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






























































































                                                                                            I





           QL
           698.9
           .N46
           1992







          NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRD
         REGIONAL COASTAL CORRIDOR STUDY


                              FINAZ RfPORT









                                                if

















                                   Prepared by:


           Virginia Department     of Conservation and Recreation
                        Division   of Natural Heritage



                                  June 1992






            A report of the Virginia Council on the Environment to the
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pursuant to
                          NOAA Award No-   NA90AA-H-CZ 83 9
















                            VEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRD

                            REGIONAL COASTAL CORRIDOR STUDY



                                    FINAL REPORT



                                     Submitted to:

                    Virginia coastal Resources Management Program
                             council on the Environment
                          903 Ninth Street Office Building
                              Richmond, Virginia 23219



                                      Written by:

                Sarah E. Mabey   Va.  DCR-Division of Natural Heritage
                  Jim McCann - MD Nongame & Urban Wildlife Program
                 Lawrence J. Niles - NJ Endangered & Nongame Program
                Charles Bartlett - Delaware Natural Heritage Program
                     Paul Kerlinger - New Jersey Audubon Society


                                     Prepared by:

                 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
                            Division of Natural Heritage

                                                    PropertY of CSC Library



                                       June 1992     U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                                     COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                                     2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                     CHARLE@STON , SC 29405-2413
     Or-
      %7_ C.-i
      -.0 V--
                            This paper is funded in part by a grant from the
                            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
                            The views expressed herein are those of the
                            author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
      0@                    views of NOAA or any of,its sub-agencies.

             INENT Of











            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


                  Repeated accounts of population declines for many neotropical migratory
            songbird species are awakening widespread concern over this deterioration of
            biodiversity and sparking national and international conservation initiatives.
            To date the majority of research and protection efforts have focused.on the
            fragmentation and loss of breeding and wintering habitat. Migratory stopover
            ecology, however, is in need of comparable attention. migration is a
            physiologically stressful time when All resources, including food and shelter,
            take on added significance. From the human perspective, migration is  an
            aesthetically spectacular event that has inspired awe for thousands of years.
            The existing and potential economic value of protecting migratory habitat is
            significant for the tourism-based and rural communities of the Cape May and
            Delmarva peninsulas.. . ..
                  The Neotropical Migratory Songbird Coastal Corridor Study (NMSCC)
            examined thedistributions and local habitat associations of fall migrating
            landbirds within the coastal region of the Cape May and Delmarva peninsulas.
            This regional approach addressed the fundamental nature of migrating birds;
            they are mobile, paying no heed to political boundaries. The NMSCC has been a
            cooperative project involving governmental agencies, n6n-governmental
            organizations, academicians, and many individual landowners and volunteers in
            New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
                  The study results show that neotropical migrants stopping over on the
            Cape May and Delmarva peninsulas are-


                    More abundant within 0-1.5 km (0-0.9 mi) of the shoreline than
                    in equivalent areas 1.5-3.0 km (0.9-1.9 mi) away from the coast.


                    More abundant within the bayside coastal zones than the seaside
                    coastal zones or interior regions.


                    More abundant on barrier islands than the coastal mainland.


                    Associated with particular habitats on a species-specific basis.


                  Based on these results we recommend that the protection of migrants
            should become an additional objective of habitat conservation measures
            currently acting within the coastal regions of the Delmarva and Cape May
            peninsulas.












                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS




             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            1


             INTRODUCTION    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                             2
                    THREATS TO NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRD POPULATIONS         . . . . ... . .    2
                    LIFE HISTORY OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRDS        . . . . . . . . . .       2

             THE,NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY     SONGBIRD COASTAL CORRIDOR    STUDY   . . . . . . . .      4
                    STUDY JUSTIFICATION    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .          4
                    STUDY GOALS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            5
                    STUDY DESIGN    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            6
             FINDINGS    . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             8

             -REGIONAL MANAGEMENT AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS        . . . . . . . . . . . . .       12



             STATE  POLICY AND MANAGEMENT    RECOMMENDATIONS    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       13
                    DELAWARE    . . . . . . .                                                       13
                    MARYLAND    . . . . . . .                                                       is
                    NEW JERSEY    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                             16
                    VIRGINIA    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                             18

             RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .        19


             BIBLIOGRAPHY    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .            20


             APPENDIX A: STUDY PARTICIPANTS       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         22



             APPENDIX B:   BIRD SPECIES INCLUDED IN NMSCC     STUDY   . . . . . . . . . . . .       25


             APPENDIX C:   VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPES IDENTIFIED WITHIN STUDY AREA         . . .    28


             APPENDIX D:   ANNOTATED RESOURCE LIST     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        31












                                            LIST OF TABLES




            Table 1. Comparison of near-coast and inland sites   . . . . . . . . . . ...    34

            Table 2. Comparison of bayside, oceanside, and interior sites     . . . . . .   35

            Table 3. Regional comparison of bird abundance and species richness at three
                  distances from the tips of the Delmarva and Cape May peninsulas.          36

            Table 4. Comparison by state of bird abundance and species richness at      three
                  distances from the tips of the Delmarva and Cape May peninsulas.          37

            Table 5. Comparison of barrier islands and the adjacent coastal
                  mainland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      39


            Table 6. Migrant-habitat associations for seven species     . . . . . . . . .   40











































                                                     ,3











            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

                 The Neotropical Migratory Songbird Coastal Corridor study was funded
            jointly by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
            Office of Coastal Resource Management, The Nature Conservancy, the National
            Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Support
            from NOAA was provided by grant monies through Section 306 of the Coastal Zone
            Management Act (1972).
                 The complexity and regional nature of the study necessitated a
            cooperative effort, involving a team of people with diverse backgrounds and
            affiliations. The study team included biologists and land use policy advisors
            from various state and federal conservation agencies, academia, and nonprofit
            conservation groups. State conservation agencies and non-governmental
            organizations in each of the four states coordinated and implemented the study
            (Appendix A). In addition, hundreds of skilled birdwatchers volunteered their
            expertise as field observers.











            INTRODUCTION



            THREATS TO NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRD POPULATIONS



                  In the past decade evidence has surfaced suggesting that populations of
            many*neotropical migratory songbird species are dwindling (see Appendix D for
            definition of neotropical migrant). Researchers tracking birds during
            migration began reporting declines in the numbers of birds caught at banding
            stations. The strongest information, however, comes from long term monitoring
            studies of breeding birds. The most widely cited of these is the Breeding
            Bird Survey (BBS) that has conducted standardized surveys for 27 years.
            Analysis of the data from the late 1970's and 1980's indicates consistent
            annual population declines of 0.2-3.0 % in many species (Robbins et al. 1989).
                  Longterm studies at many sites have detected even more precipitous
            declines in migrant populations (Askins et al. 1990). In most of these cases
            the study sites have undergone noticeable, if not dramatic, changes in
            internal habitat (i.e. ageing of forests that can lead to changes in bird
            species composition) or external factors (i.e. fragmentation and isolation)
            (Askins et al. 1990). The declines may be related to these changes,
            particularly fragmentation of surrounding forests and the isolation of the
            study areas.
                  Although there is some debate over the explanations of reported
            population declines, most researchers agree that the repeated detection of
            declines is cause for concern (Hagan and Johnston 1992, Askins et al. 1990).
            We are still far from determining the relative importance of the underlying
            causes of changes in neotropical migrant populations. Several credible
            hypotheses have been proposed to explain the declines. They all fall under
            the general umbrellas of habitat loss and degradation. In North America, the
            birds' northern homeland,.this takes the form of forest fragmentation and
            suburban sprawl, res 'ulting in an increase of predation and nest parasitism.
            In the migrants' southern homeland, tropical deforestation is rapidly changing
            the landscape.
                  The vulnerability of nectropical migratory songbirds during     migration
            has been largely ignored by major professional reviews (Askins et    al. 1990)
            and initiatives on the problem of population declines. However, the
            generalized life history of neotropical migrants reveals that vulnerabilities
            exist during all life phases. In fact, due to the extreme stresses and
            demands of-migration, this period is particularly critical to the maintenance
            of viable populations.


            LIFE HISTORY OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRDS




                                                     2










                  Nectropical migratory songbirds alternate between northern and southern
            homes in order to take advantage of resources that vary predictably through
            time over two continents. Subsequently, every year of a migrant's life must
            be divided into two periods of residency separated by two periods of
            migration.
                 .of the two residential periods, the breeding season is spent in North
            America. Neotr@pical migrants return to their northern homes by April/June.
            In forests and fields from northern Mexico to northern Canada, migratory birds
            comprise 60-80% of all breeding bird species (Greenberg 1990b). Individual
            birds demonstrate a high degree of site-fidelity, often returning to the
            previous year's territory. Young birds, breeding for the first time,
            generally find new places to call their own. As pairs are formed and nests
            are built, the birds take advantage of the great abundance of insects in the
            temperate zone during the spring and summer. A pair of warblers needs many
            thousands of insects to raise its young.
                  By late July and August, the young of the year disperse from their
           .parents. Soon afterwards, adults vacate  their breeding territories and the
            entire population prepares for the long trip south. Most neotropical migrants
            molt their old feathers@at this time. This serves to provide them with the
            best equipment for flying as well as allowing the males of some species to
            remove their vibrant breeding colors, becoming less conspicuous to predators.
                  The process of migration is complex. The individual bird relies on
            innate (genetic), ecological, geographical, meteorological, and social cues to
            travel thousands of miles. Navigating by the stars and the earth's magnetism,
            migratory songbirds fly at night and may adjust their course at dawn (Emlen
            1975, Morse 1989). When obstacles such as bad weather or large bodies of
            water are encountered, migratory birds display a tendency to delay migratory
            flight. During these short periods, the birds conserve and add to their
            energy stores by resting and eating. Migratory songbirds can increase their
            weight by more than 5% in a single day (Moore and Kerlinger 1987). When
            conditions become favorable (i.e. weather changes and the bird has stored
            sufficient energy), the migrants move on.
                  The migration of several thousand miles demands tremendous energy from
            birds that weigh less than a fraction of an ounce. Although there is evidence
            that neotropical migrants can fly non-stop from Canada to the Caribbean in
            only a few days (Emlen 1975), most migrants take several weeks. Traveling at
            night in unpredictable weather clan lead to exhaustion and death by starvation
            (Moore and Kerlinger 1987)   Yet, most mi grants survive, evidence of their
            dependence an stopover and staging areas where food and shelter must be
            readily attainable.
                  By October or early November, the second period of residency begins as
            nectropical migrants reestablis h themselves in their southern homes. From the

                                                   3










            vast continent.of North America, millions of migratory songbirds pack into the
            relatively small land mass found in Central America, the Caribbean, and
            northern South America (Lovejoy 1983). Migrants must always compete with
            birds that are resident year-round. There are, however, a much greater number
            of species and individual resident birds in the tropics. In most areas,
            neotropical migrants constitute only 20-50 % of all birds (Greenberg 1990).
            Despite the potential for competition, the mild, consistent climate and.the
            variety of food resources appear to provide ample compensation for the rigors
            of migration.
                 New neighbors are only part of what makes the southern home so different
            from that in the north. The climate and plant communities are also vastly
            dissimilar. As a result, during the five to seven months spent in the south,
            many migratory songbird species take on new lifestyles. Birds, like the
            White-eyed Vireo and the Eastern Kingbird, that were eating insects just weeks
            before turn to fruit. Others, like the Tennessee Warbler, find a taste for
            nectar. Some species join large foraging flocks with tropical residents,
            while others maintain individual territories. There is growing evidence that
            wintering migrants display site-fidelity similar to that of the breeding
            season (Keast and Morton 1980).
                 By late March it is time to build up fat reserves and replace the dull
            winter feathers with breeding colors, once again in preparation for another
            extensive trip. The northern migration differs from the southern migration in
            duration and concentration. Migratory paths are more diffuse at this time,
            due to seasonal changes in prevailing weather patterns. Migratory songbirds
            move quickly towards their breeding territories where competition for food,
            space, and mates will be intense.



