L. Data Availability

Data Availability for Core Parameters and 17 Priority Sentinels

Data Availability for Core Parameters

A group of core parameters have been identified that are physical and chemical factors typically measured in most monitoring programs, either by multiple groups or by one group but over a large geographic area. The technical work groups recommended that these parameters be removed from the list of candidate sentinels, with the idea that they would be included in a pilot study. The work group believed that since these core parameters are currently measured in many locations in the Sound, a pilot study should be able to leverage existing data/monitoring programs to acquire these data in complement to the new sentinels proposed. These core parameters are: precipitation, stream flow (runoff and baseflow), sea level, temperature, salinity, wind (speed and direction), relative humidity, pH, and groundwater levels. While pH is considered a “core parameter,” it is not well characterized in LIS and has only recently been added to the LIS Water Quality Monitoring program. pH is recognized to be a critical parameter in ocean acidification.

Existing data that could potentially be assessed for climate-related trends in the core parameters

Core parameters: precipitation, stream flow (runoff & baseflow), sea level, water temperature, salinity, wind (speed & direction), relative humidity, pH, groundwater levels

1. Meteorological data (wind speed/direction, precipitation, relative humidity)
   1. Sources: Bridgeport/Port Jeff ferry since 2003; Cornell Cooperative Extension; NOAA; Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor; LISICOS buoys; National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (NOAA/NOS); LISICOS (UConn).
   2. Suggested assessment: trends and interannual variability, Specific humidity can be calculated from other available meteorological data.
   3. Recommendations: maintain current monitoring.
2. Water column physical parameters (sea level, temperature, salinity)
   1. Sources: USGS monitoring at 4 north shore estuary sites (sea level, temperature, salinity, turbidity); CTDEP monitoring monthly at 18 stations in LIS (temp, salinity, turbidity), LISICOS buoys (temp, salinity, turbidity); ferry monitoring (temp, salinity); Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (NOAA/NOS); Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor (through water column); Friends of the Bay; Interstate Environmental Commission; NOAA remote sensing
   2. Suggested assessment: trends and interannual variability. General trends could be extrapolated to surrounding areas of similar characteristics.
   3. Recommendations: Maintain current monitoring.
3. Water column pH
   1. Sources: USGS (Flax Pond);The Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor (CSHH) has measured pH in Hempstead Harbor since 1992, for the months of May through October.); FOB (pH), IEC
   2. Suggested assessment:
4. Changes in groundwater elevation: Amount, timing and duration of precipitation effects ground-water-level elevations. Most recharge on Long Island occurs during the Winter months (non-growing season) when evapotranspiration is minimal. If changing climatic patterns result in more precipitation during the growing season, it may not have a noticeable effect on ground water levels; however, if precipitation amounts increase during the colder months, increased recharge would be expected. A caveat to this is the duration of the precipitation events. Typically, heavy downpours result in greater amounts of direct run-off (and therefore less recharge) when compared with less intense, slower and more frequent events. Accordingly, there is much uncertainty in the extent to which climate change will result in increased recharge from precipitation.
   1. Sources: USGS monitoring at wells; maintain current monitoring
   2. Suggested assessment: trends and interannual variability. Compare data collected by meteorological stations (i.e. NOAA) and hydrogeologic data from USGS to study correlation
   3. Recommendations: Maintain current monitoring.
5. Run-off/River flow changes
   1. Sources: USGS gauges at every major freshwater source along LIS measuring mean flow (USGS supplied a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel of all their current monitoring stations in CT river basins as well as precipitation and groundwater networks.)
   2. Suggested assessment: trends and interannual variability.
   3. Recommendations: Maintain current monitoring; pursue East River monitoring.

