Guide. American Birds
29. 655-657.

GENOWAY, H. H., and F. J. BRENNER, eds. 1985. Species of Special
Concern in Pennsylvania. Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Pittsburgh., Pa.

LEBERMAN, R. C., ed. 1958-1973. The Sandpiper 1-15.

PARKES, K. C., 1956. A Field List of Birds of the Pittsburgh Region.
Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa.

PETERS, R. T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston, Mass.

PETTINGILL, O. S., JR. 1977. A Guide to Bird Finding East of the
Mississippi River, Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y.

PRESQUE ISLE AUDUBON SOCIETY. 1982. Checklist of Birds Recorded
in Erie County, Pennsylvania including Presque Isle State Park.
Presque Isle Audubon Society, Erie, Pa.

ROBBINS, C. S., B. B. BRUUN, H. S. ZIM. 1983. Birds of North
America, A Guide to Field Identification. Golden Press, New York,
N.Y.

STULL, J. 1979. Birding Bonanza. The Pennsylvania Naturalist 1(5):
27-29.
_____. 1965. Finding Birds on Presque Isle. Western Pennsylvania
Conservancy, Pittsburgh, Pa.

STULL, J. J. A. STULL G. M. MCWILLIAMS. 1985. Birds of Erie
County, Pennsylvania, Including Presque Isle. Allegheny Press,
Elgin, Pa.

TODD, W. E. C. 1904. The birds of Erie and Presque Isle, Erie
County, Pennsylvania. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 2: 481-596.

_____. 1940. Birds of Western Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh
Press, Pittsburgh, Pa.

WILZ, K. J., V. GIAMPA. 1978. Habitat use by Yellow-rumped Warblers
at the northern extremities of their winter range. Wilson Bull.
90(4): 566-574.

Unpublished records resulting from Presque Isle
field work completed in 1984p 1985 for the five-year
Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas Project have also
been useful in compiling this material.

Published and unpublished bird banding data from
1961 to 1985 from Fish & Wildlife Service banderst
Mary Leberman, Ronald Lebermano Robert Lebermant Jean
Stull, and James G. Stull# have provided specie lists
and population trends.

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI)
lists were provided by Calvin DuBrock, Pennsylvania
Game Commission, and Charles 131ers Western Pennsylvania
Conservancy. Lists of endangered and threatened
species were provioed by Clark Schiffer.. Pennsylvania.
Fish Commission, and Charles J. Kulp, U.S. Fish & WilO-
life Service# Region 5-

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a- --Q I
. 1
3 6668 14100 8674 11