            THE NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRD COASTAL CORRIDOR STUDY



            STUDY JUSTIFICATION



                  The Atlantic migratory flyway covers the entire Atlantic coastal area.
            Perhaps the most significant stopover areas for landbirds in this flyway,
            however, are coastal habitats from Cape May, New Jersey to Cape Charles,
            Virginia. Although the Delaware and Chesapeake bays are best known for the
            large concentrations of waterfowl and shorebirds found there, these areas are
            also thought to be critical to the future existence of eastern neotropical
            migratory landbirds. The prominant land features of the Cape May and Delmarva
            peninsula naturally consolidate southbound migrants that are reluctant to
            cross large bodies of water unless weather conditions are advantageous. A
            combination of factors related to geography, the direction of prevailing



                                                  4










            winds, and innate behavior are likely responsible for such a phenomenon (Dunne
            et al. 1989).
                  Preliminary observations have suggested that landbird migrants rest,
            feed, and seek cover in a relatively narrow strip of shrubby and wooded
            habitat along the coasts and near the peninsula tips. These habitats, not yet
            adequately defined or delineated, are facing unprecendented development
            pressures, especially on waterfront properties. The loss and fragmentation of
            habitats where large numbers of birds concentrate in small areas could have
            serious repurcussions on population viability. Piecemeal and uninformed
            approaches to protection of habitats within the migratory corridor will not
            address the conservation needs of neotropical migrants. This study attempts
            to identify the breadth, extent, and componants of a migratory landbird
            corridor on the Cape May and Delmarva peninsulas (Fig. 1).



            STUDY GOALS



                  The goal of the study was to characterize coastal-areas on the Delmarva
            and Cape May peninsulas that support the greatest abundance and species
            richness of migrating songbirds. Five questions were examined:


            1., Are migrant abundance and species richness (i.e., the number of migrant
                species)  greater immediately near the mainland coast than farthez- Inland?
               (I.e., is there a coastal effect?)
                  Although never quantified, the mid-Atlantic coast has long been
            considered an important concentration area for migrating songbirds.      To
            address the hypothesis, we compared songbird numbers near the coast (0 - 0.9
            mi [0 - 1.5 km] from the coastline) with inland areas (0.9 - 1.9 mi [1.5 - 3.0
            km] from the coastline); (see Study Design, p. 5).


            2. Are there differences in migrant abundance and species richness between
                the bay coast, ocean coast, and mainland interior?
                  If a coastal effect is identified, we are interested in knowing if all
            coasts are equal to migrants. Birds reluctant to cross large bodies of water
            may follow the coast around the tips of peninsulas and then northward up the
            bay coasts in search of a narrower overwater crossing point (USFWS 1984). At
            the same time, some birds may disperse inland, in search of habitats where
            there are fewer predators and reduced competition for food and cover (Wiedner
            .et,al. 1992). To examine simultaneously each of these possibilities, migrant
            abundance and species richness along the Chesapeake and Delaware Bay coasts
            was compared to that along the four-state ocean coast and in mainland interior
            areas. Landscape features of interior areas were not specifically examined
            for comparison with coastal areas.


                                                    5










            3. Do migrants concentrate near the tips of peninsulas?
                  Observations of bird migration stopovers at two well-known bird research
            stations (Cape May Bird observatory and Kiptopeke Bird Banding Station),
            suggest that as birds move southward and eastward towards the coast, they tend
            to become funneled towards the southern points of peninsulas (VA Heritage
            1988, USFWS 1984). consequently, they may become concentrated at these narrow
            tips of land. The presence of stopover concentrations would have important
            conservation implications for lower portions of peninsulas. Therefore,
            we examined this possible concentration effect by comparing migrant abundance
            among coastal area located-O - 6.2 mi (0 - 10 km), 6.2-18.6 mi (10-30 km), and
            18.6 - 31 mi (30 - 50 km) from the southern tips of the Cape May and Delmarva
            Peninsulas@


            4. Are migrant abundance and species richness greater on barrier islands than
               along the adjacent mainland coast?
                  Compared to mainland areas, barrier islands are unique, both in terms of
            their geographic position and vegetation. Barrier islands also represent.a.
            significant portion of the coastal landscape. Therefore, to assess the
            relative importance of barrier islands as stopover habitat, we compared
            migrant abundance between barrier islands and the adjacent mainland coasts.


            5. Are migrant abundance and species richness related to habitat type?
                  Individual species of neotropical migrants use specific habitats on both
            their breeding and "wintering" grounds (Keast and Morton 1980). Specific
            habitats may also be required by individual species during migration (Moore
            and Simons 1992).    Habitat associations may dampen or override geographic
            factors if there is a strong bias in the distribution of different habitat
            types. Bird abundance and species richness were compared among four general
            habitat types (deciduous forest, coniferous forest, mixed deciduous-coniferous
            forest, and scrub-shrub habitat) and seventeen specific plant communities
            (Appendix C).    Species-specific habitat associations were examined for the
            seven most abundant specles in our sample and ten species with reported
            population declines.


            STUDY DESIGN



                  The Neotropical Migratory Songbird Coastal Corridor Study was conducted
            within the bay and Atlantic coastal regions of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
            and New Jersey, including the islands of Fisherman's (VA), Smith (VA),
            Parramore (VA), Assateague (VA/MD), and five resort islands from Sea Isle City
            to Cape May (NJ) (Fig. 1). We designated the coastal zone as a 1.9 mi (3.0
            km) wide district running parallel to both bay and sea shores. The mean high

                                                     6










            tide (mht) line defined the zero mi border of the coastal zone. The coastal
            zone was split into two bands: the near-coast band 0.0 - 0.9 mi (0 - 1.5 km)
            from mht and the inland @and 0.9 - 1.9 mi (1.5 - 3.0 km) from mht; and then
            further subdivided latitudinally every 6.2 mi (10 km) to form 1.9 x 6.2 mi
            (3.0 x 10 km) blocks (Fig. 2). Interior blocks (1.9 x 6.2 mi) were
            established 6.2 - 14.3 mi (10 - 23 km) from the shoreline in Maryland,
            Delaware, and New Jersey. Within each block, we randomly selected eight
            survey sites with fixed radii of 82 ft (.25 m) (four within the near-coast
            band, four within the inland band) (Fig. 2). Although we were unable to
            establish blocks of 1.9 x 6.2 mi on all islands included in our study, sites
            were selected to match a density of 8 per 9.98 mil.
                  In an effort to maximize uniformity between all sites, random selection
            of survey sites was conducted under the following guidelines: the habitat was
            dominated by woody vegetation greater than 1.5 ft (0.5 m) in height; habitat
            patches were a minimum of I ha in size and no less than 492 ft (150 m) wide;
            and each site was located at least 164 ft (50 m) from the habitat edge.
                  Birds were counted at each survey site twice a week from the beginning
            of August to the end of October 1991. We employed a modified point count
           .method to determine the relative density of migratory birds at sites. A
            standardized audio tape of chickadee alarm notes and human pshing and
            squeaking was played during the survey period to draw birds closer and
            facilitate identification. For each survey, a single observer recorded the
            species and number of individuals seen within a 10 min period. Individual
            birds that could not be identified to the species level were grouped into
            broad categories (e.g., Unidentified Vireo or Unidentified Tanager). Raptors
           .were also recorded because they may influence the presence and detectability
            of songbirds (Appendix B).
                  To minimize biases and variance within the data, observers were rotated
            among study areas. All surveys were conducted between two hours after sunrise
            and one hour before sunset.   Additional data collected for each survey period
            include weather parameters (temperature, precipitation, and wind index) and
            time of day. Surveys were not conducted during heavy rain.
                  Habitat parameters and plant community types were evaluated at all
            survey sites. Based on these thorough descriptions, each site was assigned to
            one of four general habitat types (coniferous forest, deciduous forest, mixed
            forest, or scrub-shrub) (Figs. 3 & 4) and further classified into one of 17
            specific community types (Appendix C). See state technical documents on best
            remaining natural communities within the study area (Clancy 1992, MDNHP 1992,
            Windisch 1992, Zebryk and Rawinski 1992)
                  In all, we had 487 survey sites over the four-state region and conducted
            more 12,000 point counts during the migratory period. over 36,000 birds of 91
            species were counted. Analyses of these data used the mean number of birds

                                                   7










            per survey (bird abundance), and the mean number of species per survey
            (species richness) as variables of interest. We also analyzed the abundance
            for the seven species that were most frequently observed (Yellow-rum-ned
            Warbler, Red-eyed Vireo, American Redstart, Pine Warbler, Black-and-white
            Warbler, Gray Catbird, and Ruby-crowned Kinglet); (see Fig. 5). In addition,
            we selected ten neotropical migrant species that are reported to be declining
            (Robbins et al. 1989, Askins et al. 1990) and are represented in our sample by
            more than 150 sightings. We examined the habitat associations for these and
            the seven most abundant species listed above.
                  All significance tests are based.on analysis of variance tests (ANOVA
            SAS). Any analyses differing from the above standards are discussed in the
            Findings section. For more details on the study design and statistical
            analyses see McCann et al. in prep.


            FINDINGS



            o Bird abundance and species r1chness,vere greater near the coast than

              farther inland.
                  As described above, a 1.9 mi (3 km) coastal zone was delineated and
            divided into two equal sectors 0.9 m! (1.5 km) wide (near-coast sector and
            inlan@ sector). The results of surveys.conducted within the near-coast sector
            and the inland sector were compared to determine whether disparities in bird
            density and in species richness exist between these sectors. The regional
            data reveal a greater average number of birds seen per site in the near-coast
            sector than the'inland sector (Table 1). In addition, there was, on average,
            a higher number of different species counted at near-coast sites than inland
            sites (Fig. 6). This demonstrates that on a regional scale, migratory
            songbirds are concentrating within 0.9 mi (1.5 km) of the coast on both the
            bay and sea sides of the peninsulas during migratory stopovers.