Data Availability for 17 Priority Sentinels:

1. Changes in diadromous fish run timing
   1. Sources:
      • In Connecticut, Steve Gephard (CTDEP) sends out weekly updates on fishway counts from April through the end of June. These include 11 fishways along the CT River (including dams in MA and VT; four are in CT) with numbers for 9 species. The updates also include 16 fishways in other parts of Connecticut with numbers for 8 species. Data sets variable in length; for shad/alewife/salmon in CT River data goes back to 1960s/70s but for many fishways only back to early 2000s.
      • Seatuck and NYSDEC have just started an alewife survey on the north shore of Long Island;
      • NYSDEC diadromous unit reports approximately 20 years of data documenting when and where bass were caught during the survey as well as physical data (air temperature, water temperature, DO, and salinity, as well as meter transects in each bay).
      • Cooperative Angler database has years of information on recreational catch data (DEC has access to this; http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7899.html).
   2. Group Discussion:
      • Currently the data set is almost entirely in Connecticut. We are going to investigate available data sets in NY. If NY turns out to have a lot of data, then we can add it to shortlist.
      • Decision for inclusions in priority list of sentinels for pilot study: No (for now)
        
        
2. Distribution, abundance and species composition of marsh birds, colonial nesting birds, shorebirds, waterfowl
   1. Sources:
      • CT DEP and NYSDEC have limited data (Migratory Bird Data Center - collecting Atlantic flyway data, 1991 to present) http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?Q=472822&A=4013 and https://migbirdapps.fws.gov/mbdc/databases/afsos/aboutafsos.html
      • From C. Elphick (UConn): detailed data for saltmarsh and seaside sparrows, general data on other species that frequent salt marshes during the summer. Data for some sites dates back to 2002 - BUT, sites have not been visited annually - some visiting in one year, others in the next. Collectively they span ~ 16- locations spread across ~ 40 marshes. These sites also have vegetation sampling. There are other published data sets from earlier years too (Benoit and Askins, Shriver et al). Also, Elphick and colleagues recently received a grant to survey tidal marsh bird populations from Virginia to Maine using a standardized protocol. This project is seen as a pilot for a national program for monitoring tidal marsh birds, and thus will be coordinated with USFWS, USGS, state agencies, various refuges, NPS, etc. If breeding bird species are to be part of the monitoring it would make sense to tie in with this national program.
      • International Shorebird Survey (data sets extend back to 1974) http://www.shorebirdworld.org/template.php?c=11&g=5[RR1]
      • eBird (http://ebird.org/ebird/eBirdReports?cmd=Start)
      • Christmas Bird Count. http://birds.audubon.org/historical-results Results searchable by species and by state and go back to 1900;
      • Long-term avian surveys at Connecticut College Arboretum (Bob Askins)
      • Colonial Nesting Birds - surveys began in 1972 by David Duffy; continued every 3 years until 1977. CT DEP Surveys continued, beginning in 1980 and 1983 - maybe 1986 but then CT DEP Wildlife hired their first non-game expert. CT DEP OLISP created a GIS for colonial seabirds circa 1995 and gave it to Wildlife (hardcopy files only).
      • In CT: Avian Summit work group headed by Min Huang (CTDEP) coordinating regionally and in-state; good potential point of contact if we move forward with this sentinel.
      • NYSDEC monitors for Terns, Skimmers and Plovers every year. Gulls, Herons, Egrets and other breeding colonial waterbirds every three years. Some of these data are used in the LISS environmental indicators program.
   1. Group Discussion
      • There appears to be a lot of local interest in this candidate sentinel
      • There is data from a variety of groups working on this, for both states
      • Potential connections between birds and some of the bird habitat that has also been proposed as sentinels
      • Decision: Yes
        
        
3. Distribution, composition and abundance of terrestrial invasive species
   1. Sources:
      • New York Invasive Plant Council (www.ipcnys.org); data availability not clear
      • Connecticut Invasive Plant Council (http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/ctcouncil/CT_invasive.htm); data availability not clear
      • IPANE - Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/ ) This database does not include New York. Not clear how far back the records extends;
      • Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station (http://www.ct.gov/caes/site/default.asp ) aquatic invasive species surveys started in 2002; no description of terrestrial invasive surveys on their site.
   2. Group Discussion
      • As of right now, there seems to be less data available for this sentinel than others.
      • If more data sets are uncovered as we move forward with the data citation clearinghouse, this could be a good opportunity for future assessment work.
      • Decision: No
        