              Migrant abundance and species richness are greater on bay coasts than either
             ocean coasts or peninsula Interiors.
                  Migrant abundance and species richness (Figs. 7 &.8) are both.
            significantly greater along the Chesape ake and Delaware Bay coasts than either
            the Atlantic coasts or peninsula interior areas. In separate comparisons of
            seven individual species, four species (American Redstart, Black-and-white
            Warbler, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, and Gray Catbird) are also significantly more
            abundant on bay coasts (Table 2). Notably, none of these seven species are
            significantly lowest in abundance on the bay coasts.
                  The greater abundance of migrants on bay coasts may be due to re-
            orientation behavior by'migrants   a factor which results in daytime movement


                                                   8










            by neotropical migratory landbirds. As birds arrive on the coast, many tend
            to disperse in a northward or westward direction (Baird and Nisbet 1960, Drury
            1960, Drury and Keith 1962, Drury and Nisbet 1964). Birds arriving near the
            tips of the Cape May and Delmarva Peninsulas may circle westward around the
            peninsulas and then head northwestward up the Delaware and Chesapeake Bay

            coasts.
                  Delaware presents a unique situation since no major-peninsula tip occurs
            in this state. However, birds may move diurnally towards the western coast of
            the Delaware.Bay as birds head northward and northwestward from the ocean

            coast.
                  The lack of difference between ocean coasts and interior sites may be
            due to several factors. Nectropical migrants tend to exhibit a 'morning
            flight", whereby large numbers of newly arriving birds move from shoreli ne
            habitats to more interior areas during the first few hours after sunrise
            (Wiedner et al. 1991). The purpose of the morning flight may be to search for
            areas where resource competition is reduced or possibly to locate more
            suitable feeding, resting, and roosting habitat.,


            o Blzds may concentrate near the coasts of the lower Cape May and Delmarva
              pen.insulas.


                  Birds migrating in a southerly direction would be expected to
            concentrate at any barrier to southerly flight. Such obstacles are well
            documented for diurnal migrants such asraptors where large stretches of water
            can increase risks or energy expenditures (Kerlinger 1990, Niles et al. 1992).
            The influence of water barriers suc.h as the Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay
            has only been speculated for migrant passerines.
                  No clear regional relationship was apparent between bird abundance and
            the distance to the ends of peninsulas (Table 3). On the Delmarva peninsula,
            both bird abundance and species richness were significantly greater 6.2 - 18.6
            mi from the peninsula tip. However, no significant relationship existed
            between bird abundance and distance from the tip of the Cape May peninsula
            while species richness was significantly highest 18.6 - 31.0 mi from the tip
            .(Table 4).
                  In New Jersey, the total of all species was highest close to the
            peninsula points but the variation in counts was so great that no significant
            difference was found. But Red-eyed Vireo, Black-and-White Warbler, and Ruby-
            crowned Kinglet were significantly more abundant in the 0 - 6.2 mi region.
                  In contrast, abundances in the Virginia surveys were higher in the 10-30
            km region of the peninsula. Red-eyed Vireos, American Redstarts, Black-and-
            White Warblers, and Pine Warblers were unevenly distributed but followed the
            same general trend.


                                                   9










                  The relationship between bird densities and distance to the tip of the
            peninsula may be stronger than the data suggest due to the artifacts of the
            sampling procedure and the peculiarities of habitat distribution. In New
            Jersey, birds clearly concentrated in the near-coast sectors of the lower 12.4
            mi of the Cape May peninsula (Table 3). This relationship was obscured,
            however, by the even distribution of birds in the inland sectors of the same
            area. On the Delmarva peninsula, the random selection of survey points
            resulted in no points within 1.9 mi of the peninsula tip. However, in an
            ancillary study, Virginia biologists found nearly twice as many birds within
            the lowest 1.9 mi as within the next 4.3 mi (Mabey unpubl. data).
                  The distribution of birds in Virginia suggests the availability of
            habitat modifies the effect of distance to the point. In New Jersey the
            survey sites were evenly distributed across the four main habitat types in
            lower, middle and upper peninsulas areas and densities generally increased
            toward the point. In Virginia, however, the proportion of sites in each
            habitat varied considerably. The greatest amount of deciduous and mixed
            forest occurs in the middle portion where the bird counts were also high. The
            high proportion of deciduous and mixed forest may be the reason for high bird
            counts (data in analysis).
                  Unfortunately, no definite conclusions regarding stopover concentrations
            at peninsula tips can be drawn from this study. This question merits further
            research as it could have clear conservation implications.


              Migrant abundance and species richness are greater on barrier Islands than
              on adjacent mainland coasts. .
                  The relative abundance of nectropical migrants is over two times greater
            on barrier islands than on the adjacent peninsula coasts. Species richness is
            also substantially higher on barrier islands (Fig. 9). Moreover, four of
            seven species (Yellow-rumped Warbler, American Redstart, Ruby-crowned Kinglet,
            and Gray Catbird) analyzed separately are also significantly.more abundant on
            barrier islands; none of the seven species are significantly more abundant on
            the mainland coast (Table 5).
                  These findings point to the importance of coastal habitats for migrating
            landbirds. Barrier islands are essentially "a coastline lying off the coast".
            Like the coastal mainland, barrier islands serve as a stopover concentration
            area. Perhaps more importantly, they are the first potential landfall for
            birds attempting to return to the Atlantic coast during the early morning
            hours (Murray 1976, Wiedner et al. 1992). This placement may in part account
            for the remarkably high abundance of migrants on barrier islands.
                  Migrant concentrations on barrier islands also may have been related to
            habitat features. Most barrier islands in this study contain extensive,
            undisturbed areas of dune woodland and interdune scrub vegetation. These

                                                  10










            habitats offer an abundance of insects and fruit. The extremely dense
            vegetation provides excellent cover from predators and adverse weather
            ,conditions. Such areas support very high densities of migrant scrub-shrub
            dwellers such as Yellow-rumped Warbler and Gray Catbird. In fact, these two
            species are 3 to 5 times more abundant on barrier islands than on the mainland
            coast (Table 5). Barrier islands also support a greater abundance of American
            Redstart and Ruby-crowned Kinglet. Some migrant species, however, are
            uncommon or absent.on barrier islands even though they are frequently observed
            on the mainland. one such species is the wood thrush which appear to require
            larger, more mature tracts of deciduous or mixed forest.


              Species occurrence is related to habitat type.
                  Several significant differences exist in the associations of migrant
            species and habitats. Our results fall intotwo broad classes. First,
            species richness varies with habitat type and vegetation community; and
            second, individual species are associated with particular habitats.
                  The cumulative species richness (total number of species observed over
            migratory period) was greatest for mixed and deciduous forests. Scrub
            habitats also rank high in cumulative species richness.. The number of species
            counted in coniferous forests during the study, however, is less than one half
            that for any other habitat (Fig. 10). The same variable was assessed for the
            sixteen,vegetation communities that comprise the survey sites. The cumulative
            species richness varies significantly among all vegetation communities (Fig.
            11). Two communities, mesic mixed hardwood/sweet pepperbush forest (deciduous
            variant) and old field forest are Most species rich.
                  That some habitat types (i.e., coniferous forests) and vegetation
            communities (i.e.j black willow/alder swamp) are relatively less species rich
            than others does not necessarily mean that they are unimportant to migrating
            birds. In fact, many species have significant associations with particular
            habitats. We examined species-specific habitat associations for the seven
            most abundant species in our sample (Table 6) and ten neotropical.migratory
            songbird species with reported population declines over the past two decades
            (Figs. 12 & 13). Analyses are based on the average number of individuals of a
            given species for each of the four habitat types. Several of these species
            ) show significant associations with one or more habitat types. For all
            species, however, there is a distinctive trend of association with habitats
            similar to thoseused during the breeding and/or wintering season. Based on
            this analysis, coniferous forests have the weakest associations with the
            migrant species (Figs. 12 & 13).
                  We have established that species richness varies with habitat type and
            between vegetation communities and that specific species are strongly
            associated with certain habitat types. A habitat mosaic is likely to offer

                                                  11










            the best support for neotropical migrants. This information focuses attention
            on the interpretation of the geographic patterns identified by this study.
            specifically, the distribution of habitats and vegetation communities between
            coastal and inland areas, and the baysides and seasides of the Cape May and
            Delmarva peninsula probably has some impact on the distribution of the
            migrants between these geographic regions. Further analyses and, perhaps,
            research is necessary to discern the relative influence of geography and
            habitat on stopover concentrations of neotropical migrants.


            REGIONAL'MANAGEMENT AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS



                  We recommend that wherever special initiatives solely on behalf of
            migrating songbirds are feasible, that they be established. We recognize,
            however, that the body of protection for migrants and their habitat will
            originate from connecting these concerns with existing environmental
            conservation policies.
                  The results of this study indicate that species richness, an important
            factor of biodiversity, is greatest in the mixed forest, deciduous forest, and
            scrub/shrub habitat categories. Across all species, however, it is clear that
            all four habitat types are utilized. A habitat mosaic likely provides the
            greatest resources to the greatest number of species. In general then, native
            vegetation of all types should be considered primary habitat for migrating
            songbirds. In cases of habitat restoration, we recommend that a mix of
            habitats be replanted with an emphasis on mixed forests and shrub-scrub
            communities (see Appendix C).
                  Within the four-state region, we recommend the broadly,defined policy
            and management Actions listed below. State-specific issues are considered in
            a separate section (see p. 12-16) and a resource list including some'examples
            of recommended actions can be found in Appendix D.



                  * Include habitat requirements for greatest migrant species
                    richness in Best Management Practice (BMP) guidellnes for
                    Conservation and Watershed districts.



                  + Expand forest stewardship plans to include migrating songbird
                    habitat needs, especially with respect to habitat diversity and
                    avoidance of monoculture forests.



                  * Amend shoreline stabilization strategies to consider habitat
                    values, especially the habitat requirements of migrants;



                                                  12










                    establish and implement alternatives to grading shores and
                    replanting with non-native vegetation; where alternative methods
                    are unsuitable, institute mechanisms to protect equivalent
                    inland area with native vegetation.


                  + Include considerations for habitat requirements for migrant
                    species richness in management of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                    lands, national parks, state parks, and state wildlife
                    management areas.


                  * Introduce neotropical migrants and migrating songbird habitats
                    as significant coastal resources into state Coastal Zone
                    Management Program plans as they are revised.


                  * Include habitat considerations for migrant species richness in
                    governmental and non-governmental land conservation easements;
                    create standard easement management guidelines for various
                    habitat types.




                  * Initiate programs to educate local and state land planners and
                    field personnel from such agencies as forestry and soil and
                    water conservation regarding the value of neotropical migratory
                    so ngbirds and their habitat requirements.



            STATE POLICY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS



            DELAWARE



                  The management of land and water resources in Delaware is shared by
            various levels of government, and among many separate agencies. The State
            government assumes the responsibility for the resources determined to be
            worthy of regulation for the general public benefit. There is, however, a
            strong emphasis from the county and municipal governments for local land use
            planning efforts.
                  The data collected under the NMSCC will be incorporated into the efforts
            undertaken primarily by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
            Control, although other avenues will not be excluded.
                  There are numerous programs currently underway that address many facets
            of protection of species and habitats statewide. Specific language may need
            to be incorporated in these on-going efforts to address the need for


                                                  13










            protection of habitat for songbird species. In some instances, new efforts
            may need to be undertaken.
                  Currently-three major programs are addressing  status and recovery for
            the coastal portion,of the state for the protection of habitat most critical
            to the migratory species discussed. These are:
                  - Inland Bay Estuary Recovery Program
                  - Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Plan
                  - Delaware Coastal Zone Management Plan
                  Each of these deal with specific geographical regions of the state, and
            are directed at separate and unique activities contained within that region.
            It is critical that as these plans are revised, inclusion of the importance of
            the Deaware coastaline as habitat for neotropical migrants be addredBed.
            Projects which are funded through these programs may be encouraged to include
            protection, enhancement, or restoration of habitat for utilization by
            migratory songbird species. An example may be wetland rehabilitation    projects
            to consider multiple species management actions.
                  Activities under the Land Protection Act should reflect the importance
            of certain habitat types for the benefit of migratory songbirds. One of the
            weighting factors in the rating system may include the value of the parcel for
            migratory songbird species as a stand alone category.
                  There are many efforts statewide that are directed at land protection.
            Inclusion of consideration of the importance of the Delmarva as critical
            habitat for the songbird migration should be incorporated into the protection
            strategy. Efforts Such as the Greenway program, and more specifically the
            Coastal Heritage Greenway, can address the core issue of habitat protection
            through minimization of habitat fragmentation. The Natural Areas Program may
            want to include migratory bird habitat in the array of factors addressed with
            land owners for inlcusion in a Natural Area or state recognized Nature

            Preserve

                  As funds become available from the state under the Deaware Land and

            Water Conservation Trust Fund for purchase of land, efforts may be focused on
            inclusion of land spcifically for the protection of habitat for migratory bird
            species.
                  All State lands, such as Wildlife Management Areas, Forests, and Parks
            should include as part of their management plans actions which will protect
            habitat for usage by migratory songbirds.
                  To achieve broadbased success for habitat and specie protection many
            activities that occur in multiple departments within the State may be
            encouraged to include migratory species habitat as a componant to their
            mission. Increased exposure to habitat protection under the Forestry
            Stewardship Plans may be warranted within the Department of Agriculture,
            Division of Forestry. Consideration by the   Department of Transportation into

                                                   14










            highway corridors that minimze habitat fragmentation would be explored.
            Consultations with the Wetland Branc h to encourage inclusion of songbird
            habitat into the Wetlands Best Management Practices should occur.
                  Many avenues for land protection originate at the county level. As each
            county revises their master plans, language may be included that addressed the
            critical importance of these areas within each county. In addition, the
            county Conservation Districts may include consideration.for a Best Management
            Practice to include protection of habitat for songbird species.




            MARYLAND



                  The study demonstrates that forested areas within 1.5 km of the
            coastline are of critical importance as stopover habitat for neotropical
            migrants. Bay coasts and barrier islands are particularly significant. In
            addition, of the four major habitat types (deciduous, coniferous, and mixed
            forest, scrub-shrub), coniferous forest represents the least important habitat
            for migrants.
                  Based on these findings, the following is recommended for coastal areas
            of Maryland to help insure the protection of suitable habitat for neotropical
            migrants:


            1. Maintain forested and scrub-shrub habitats, Particularly large
                  These habitats are most crucial as staging and resting areas for
            migratory landbirds. Large forest blocks, particularly deciduous and mixed
            forests, will provide suitable habitat for the greatest number of species.
            Thrushes, for example will utilize the older interior forest areas while
            scrub-shrub dwellers like gray catbird and yellow-rumped warbler will be most
            abundant along forest edges. Large forest blocks also Provide nesting habitat
            for a variety of neotropical migrants during the spring and summer. In fact,
            many of these species (known collectively as Forest Interior Dwelling Birds -
            FIDS) nest exclusively in large undisturbed forest blocks and are among those
            species experiencing the most serious population declines in eastern North
            America. (See Guidance paper No. 1 of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
            commission and Bushman and Therres (1988) for further information.)


            2. Avoid conversion of deciduous and mixed forests into coniferous forest

            (i.e., loblolly pine).
                  As described earlier, conifer stands provide habitat for thefewest
            number of birds as well as the fewest species.


            3. Maintain natural scrub-shrub habitats such as those occurrinq lona


                                                  15











            shorelines and dominated by bayberry and high tide bush.
                  Some species of neotropical migrant, such as common Yellowthroat, gray
            catbird, and brown thrasher, will also-use these habitats for nesting during
            the spring and summer.


            4. Encourage deciduous or mixed tree plantings in areas such as filter strips.
                  The habitats created by filter strip plantings will, at first, benefit
            scrub-shrub dwelling migrant species and as the trees mature, they will be
            utilized by forest dwelling migrants. Ideally, these plantings should consist
            of locally native plant species.


            5. If wooded habitat must be developed minimize removal of trees and shrubs to

            the fullest extent possible.
                  Encourage planting of native vegetation.


            The above recommendations can be implemented through the:
            1. Local Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Programs in Dorchester, Queen Anne's,
                  Talbot, and Worcester Counties. In particular, the
                  recommendations should be incorporated into Forest Management
                  Plans and Habitat Protection Area Plans (i.e., for Buffers,
                  forested and shrub Non-tidal Wetlands, FIDS, other plant and
                  wildlife habitat of local significance).
            2. Forest Conservation Act.
            3. State and federal farmer incentive programs, such as Conservation Reserve
                  Programs (CRP) and the Acreage Conservation Reserve Program (ACR).
            4. Forest Stewardship Programs.
            5. Wildlife management plans for Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), state
                  forests, and national, state, and local parks.
            6. Local Open Space Requirements.
            7. Local Comprehensive Plans
            8. Local Subdivision ordinances and Landscaping requirements.
            9. Nontidal Wetlands Act.



                  In addition, the study results reaffirm the high ecological importance
            of barrier islands such as Assateague Island which is under state (MD
            Department of Natural Resources, Assateague Island State Park) and federal
            protection (National Park Service, Assateague Island National Seashore; U.S.
            Fish and Wildlife Service, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge). Scrub-
            shrub and forested habitats on barrier islands should be maintained and
            protected to provide appropriate habitat for all migrants.



            NEW JERSEY


                                                  16










                  The consentration of.migratory passerines adds to the overall
            significance of the Cape May Peninsula as a critical area for migratory birds.
            Currently there are major land acquisition and regulatory programs protecting
            critical habitats for migratory raptors, migratory shorebirds and woodcock on
            the Cape May Peninsula and the Delaware Bayshore. This includes the Maurice
            River project, the new Cape May Refuge, expansions to the Higbee WMA, and the
            new Cape Island WMA. The entire area is a focus for the North American
            Waterfowl Plan. Finally the area lies within the jurisdiction of three strong
            state regulatory programs protecting significant concentrations of migratory
            birds within the coastal zone, freshwater wetlands, and the pineland reserve.
                  On the other hand, the New Jersey coastal zone is one of the fastest
            growing areas in the state. Both resident and tourist populations has grown
            drastically in the last decade spurring a development boon that has only
            recently slowien from the nationwide recession. Between 1973 and 1986, more
            than 30% of all available habitat was developed.
                  Given the sharp contrast of ecological and economic importance in the
            coastal area the protection of critical habitats is a source of great conflict
            between developers and conservation agencies. Any action taken to.protect
            migrant passerines will be both costly and difficult.
                  Given these conditions, we recommend the following:


            1. Incoporate the recommendations from this study into guidelines on the
                  protection of migrant species now being developed by the
                  Endangered and Nongame Species Program of the Division of Fish,
                  Game And Wildlife. Much of the area is the same and will increase
                  justification for acquisition or regulatory protection.


            2. Develop detailed mapping of the 0.9 mi coastal band and the lower 10 km
                  area of the peninsula, and deveop protection guidelines for each
                  of the three land use regulatory programs and the state master
                  plan.


            3. Review all current acquisition program plans and readjust acquisition
                  boundaries to include the 0.9 mi band and lower 10 km area.
                  Greatest priority will be givento undeveloped barrier island
                  habitats and upland and freshwater wetland habitats adjacent to
                  both the Atlantic and Delaware Bay marshes.


            4.. Initiate educational programs aimed at landowners to improve their
                  understanding of the need of migratory passerines. This would
                  include landscape recommendations based on minimizing impacts to
                  natural habitats and improving habitat condition for feeding,

                                                  17










                  resting, and roosting migratory birds.


            5. Develop guidelines for the management of public lands to provide diversity
                  of habitats beneficial to passerine migrants without conflicting
                  with the need fof other migrants and breedin populations of rare
                  and endangered species.


            6. Initiate surveys to determine,the relative improtance of Delaware Bay and
                  Atlantic coastal areas outside of the study area.



            VIRGINIA



                  Neotropical migratory songbirds have been recognized as a vital natural
            resource,for the Commonwealth of Virginia as illustrated by this statement
            released in October 1991 to the press by the Secretary of Natural Resources,
            Elizabeth H. Haskell:
                        Virginia is taking the lead in this conservation issue
                        of international importance... Virginia's Eastern
                        Shore is thought to be one of the most important
                        migratory songbird concentration (stopover] areas in
                        North America. This 15 month study will be the first
                        attempt to document the importance of the mid-Atlantic
                        coastal corridor to scores of bird species. The
                        commitment of nearly 100 Virginia citizen volunteers,
                        whose help has made this study possible, is an
                        inspirational illustration of local action toward
                        global solutions.


                  With this high level of commitment to migratory bird conservation,
            integration of the migrant concentration zone and habitat requirements as
            established by the NMSCC study into state and local policy should proceed in a
            timely fashion. In addition to the recommendations outlined for the four-
            state region, we place added emphasis on local and non-governmental protection
            mechanisms.
                  The following tools may be appropriate vehicles for migratory bird and
            habitat conservation:
            1. Overlay zoning for the 0.9 mi migrant concentration area requiring
                  creation/maintenance of open space and preservation of native
                  vegetation. Such policy is justified by aesthetic values,
                  pollution abatement, migratory bird conservation, and eco-tourism
                  potential.
            2. Adjust thedefinition of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act resource
                  protection buffers (NWI lines) to include native vegetation rather
                  than exotic grasses.
            3. Amend sub-division ordinances to maximize connectiveness of habitat


                                                  18










                 patches.


            RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH


                 The Neotropical Migratory Songbird Coastal Corr idor study has taken the
            first step towards defining the distributions of southward migrating songbirds
            stopping-over on the Cape May and Delmarva peninsulas. It was, however,
            designed to address broad-scale patterns. Many fine-scale issues remain for
            investigation. If concentrations of migrants exist at peninsula tips, our
            sampling design was unable to detect them. Alternative methodology (including
            more intensive coverage of the tip areas) that might examine peninsular
            effects on a different scale are recommended.
                 Details of species-habitat associations and habitat utilization will be
            critical to our understanding of the relative importance of habitat types.
            Current research at Cape May, NJ indicates that habitat utilization and
            association patterns vary within a single day, as well as over longer periods
            of time (Niles, in prep.; Kerlinger in prep.).
                 The relative importance of habitat may also vary according to the
            overall landscape (i.e., degree of patch isolation, relative abundance of
            particular habitat types, etc.). Additionally, riparian corridors and inland
            es tuaries are significant landscape features on both the Cape May and Delmarva
            peninsulas. Migrant use of these coastal extensions should be examined.
            Local land use planning and migratory songbird protection efforts will benefit
            from studies of migrant-landscape associations.




























                                                  19











            BIBLIOGRAPHY

            Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in
            migratory birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 7: 1-57

            Baird, J., and I.C.T.. Nisbet. 1960. Northward fall migration on the Atlantic
            coast and its relation to offshore drift. Auk 77: 119-149.

            Clancy, K. 1992. Delaware exemplary natural habitats. Delaware Natural
            Heritage Inventory, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
            Dover, DE..

            Drury, W.H., Jr. 1960. Radar and bird migration - a' second glance. Mass. Aud.
            44: 173-178.

                             and J.A. Keith. 1962. Radar studies of songbird migration in
            coastal New England. This 104: 449-489.

                             and I.C.T. Nisbet. 1964. Radar studies of orientation of
            songbird migrants in southeastern New England. Bird-banding 35:69-119.

            Dunne, P., R. Kane, and P. Kerlinger. 1989. New Jersey at,the Crossroads of
            Migration. New Jersey Audubon Society.

            Emlen, S.T. 1975...Migration: Orientation and Navigation. pp. 129-219 in Avian
            Biology, Vol. V. D.S. Farner and J.R. King, eds. Academic Press, Inc.

            Greenberg, R. 1990a. "Southern Mexico: Crossroads of Migratory Birds."
            Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC.

                          1990b. "Birds Over Troubled Forests." Smithsonian Institution
            Press. Washington, DC.

            Hagan, J. and D. Johnston, eds. 1992. The Ecology and Conservation of
            Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC.

            Keast, A. and E.S. Morton. 1980. Migrant Birds in the Neotropics: Ecology,
            Behavior, Distribution, and Conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press.
            Washington, DC.

            Kerlinger, P. 1989. Flight stratagies of migratory hawks. University of
            Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

            Lovejoy, T.E. 1983. Tropical Deforestation and North American Migrant Birds.
            pp. 126-128 in Bird Conservation, 9.A. Temple, ed. University of Wisconsin
            Press. Madison, WI.

            Maryland Natural Heritage Program (MDNHP). 1992. Exemplary natural habitats of
            Maryland''s coastal corridor study. Department of Natural Resources.
            Annapolis, MD.

            Moore, F. and P. Kerlinger. 1987. Stopover and fat deposition by North
            American wood-warblers (Parulinae) following spring migration over the Gulf of
            Mexico. Oecologia 74:47-54.

                     and T.R. Simons. 1992. Habitat Suitability and the Stopover Ecology
            of Nectropical Passerine Migrants in The Ecology and Conservation of
            Nectropical Migrant Landbirds, J. Hagan and D. Johnston, eds., Smithsonian
            Institution Press. Washington, DC.

            Morse, D.H. 1989. American Warblers: An Ecological and Behavioral Perspective.
            Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


                                                  20











            Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, R.S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989. Population
            declines in North American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proc. Natl.
            Acad. Sci. USA. 86: 7658-7662.

            Terborgh, J. 1989. Where Have All the Birds'Gone? Princeton Universit Press.
            Princeton, NJ.

            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Final environmental assessment: proposal
            to protect migratory bird habitat, Northampton County, Virginia. Unpubl. MS.

            Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VNHP). 1988. Report on the bayside and
            Kiptopeke Beach, Northampton County, Virginia. Tech. Publ. Series No. 1: 28
            pp-

            Wiedner, D.S., P. Kerlinger, D. Sibley, P. Holt, J. Hough, and R. Crossley.
            1992. Visible morning flight of nectropical migrants at Cape May, NJ. Auk. In
            press.

            Windisch, A.G. 1992. Best remaining natural community and rare species sites
            of New Jersey's Cape May Peninsula and vicinity. NOAA Grant #NA90AA-H-CZ839.
            New Jersey Natural Heritage Program. Trenton, NJ.

            Zebryk, T. and T.J. Rawinski. 1992 A preliminary survey of natural heritage
            resource sites in Northampton and Accomack Counties, Virginia. Natural
            Heritage Technical Report 92-22, Virginia Department of Conservation and
            Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond, VA. 43pp.



































                                                  21











            APPENDIX A


            STUDY PARTICIPANTS



            Lloyd Alexander - Policy Advisor
            Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife


            Charles Bartlett - DE Coordinator
            Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory

            Thomas Breden - Ecologist/ NJ Project Manager
            New Jersey Natural Heritage Program

            Keith Clancey - Ecologist
            Delaware Natural Heritage Program

            Sarah Cooksey - Policy Advisor
            Coastal Management Program
            Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environment

            Samual Droege - Science Advisor
            Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
            U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service


            Lisa Gelvin-Innvaek - Science/Policy Advisor
            Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife
            Nongame & Endangered Species Program

            Ernest Hahn - Policy Advisor
            New Jersey Environmental Regulation
            Land Use Regulation Program

            Paul Kerlinger - Science/Policy Advisor
            Cape May Bird Observatory
            New Jersey Audubon Society

            Susan Laporte - Policy Advisor
            Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
            Division of Parks and Recreation


            Thomas Litwin - Science Advisor
            Clark Science Center
            Smith College

            Laura McKay Lower - Grant Coordinator/Policy Advisor
            Coastal Resources Program
            Virginia Council on the Environment

            Sarah E. Mabey - VA Coordinator
            Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
            Divsion of Natural Heritage

            Lawrence Master - Project Coordinator
            Eastern Regional office
            The Nature Conservancy

            James McCann - 24D Coordinator
            Nongame & Urban Wildlife Program
            Maryland Forest, Park & Wildlife Service




                                                  22











            Kathy McCarthy - Ecologist
            Inventory and Protection
            Maryland Natural Heritage Program

            Janet McKegg - Ecologist
            Maryland Natural Heritage Program

            Shepard Moon - Policy Advisor
            Virginia Council on the Environment

            Lawrence Niles - NJ Coordinator
            New Jersey Division of Fish, Game & Wildlife
            Endangered & Nongame Species Program

            Christopher Pague - Science/Policy Advisor
            Colorado Natural Heritage Program

            Charles Pattison - Policy Advisor
            Virginia Coast Reserve
            The Nature Conservancy

            Steven Patton - Science Advisor
            Devil's Den Preserve
            The Nature Conservancy

            Diane Pence - Science Advisor
            U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service

            Thomas Rawinski - Ecologist
            Virginia Division of Natural Heritage

            Chandler S. Robbins - Science/Policy Advisor
            Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
            U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service

            Thomas L. Smith - VA Project Manager
            Virginia Division of Natural Heritage

            Glenn Therres - MD Project Manager
            Nongame & Urban Wildlife Program

            Lawrence Torok - Policy Advisor
            New Jersey Environmental Regulation
            Land Use Regulation Program

            Leslie Trew - DE Project Manager
            Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory

            Barry Truit - Science Advisor
            Virginia Coast Reserve
            The Nature Conservancy

            Robert Unnasch   Science Advisor
            Science Department
            The Nature Conservancy

            David Wilcove - Science Advisor
            Environmental Defense Fund
            Washington, DC




                                                  23










           Steven Whitney - Policy Advisor
           New Jersey Environmental Regulation
           Regulatory Policy Program

           Tad Zebryk - Ecologist
           Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
           Divsion of Natural Heritage























































                                                  24












            APPENDIX B.


            BIRD SPECIES INCLUDED IN NMSCC STUDY


              Common Name                     Latin Name                    Total Study Count

              Black-billed Cuckoo             Coccyzus erythropthalmus                       19
              Yellow-billed Cuckoo            Coccyzus americanus                            222
              Ruby-throated Hummingbird       Archilochus colubris                          322
              Yellow-bellied Sapsucker        Sphyrapicus varius                             122
              Olive-sided Flycatcher          Contopus borealis                                7

              Eastern Wood-Pewee              Contopus virens                               238
              Yellow-bellied Flycatcher       Empidonax flaviventris                         21
              Acadian Flycatcher              Empidonax virescens                            27

              Alder Flycatcher                Empidonax alnorum                               1
 
              Willow Flycatcher               Empidonax traileii                               1
              Least Flycatcher                Empidonax minimus                               11
 
              Eastern Phoebe                  Sayornis phoebe                                 139
              Eastern Kingbird                Tyrannus tyrannus                               168
              Great Crested Flycatcher        Myiarchus crinitus                              243

              House Wren                      Troglodytes aedon                               206

              Ruby-crowned Kinglet            Regulus calendula                             880
              Blue-gray Gnatcatcher           Polioptila caerulea                           241
              Veery                           Catharus fuscescens                           247

              Gray-cheeked Thrush             Catharus minimus                               30

              Swainson's Thrush               Catharus ustulatus                             79

              Hermit Thrush                   Catharus guttatus                               195
              Wood Thrush                     Hylocichla mustelina                            170
              Gray Catbird                    Dumetella carolinensis                         1365

              Brown Thrasher                  Toxostoma rufum                               150

              White-eyed Vireo                Vireo griseus                                 546
              Solitary Vireo                  Vireo solitarius                              207

              Yellow-throated Vireo           Vireo flavifrons                               93

              Warbling Vireo                  Vireo gilvus                                   52
              Philadelphia Vireo              Vireo  philadelphicus                          91

              Red-eyed Vireo                  Vireo  olivaceus                              3181
              Blue-winged Warbler             Vermivora pinus                                 99
              Golden-winged Warbler           Vermivora chrysoptera                            5



                                                     25
 











              Tennessee Warbler                Vermivora peregrina                           29

              Orange-crowned Warbler           Vermivora celata                                9
              Nashville Warbler                Vermivora ruficapilla                          36

              Prothonotary Warbler             Protonotaria citrea                            42

              Northern Parula                  Parula americana                              532

              Yellow Warbler                   Dendroica petechia                             93
              Chestnut-sided Warbler           Dendroica  pensylvanica                       385
              Magnolia Warbler'                Dendroica  magnolia                           358
              Cape May Warbler                 Dendroica  tigrina                            108             
              Black-throated-Blue Warbler      Dendroica  caerulescens                       845

              Yellow-rumped Warbler.           Dendroica  coronata                          9617

              Black-throated Green Warbler     Dendroica  virens                             177

              Blackburnian Warbler             Dendroica  fusca                               62

              Yellow-throated Warbler          Dendroica  dominica                            77

              Pine Warbler                     Dendroica  pinus                             1411

              Prairie Warbler                  Dendroica  discolor                           525

              Palm Warbler                     Dendroica  palmarum                            83

              Bay-breasted Warbler             Dendroica  castanea                            65

              Blackpoll Warbler                Dendroica  striata                             63

              Cerulean Warbler                 Dendroica cerulea                              9

              Black-and-White Warbler          Mniotilta varia                              2546

              American Redstart                Setophaga  ruticilla                         3540
              
              Worm-eating Warbler              Helmitheros vermivorus                         74
             
                Swainson's Warbler             Limnothlypqis swaisonii                          8

              ovenbird                         Seirus aurocapillus                           410

              Northern Waterthrush             Seirus noveboracensis                          41

              Louisiana Waterthrush            Seirus motacilla                                7

              Kentucky Warbler                 Oporornis formosus                             28

              Connecticut Warbler              Oporornis agilis                               12

              Mourning Warbler                 Oporornis philadelphia                         14

              Common Yellowthroat              Geothlypis trichas                            539

              Hooded Warbler                   Wilsonia citrina                               24

              Wilson's Warbler                 Wilsonia pusilla                               12

              Canada Warbler                   Wilsonia canadensis                            55

              Yellow-breasted Chat             Icteria virens                                 43

              Summer Tanager                   Piranga rubra                                 103


                                                      26
 










              Scarlet Tanager                 Piranga olivacea                              157

              Rose-breasted Grosbeak          Pheucticus ludovicianus                       47

              Blue Grosbeak,                  Guiraca caerulea                              44

              Indigo Bunting                  Passerina cyanea                              72
              Dickcissel                      Spiza americana                                2
              Chipping Sparrow                Spizella passerina                            38

              Vesper Sparrow                  Pooecetes gram2neus                            3

              Grasshopper Sparrow             Ammodramus savannarum                          9
              Lincoln's Sparrow               Melospiza lincolnii                            0
              @Bobolink                       Dolichonyx oryzivorus                         16
              Orchard Oriole                  Icterus spurius                               35

              Northern Oriole                 Icterus galbula                               657
              Osprey                          Pandion hallaetus                             70
              Bald Eagle                      Haliaeetus leucocephalus                       5
              Northern Harrier                circus cyaneus                                25

              Sharp-shinned Hawk              Accipiter striatus                            200
              Cooper's Hawk                   Accipitek cooperii                            40

              Red-shouldered Hawk             Buteo  lineatus                               10

              Broad-winged Hawk               Buteo  platypterus                            34
              Red-tailed Hawk                 Buteo  jamaicensis                            60
              American Kestrel                Falco  sparverius                             59

              Merlin                          Falco  columbarius                            17

              Peregrine Falcon                Falco  peregrinus                             14

              Prairie Falcon                  Falco  mexicanus                               0



























                                                     27












            APPENDIX C.


            VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPES IDENTIFIED WITHIN STUDY AREA


            Community 1: Dry Oak Forest - Deciduous Variant
                  Diagnostic features: well-drained sandy soils; less than 60% of
                  tree cover coniferous; several oaks, including Quercus stellata,
                  Q. coccinea, Q. falcata, Q. velutina, Q. phellos, Q. prinus and Q.
                  alba; other typical trees and tall shrubs are Acer rubrum, Carya
                  spp. Diospyros virginiana, Cornus florida, Sassafras albidum,
                  Liquidambar styraciflua, Prunus serotina, and Vaccinium
                  cox-ymbosum; Pinus virginiana and Pinus taeda usually present,
                  except in parts of New Jersey where Pinus rigida appears.4 low
                  ericads such as Vaccinium pallidum, V. stamineum, Ga'ylussacia
                  baccata usually abundant; Carex pennsylvanica and other drought
                  tolerant herbs usually present.


            Community 2: Mesic Mixed Hardwood/Sweet Pepperbush Forest    Deciduous Variant
                  Diagnostic features: mesic to wet-mesic sites; organic.matter on
                  soil surface tends to be thick, except on some richer soils; less
                  than 60% of tree cover coniferous; Quercus alba, Pinus taeda, Ilex
                  opaca, Acer rubrum, Nyssa sylvatica, Liriodendron tulipifera,
                  Liquidambar styraciflua, Rhododendron spp., Gaylussacia frondosa,
                  Clethra alnifolia and Magnolia virginiana typically present;
                  Smilax rotundifolia sometimes abundant; herbaceous layer is
                  usually sparse, with species such as Monotropa uniflora, Tipularia
                  discolor, Chasmanthium laxum, and Mitchella repens being
                  characteristic; richer soils support an abundance of Liriodendron
                  and herbs such as Podophyllum peltatum; Northamptom County, VA
                  occurrences frequently support Persea box-bonia.

            Community 3: Mesic Beech/Holly Forest
                  Diagnostic features: similar to no. 2, but with an abundance of
                  Fagus grandifolia and Ilex opaca; frequently occurs on steep
                  slopes, less frequently on wet-mesic flats.

            Community 4: Red Maple/Sweet Gum Swamp
                  Diagnostic features: seasonally wet sites; an early succession
                  deciduous swamp forest community dominated by Acer rubrum and
                  Liquidambar,styraciflua; additional species include Nyssa
                  Sylvatica, Quercus phellos, Q. nigra and.Pinus taeda.

            Community 5: Black Gum Swamp
                  Diagnostic features: perennially wet sites; rather mature
                  deciduous swamp community with an abundance of water tolerant
                  herbs such as Saururus cexnuus,. Osmunda cinnamomea, Anchistea
                  virginica, Cinna arundinacea, and Carex spp.; Nyssa sylvatica   is
                  dominant.


            Community 6: Cape May Lowland Forest
                  Diagnostic features: a wet-mesic flatwoods similar to no. 4 but
                  characterized by Quercus michauxii, Q. phellos, Populus
                  heterophylla, and other hardwoods.

            Community 7: Black Willow/Alder Swamp
                  Diagnostic features: a community of seasonally flooded, mucky
                  stream bottoms encountered very rarely (in VA); characterized by
                  Salix nigra and Alnus serrulata.

            Community 8: Atlantic White Cedar Swamp
                  Diagnostic features: a community of peaty, oligotrophic lowlands;


                                                   28










                  encountered very rarely (in NJ); characterized by Chamaecyparis
                  thyoides, tall ericads, and Magnolia virginiana.

            Community 9: Pine Plantation Forest
                  Diagnostic features: obviously planted; usually dominated by Pinus
                  taeda; can occur on several different Boil types.

            Community 10: Old Field Forest
                  Diagnostic features: a young, early-successional, post-agriculture
                  forest characterized by mixed pines and hardwoods, and a weedy
                  understory, e.g. with much Loncera japonica, Ailanthus altissima,
                  Toxicodendron radicans, Aralia spinosa; old fences, rusting farm
                  equipment, and junked cars can be diagnostic.

            Community 11: Old Field Scrub
                  Diagnostic features: an early successional post-agricultural shrub
                  community with plants such as Juniperus virginiana, Rhus
                  copallinum, Rrunus serotina, Tidens flavus and Andropogon
                  virginicus, Rubus spp. and Lonicera japonica.

            Community 12: Coastal Dune Woodland
                  Diagnostic features: woodlands situated near the coast and
                  influenced by salt spray; trees usually with gnarled growth forms;
                  Celtia occidentalis, Sassafras albidum, Pinus taeda (or P. rigida
                  in NJ), Juniperus virginiana, and Prunus serotina are
                  characteristic; understory usually thick with Smilax rotundifolia,
                  Toxicodend.ron radicans, Parthenocissus quinquefolia, and Nyz-ica
                  spp-

            Community.13: Salt Marsh Fringe Woodland
                  Diagnostic features: occurs primarily on the mainland as a narrow
                  fringe bordering salt marshes; characteristic trees are Pinus
                  taeda, (P. rigida in NJ), Juniperus virginiana, Magnolia
                  virginiana, Diospyros virginiana, Ilex opaca, Quercus falcata,
                  Aryssa sylvatica, Liquidambar, and Acer rubrum; frequent in the
                  scrubby understory are Baccharis halimifolia, Myrica cez-ifera,
                  Toxicodendron radicans, Panicum virgatum, Poa compressa,
                  Phz-agmites austz-alis, etc.

            Community 14: Young Pine Scrub
                  Diagnostic features: usually this community is a young pine
                  plantation occurring with a post-logging coppice Of sprout
                  hardwoods; herbs such as Eupatoriaum capillifolium and Andropz-ogon
                  virginicus usually abundant.

            Community 15: Coastal Dune Scrub
                 .Diagnostic features: typical species include Myrica pensylvancica,
                  Prunus maritima, Diospyros virginiana, Juniperus virginiana,
                  Toxicodendron radicans, Ammophila breviligulata, Rubus spp.,
                  Hudsonia tomentosa, Panicum amaz-ulum, and Opuntia humifusa.

            Community 16: Dry Oak Forest - Coniferous Variant
                  Diagnostic features: similar to no. 1, but with greater than 60%
                  of the tree cover coniferous.

            Community 17: Mesic Mixed Hardwoods/Sweet Pepperbush Forest - Coniferous
            Variant
                  Diangnostic features: similar to no.'2, but with greater than 60%
                  of tree cover coniferous.






                                                  29












                 Bird abundance, species richness, and frequency distribution by state for 17 vegetation community
                 types.
                 Community Type       Mean' Bird     Mean Species                 Frequency Distribution by State'
                                      Abundance         Richness
                                                                        Delaware       Maryland       New Jersey       Virginia

                 1 (n = 1631)        2.58  + 7.68     1.51   +1.93          32              8               37            23

                 2 (n = 2964)        2.58  + 5.15     1.58   +1.90          27             37               9             27
                 3* (n    178)       4.04  + 6.41     1.96   +2.13          29              0               0             71

                 4 (n    644)        2.63  + 8.50     1.32   +1.83          3              14               52            31
                 5* (n    233)       3.79 +  10.56    1.32   +1.73          0               0               0             100
                 6* (n    22)        0.86 + 1.88      0.68   +0.99          0               0             100              0
                 7* (n    23)        4.00 +  4.06     2.61   +2.19          0               0               0             100

                 8

                 9 (n    411)        3.28  + 6.37     1.59   +1.61          0              67               0             33

                 10 (n    1817)      3.67  + 8.38     1.61   +1.87          26              6               5             62

                 11 (n    653)       3.72  + 7.64     1.98   +2.02          0              10               90             0
                 12* (n    24)       6.42  + 6.89     3.04   +2.27          100             0               0              0

                 13 (n    656)       3.40  + 6.10     1.78   +1.84          18             67               is             0

                 14 (n    636)       2.09  + 4.33     1.16   +1.38          0              12               12            76

                 15 (n    580)       7.18  + 20.12    2.10   +1.89          4              48       1       44             4

                 16 (n  = 383)       2.8-8-+ 5.86     1.49   +1.75          46             15               0             39

                 17 (n  = 633)       2.05 +  3.28  1  1.24   ï¿½1.65          19             58               0             23
               'Mean + standard deviation
              2percent of community in each state
               Note low sample size and highly skewed        distribution




                                                                            30












            APPENDIX D.


            ANNOTATED RESOURCE LIST



            1. Neotropical Migratory Bird Facts

                    Neotropical.-migrants are those species that breed in North
                  American and winter in the tropical and sub-tropical Americas.
                  They include some of our most beautiful breedin birds:
                  hummingbirds, warblers, swallows, nighthawks, orioles, tanagers,
                  flycatchers, vireos, thrushes, sparrows, and cuckoos.

                    190-200 species of North American breeding birds are considered
                  neotropical migrants- (This is greater than one half of all bird
                  species breeding in North America and accounts for 65-80% of all
                  individual birds in the eastern U.S.)

                  * During the non-breeding season (our winter), neotropical
                  migrants constitute more than one half of all individual birds in
                  parts of Mexico, Cuba, Jamaica, and Hispaniola. They comprise 20-
                  40% of the birds in the tropical forests of Guatamala and Belize.

                    The breedin range for the majority of neotropical migrants
                  consists of over 15 million square miles while the primary
                  wintering grounds are only 2.3 million square miles.

                    The average life span of neotropical migratory songbirds (that
                  survive the firs critical year) is five years.

                    An average warbler pair removes caterpillars from more than a
                  million leaves during the nesting season, reducing the caterpillar
                  numbers by as much as one half. Swallows and Purple Martins feed
                  mosquitoes to their voracious families.

                    A migratory songbird can double its mass in preparation for its
                  fall migration. The fat acquired can be burned off with the
                  estimated fuel efficiency of 720,000 miles/gallon.

                  * A Blackpoll Warbler can fly from New England to Venezuela in 60-
                  80 hours. (A human running six-minute miles for the same amount
                  of time would only make it from Maine to Virginia.) Most
                  migrants, however, take a leisurely 4-8 weeks for their trip south
                  with different peaks of movement for different species.

                    Migratory songbirds lead versatile lives. Some species, such as
                  Eastern Kingbirds and White-eyed Vireos rely heavily on fruit for
                  thier winter diet, a significant change from their otherwise
                  insectivorous ways. White-eyed Vireos are largely responsible for
                  the dispersal of seeds from the Chacah tree (Bursera simaruba) in
                  Mexico. Tennessee Warblers and orioles join the ranks of
                  important tropical pollinators. The ecology, behavior, and
                  population biology of these birds during migration is very poorly
                  documented.

                  * Although some species of neotropical migrants join flocks in the
                  winter, many are territorial throughout the year, even during
                  their migratory movements. Thus every individual bird has
                  specific spatial requirements.

                  * In the states of VA, MD, DE, and NJ population declines of   47-
                  74% for neotropical migrant species were observed during the


                                                   31










                  period 1978-1987 (based on analyses of Breeding Bird Survey data).
                  Some speices have declined in abundance by As much as 16% per year
                  between 1978 and 1987. At a long-term study site near Washingt'on,
                  D.C., 65-80% of all birds were neotropical migrants in 1940.
                  Today the number is closer to 20 percent. In that area, Red-eyed
                  Vireos have declined by more than 60% and Hooded Warblers have
                  disappeared.
                  * Tropical forests, winter home of most neotropical migrants, are
                  being lost at an estimated 1-3% a year. In some countries this
                  rate is greatly accelerated. In North America, the fragmentation
                  of our forests exposes neotropical migrants to an abundance of
                  predators that thrive in the human altered landscape. These
                  include raccoons, blue jays, grackles, dogs, cats, and the
                  insidious nest parasite, the Brown-headed Cowbird.

                    Hundreds of thousands of Americans enjoy birding as a hobby.
                  Studies have shown that the economic value of birds can be
                  substantial in some communities. An estimated $5.5 million/year
                  is spent by birders in Cape May, NJ, and about $1.7 million
                  U.S./year at Point Pelee, Ontario.


            2. Comprehensive Plan: Northampton County, Virginia

                  While striving for a balance between resource conservation and
                  sustainable economic growth, Northampton County has recognized
                  that there is a potential for conservation to feed economic
                  growth. The first planning goal and objective listed in this 1990
                  comprehensive plan is to: "Conserve the County's Natural
                  Resources." In outlining the "natural conditions" of the county,
                  the comp plan specifically addresses the importance of migratory
                  birds in a proactive voice.

                        Northampton County has one of the great ecological and
                        biological phenomena of the entire east coast of the
                        United States. A peculiarity of geography has caused
                        semi-annual pile-ups of some millions of birds
                        (passerines) in the lower section of the County. Here
                        they pause for rest, cover, and forage in trees and
                        scrub growth along the edge of the Chesapeake Bay...
                        Loss of natural habitat will cause serious declines in
                        the number of birds, and of course eventual
                        elimination. Suitable land use planning and
                        management can preserve this valuable and unique
                        natural asset which if handled correctly can be of
                        great benefit not only to the migrating birds but to
                        the County as a scientific and educational entity.
                        Economic returns would also accrue from the influx of
                        interested scientists and those who enjoy ornithology
                        as an avocation.



            3. Borough of Cape May Point Ordinance No. 291-90

                  This ordinance requires that a Landscaping and Vegetation Plan be
                  submitted the zoning officer for approval if a permit is being
                  sought to increase existing lot coverage by more than 15 %; to
                  construct or convert apartment buildings; or in cases where land
                  use will disrupt or remove more than 50 % of the existing
                  vegetation in less than a five year period. The ordinance
                  provides specific guidelines for retaining trees and replanting if


                                                   32










                  trees are removed. Replanting guidelines are based on the
                  pamphlet: "Backyard Habitat for Birds: A Guide for Landowners and
                  Communities in New Jersey" by P. Sutton, Cape May Bird
                  Observatory/New Jersey Audubon Society. 1989.


              4. The Economics of Birding at Cape May, New Jersey. Kerlinger, P. and D.
            Wiedner. in

                  Kerlinger and Wiedner present a study of the economic value of
                  birding in the Cape May Peninsula. The results of their surveys
                  indicate that an excess of $5.5 million enters the local economy
                  directly from birders. This 'estimate does not include any
                  multipliers. The authors use this information to argue that there
                  is an economic benefit in,maintaining open land and a clean
                  environment.



            5. Nearctic Avian Migrants in the Neatropics. Rappole, J.H., E.S. Morton, T.E.
            Lovejoy, III, and J.L. Ruos. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife
            Service. July 1983.

                  This reference document provides the most thorough bibliography of
                  literature on n6otropical migrants, despite the fact that it is
                  somewhat out-of-date.



            6. "Birds over troubled forests." Greenberg, R. Smithsonian Migratory Bird
            Center. Smithsonian Inst. Press. 1990.

                  The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center has created this and other
                  educational materials for a lay audience. Not only do these
                  pamphlets provide a clear and interesting description of migrants
                  and their conservation problems,,they offer recommendations for
                  actions easily undertaken by citizens and local governments.






























                                                  33









            Table 1. Comparison of bird abundance and species richness
            between near-coast and inland sites.


                                          Near-coast          Inland
                                           (n = 5858)       (n = 4126)      SLa

            Mean Total Birds/Survey       3.13 +  8.62      2.61 + 8.62
            Mean Species Richness         1.58 +  1.87      1. 45*+1.79
            Red-eyed Vireo                0.28 +  0.87      0.87 + 0.87

            Black-and-white Warbler       0.24 +  0.75      0.21 + 0.81

            Pine Warbler                  0.13 +  0.73      0.09 + 0.4 9

            American Redstart             0.28 +  0.93      0.31 + 1.04

            Yellow-rumped Warbler         0.81 +  7.04      0.50 + 3.53
            Gray Catbird                  0.11 +  0.57      0.06 + 0.39
            Ruby-crowned Kinglet          0.09 +  0.61      0.05 + 0.37

            SL = statistical significance level, based      on ANOVA.
               P < 0.05,     P < 0.01.

































                                              34










               Table 2.      comparison of bird abundance and species richness between bayside,
               Pceanside, and interior sites.


                                                        Bayside               Seaside               Interior
                                                      (n = 5273)             (n - 4711)             (n    720)         SLa

               Mean Total Birds/Survey               3.29   + 8.56          2..49 +   6.71        2.30   +  7..44
               Mean Species Richness                 1.72   + 1.99          1.31 +    1.64        1.54   +  1.8.6
               Red-eyed Vireo                        0.29   + 0.89          0.27.+    0.85        0.13   +  0'.61
               Black-and-white Warbler               0.28   + 0.88          0.17  +   0.63        0.12   +  0.56

               Pine Warbler                          0.12   + 0.57          0.11  +   0.71        0.19   +  0.66

               American Redstart                     0.37   + 1.17          0.20  +   0.70        0.25   +  0.79

               Yellow-rumped Warbler                 0.66   + 6.53          0.71  +   4.99        0.26   +  1.60
               Gray Catbird                          0.11   + 0.54          0.08. +   0.47        0.06   +  0.27
               Ruby-crowned Kinglet                  0.12   + 0.67          0.03  +   0.26        0.10   +  0.46-

              a SL     statistical significance level, based on ANOVA.                       P <  0.05,
                      P < 0.01.



















                                                                           35










             Table 3. Regional comparison of bird abundance and species richness between
             sites that were 0-10 km (0-6.2 miles), 10-30 km (6.2-18.6 miles), and 30-50 km
             (18.6-31.1 miles) from the tips of the Delmarva and Cape May peninsulas.


                                              0-10 km           10-30 km          30-50 km
                                             (n = 617)         (n = 1442)        (n = 3391)       SLa

             Mean Total Birds/Survey        3.29 + 8.56       2.49  + 6.71       2.30 + 7.44
             Mean Species Richness          1-.72+ 1.99       1.31  + 1.64       1.54 + 1.86
             'Red-eyed Vireo                0.17 + 0.56       0.29  + 0.92       0.19 + 0.70
             Black-and-white Warbler        0.26 + 0.80       0.22  + 0.80       0.20 + 0.77

             Pine Warbler                   0.63 + 0.48       0.06  + 0.36       0.15 + 0.79

             American Redstart              0.34 + 1.14       0.35  + 1.04       0.24 + 0.88

             Yellow-rumped Warbler          1.58 + 16.88      1.03  + 6.21       0.83 + 5.09
             Gray Catbird                   0.15 + 0.62       0.15  + 0.73       0.07 + 0.41
             Ruby-crowned Kinglet           0.06 + 0.51       0.03  + 0.21       0.04 + 0  .31

             SL    statistical significance level, based on ANOVA.          P <  0.05,
                  P < 0.01.

















                                                             36










             Table 4. Comparison by state of bird abundance and species richness between
             sites that were 0-10 km (0-6.2 miles), 10-30 km (6.2-18.6 miles), and 30-50 km
             (18.6-31.1 miles) from the tips of the Delmarva and Cape May peninsulas.


                                                               Cape May
                                                               Peninsula


                                             0-10 km           10-30 km           30-50 km
                                             (n = 617)         (n = 1442)        (n   3391)      SLa
             Mean Total Birds/Survey
             Mean Species Richness         to be added
             ,Red-eyed Vireo               0.13  + 0.54       0.10 + 0.53       0.03 +  0.19
             Black-and-white Warbler       0'. 18+ 0.70       0.07 + 0.50       0.11 +  0.62
             Pine Warbler                  0.05  + 0.53       0.02 + 0.28       0.18 +  1.35
             American Redstart             0.22  + 0.97       0.14 + 0.58       0.14 +  0.61
             Yellow-rumped Warbler         1.99  + 22.08      1.07 + 5.70       1.05 +  4.56
             Okay Catbird                  0.27  + 0.80       0.29 -121 1.02    0.23 +  0.78
             Ruby-crowned Kinglet          0.10  + 0.68-      0.02 + 1.93       0.06 +  0.35









                                                             37













                                                                  Delmarva
                                                                  Peninsula


                                               (n   280)          (n = 736)          (n    2706)

             Mean Total Birds/Survey
             Mean Species Richness           to be added
             Red-eyed Vireo                  0.21  + 0.59        0.47 +  1.16       0.24  + 0.77
             Black-and-white Warbler         0.35  + 0.89        0.36 +  0.99       0.22  + 0.81

             Pine Warbler                    0.08  + 0.42        0.08 +  0.41       0.14  + 0.57

             American Redstart               0.48  + 1.30        0.55 +  1.31       0.26  + 0.94

             Yellow-rumped Warbler           1.08  + 6.47        1.00 +  6.66       0.77  + 5.21
             Gray Catbird                    0.01  + 0.19        0.02 +  0.41       0.03  + 0.22
             Ruby-crowned Kinglet             0.01 + 0.51        0.03 +  0.21       0.04  + 0.31

              SL- statistical significance level, based on ANOVA.               P < 0.05,
                   P < 0.01.





















                                                                38









             Table 5. Comparison of bird abundance and species richness between
             barrier islands and the adjacent coastal mainland.


                                              Barrier Islands         Mainland Coast
                                                (n =  939)               (n    2717)       SLa

             Mean Total Birds/Survey            6.16  + 9,46            2.75  + 7.34
             Mean Species Richness              2.15  + 1.92            1.41  + 1.74
             Red-eyed Vireo                     0.23  + 1.35            0.21  + 0.65
             Black-and-white Warbler            0.15  + 0.59            0.17  + 0.64
             Pine Warbler                       0.12  + 0.56            0.10  + 0.78

             American Redstart                  0.33  + 0.97            0.25  + 0.88

             Yellow-rumped Warbler              3.34  + 8.99            0.71  + 4.71
             Gray Cat bird                      0.55  + 1.07            0.11  + 0.59
             Ruby-crowned Kinglet               0.07  + 0.43            0.04  + 0.29

            a SL = statistical significance     level,  based on   ANOVA.
                  P < 0.05,       P < 0.01.
















                                                               39










            Table 6. Comparison of species abundance among four general habitat types.


                                           Coniferous      Deciduous         Mixed           Scrub-
                                             Forest          Forest          Forest          shrub
                                           (n = 838)       (n = 3194)      (n = 5023)      (n = 1357)     SLR

            Mean Total Birds/Survey        2.82 + 5.66     2.76 + 6.38 2.82    +  6.94   3.61 + 13.26


            Mean Species Richness         1.50  + 1.74    1.61  + 1.95    1.45 +  1.79    1.73 +  1.88
            Red-eyed Vireo                0.22  + 0.62    0.36  + 1.00    0.30 +  0.98    0.06 +  0.37
            Black-And-white Warbler       0.27  + 0.85    0.22  + 0.72    0.27 +  0.89    0.08 +  0.60

            Pine Warbler                  0.04  + 1.34    0.07  + 0.71    0.17 +  0.65    0.07 +  0.51

            American Redstart             0.27  + 0.94    0.36  + 1.15    0.33 +  1.04    1.12 +  0.73

            Yellow-rumped Warbler         0.60  + 2.62    0.49  + 4.05    0.65 +  4.60    1.82 +  13.01
            Gray Catbird                  0.10  + 0.41    0.08  + 0.44    0.05 +  0.32    0.31 +  0.96
            Ruby-crowned Kinglet          0.07  + 0.28    0.07  + 0.45    0.06 +  0.45    0.07 +  0.43

             SL    statistical significance level, based on     ANOVA.      P < 0.05,
                  P < 0.01.

















                                                            40






                                                      FIGURE 1


                       SAMPLING AREA FOR NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY SONGBIRD
                       COASTAL CORRIDOR STUDY

                         PENNYSLVANIA



                                                                                NEW JERSEY

              MARYLAND


                              BALTINDRE


                                                                           D
                                                                            E
                                                                              L
                                                                               A
                                                                                w
                 WASHINGTON D-C-                                                 A
                                                                                   R
                                                                                    E



                                                                                       A
                                                                                        y


                                                                   DELAWARE










                                              C
                                               H
                                               1E
                                                S
         VIRGINIA                               A
                                                 P
                                                 E
                                                  A
                                                  K
                                                   E
       RICHUDND                                    B
                                                    A
                                                    y














                                                                  Map by: Virginia Department of Conservalion & Recreation
                                                                         Division of Natural Heritage





                                          FIGURE 2



             COAS               INLA          AND INTERIOR SITES
                            I FO           STATE REGION

                                                    New Jersey
                0                       0 0
                                        0 rb D E
                                               L
                                                 A               C?
                                                 WA           @ 0
                                                   R
                                              Cr
                                               CY      AT
                                                00 13
                                                0

                                                    0 00
                                                   0





                                                      0
                                     Delaware         00
                                                       ab

                    Maryland





                                                Ch


                  H
                  E        0                                        Legend

                  A                   a                         Elcoastal site
                   P   434           -%6
                   E                 0                          0 Iniand s it e
                   A                 00                           Interior site
                    K                 a
                    E

                                     0

                                  9

                                  0
                     A         V 13


                                  41C,






                          0



                                     map by: Virginia Department of Conservat ion & Recreation
                                             Division of Natural Herita:ge





                                       FIGURE 3


       DISTRIBU                   AB AT TYPES OVER STUDY REGION


                                        Q0C,           New Jersey      Jif
                                             D
                                              E
                                                L
                                                A
                                                 W
                                                  A
                                                   R
                                            ci      E

                                              0         A
                                                         y
                                                  01
                                            &


                                                   A0




               A)

                                     Delaware


                   Maryland




                                                                 Legend

                 C
                 H      N@                                 El Coniferous forest
                                                             Deciduous forest
                  A                                        A Mixed forest

                  P
                                                           0 Scrub
                   E
                   A
                   K                  a

                    E


                                 9
                                r


                              V

                     A
                     y








                                  Map by: Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation
                                          Division of Natural Heritage





                                  FIGURE 4



       DISTRIB I            HA    TAT TYPES OVER STUDY REGION
                      A     L/I      ND/INTERIOR SITES


                                            Now Jersey
          E7                           E       610      1
                                       L         0 a tO
                                        A           b
                                          W
                                          A
                                           R
                                            E    I 00p

                                      0
                                             Ay

                                          El
                                          *13







                                             0
                                Delaware     m
                Maryland                                Legend

               &                         -0cp     Coastal Sites

                                        (b..          Coniferous forest
                                                      Deciduous forest
              H
              E   V&q                              E) Mixed forest
               S                                   El Scrub
               A
               P,                                 Inland Sites
               E
                                                   1.71 Deciduous forest
               A
                K                                  0 Mixed forest
                E              a.                  0  Scrub
                             n 0                  Interior Sites
                            g.                     <> Coniferous forest
                                                      Deciduous forest
                         V0                        <> Mixed forest
                  A         4aa                    <:> Scrub
                  y     R%  a






                              hkp by; Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation
                                    Division of Natural Heritage






                                                                                  FIGURE 5







                                                           Ten Most Abundant Species
                                                        Percent of all birds recorded Fall 1991


                                               Amerlcan Redstart                                                    Yellow-rumped Warbler
                                                              11%                                                       30%






                                                          ...........
                                Red-eyed Vireo
                                                        .................
                                              1
                                               Q%
                                               0%      ....
                                                            .. ........
                                                      ............
                                                             ..........
                                                                    ........ . ....
                                                      ........... I......................
                                                      ..................... . . .. .......
                                                      ......I ......I......................
                                                      .. ........ .......       ... .......
                                                      ............  ......







                            BJack--and-White
                                   Warbler 8%


                                                                                       &M
                                                                                                                                Other
                                  Pine Warbler 4%
                                                                                                                              24%
                                           Gray Catbird 4%
                                       Ruby-crowned Kinglet 3%                3%
                                                 Black-throated-blue                 2%       2%
                                                                    Northern Oriole              White-eyed Vireo







                                                                                  FIGURE 6




 Aft.




                             Comparison of Migrant Abundance and Species Richness
                                                   Between Near-coast and Inland Sites

                                     A   3.6-
                                     v
                                     0      a-                     I............. ..................  .................................I............  ...............................................................
                                     r

                                     9   2,6   . .... ..                      ............................ ................... ................................  ............................................................
                                     e
                                     c      2  . .....           +/-0.13
                                     0
                                     U
                                     n   1.6   . .....                         .............................................. ..................... ............... ............
                                     t
                                     S      1                                 ....................        ........... ....................  /-0.03
                                     U
                                     r
                                     v   0. 5 -                                      ................................. .............. .............
                                     e
                                     Y      0
                                               Mean Abundance                                                            Mean Richness


                                                                         Near-coast sites                      '.Inland sites
                                     P( &.05
                              **P( 0.01







                                              FIGURE 7






                               Bayside, Seaside, and Interior Sites:
                                       Mean Migrant Abundance

                          4-

                     m



                     n



                     b  2.5-
                     I
                     r
                     d    2-


                     S  1-5--
                     U
                     r
                     v
                     E)
                     Y 0.'5 -


                         0-
                           Bayside                  Seaside                    Interior

                     p< 0.01







                                                  FIGURE 8



9


                              Bayside, Seaside, and Interior Sites:
                                      Average Species Richness


                       m  2
                       e
                       a
                       n

                       #  1.5-

                       8
                       P     I
                       e
                       C
                       1  1  -
                       e
                       s


                       s
                       u 0.5-
                       r
                       V
                       0
 0                     y   0-                         m         20--
                               eayside                   Seaside                    Interior


                    P< 0.01



























 0







                                                                                           FIGURE 9




 IN


                                     Comparison of Barrier Island and Adjacent Mainland Sites:
                                                  Mean Migrant Abundance and Species Richness

                                                  7-
                                         M   6.5   . .......... .............. .................... ..................................... ........... .................. ........... ....................  ..............
                                                                                   .................. ...I.........................-................I.................... .................... --  .................................

                                             5.5   . .... ..                       ............ .......................... .................. ................... ..................... ................
                                         n
                                                  5. . ........                    ...            ...................  ................ ................... ......................................  ..................
                                         C   4.5   . . .... ...                    ........... ................................. ................................ .............................................................
                                         0                                            ......................... ............. .............. ........... ..................  .............. ......................
                                         u
                                         n   3.5                                   .................................................... .............................  ............................................................................
                                         t        3. ......                        ............... ................ ..............................  .............
                                         s   2.5-                                             ............................................. ........  ...............I............................
                                         U        2. .......                                           ........  .................         .......       ....................
                                         r
                                                                                                                                           ....... . ...... ...............
                                         v   1.5-                                     +     0. 14
                                         0        1                                                                                           +/-0.03
                                         y   0.5-                                                      ...... ...............  ...                              .........
                                                  0__
                                                                 Mean Abundance                                              Mean Richness


                                                                                   island sites                                       sites



                                          P< 0.01






                                             FIGURE 10




ANIL

,qw



                    Cumulative Species Richness for Four Habitat Types


                       70-/


                       60-

                    T
                    0
                    t  50-


                       40-


                    P
                    e  30-



                       20






                         0-
                       Coniferous        Deciduous            Mixed              Scrub







                                                    FIGURE 11









                             Cumulative species richness:
                               Vegetation communities


                           60



                           50-


                       T
                       0
                       t   40
                       a
                       I

                       3   30
                       P
                       e
                       9
                       1   20
                       e


                           10



                             0
                           1 2 3 4 6 6 7 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17
                                 Vegetation Community







                                     FIGURE 12







                      En Route Habitat Associations for Some
              Migratory Bird Species with Reported Population Declines


                  100%-


                 P
                 0
                 r
                 0 75% -
                 e
                 n
                 t                                           Scrub
                 0                                           Mixed
                 f 50%-                                      Deciduous
                 s
                 i                                           Coniferous
                 9
                 h
                 t 25%-
                 i
                 n
                 9
                 s

                    0%
                     AMRE   OVEN   COYE* RBGR   NOOR         p< 0.05
                                                             P<






                                    FIGURE 13







                       En Route Habitat Associations for Some
               Migratory Bird Species with Reported Population Declines


                   100%-


                P
                e
                r
                c  75% -
                e
                n
                t                                           Scrub
                0                                           mixed
                f  50%-                                     Deciduous
                s
                i                                           Coniferous
                9
                h
                t  25%-
                i
                n
                9
                s    0%-
                       VEER WOTH WHVI      NOPA 6TGW         P( 0.05
                                                             P( 0.01





























                                            DATE DUE





































                                          3 6668 14107 7166