        
4. Finfish biomass, species composition and abundance
   1. Sources:
      • LIS Trawl Survey: 1984-present, 200 stratified random samples chosen annually from 310 stations in LIS plus directly sampling in WLIS. Abundance information on 99 species. Annual reports can be downloaded here: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2696&q=322718
      • Penny Howell (CTDEP) and Peter Auster UConn) have submitted a paper analyzing changes in species composition since 1984; Howell reports that there are other publications that present analyses of Trawl Survey Data.
      • CTDEP and NYSDEC striped bass surveys (http://longislandsoundstudy.net/2010/07/striped-bass/);
      • NYSDEC striped bass young-of-the-year survey in western Long Island Bays which include Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, Oyster Bay and Hempstead Harbor from the north shore. This survey is used by ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council) as part of a collective data set of population and recruitment status info that is used in stock management decisions. Survey has been going on for nearly 30 years (though not all those years cover all these bays; sampling locations changed).
      • Fishway data from CT as described in #1
      • Alewife survey beginning in NY as described in #1
   2. Group Discussion
      • This sentinel has been the topic of recent analysis
      • Could be good place to fund tool development
      • Decision: Yes
        
        
5. Lobster abundance (based on fishery-independent measurements)
   1. Sources:
      • NYSDEC has some data on lobster health (from 1977 - NYSDEC];
      • Other data available on calcinosis, parameobiasis and heat shock protein. Based upon recent info forthcoming from the American lobster shell disease research, there is a consensus that elevated temperature do have a role in this disease (not linear relationship). Perhaps monitoring the continued southern spread of this epidemic would be a worthy candidate, too.
      • Penny Howell (CTDEP) has extensive data from the commercial lobster fishery in the Sound; these data include length frequencies of legal (harvestable) and sublegal sizes; sex ratios; percentages of egg-bearing females; percentages of shell disease, etc. These data are used in assessment of the local population as well as contributing to assessment of the SNE stock. Howell also has NY data.
      • NYSDEC Crustacean Unit staff, with the aid of a contracted commercial fisherman, deployed and sampled NYSDEC lobster traps at 16 sites per week in WLIS from June through November. Survey protocols were changed in this final year of the project to match the standardized lobster trap survey funded by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The sites were located in WLIS from the NY side to the CT side and from Stony Brook to the Throgs Neck Bridge. The purpose of this survey is to monitor lobster populations and determine how populations respond to environmental variables. Funding for this work was provided by Federal Disaster Relief funding through NOAA for the lobster die-off in the late 1990s. 2009 was the final year of the study, not sure how far back it goes.
      • Ending in 2009, NYSDEC and Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) staff with the aid of contracted fishermen sampled NYSDEC ventless lobster traps at 24 sites throughout the entire LIS twice a month from July through September. This was part of a greater fisheries-independent, standardized survey, funded by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which occurs along the coast from Maine to New York. This project began in NY in 2006 and is strictly a population monitoring and assessment survey which does not take into account environmental factors.
   2. Group Discussion
      • Data available is Sound-wide and lengthy data set available from trawl survey
      • Wording of sentinel may be subject to change, based on information noted by Penny Howell on value of information from the commercial fishery, also we may want to incorporate the concept of ecological niche
      • Decision: Yes
        
        
6. Phytoplankton biomass, species composition and timing of blooms
   1. Sources:
      • IEC Water Quality Monitoring; Chla, 2002-present, far western Sound, twice monthly in summer, data is on Storet;
      • SeaWiFS satellite data for chlorophyll http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/ launched 1997; also Satellite Chlorophyll data - http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/chloro.html some of this may be accessible through NERACOOS/MACOORA) Global goal is to incorporate into models - NERACOOS has yet to do this.
      • HPLC-based phytoplankton abundance and composition: 2002 - present; 10 stations monthly
      • Microscopy-based phytoplankton abundance and composition: 2001-2003, 2007 - 10 stations monthly in LIS
      • CTSG working with NOAA on Volunteer Phytoplankton Monitoring Network for LIS (P. VanPatten CTSG)
      • Ferry monitoring - Chlorophyll a eight times per day on a transect between New London/Orient Point http://www.po.gso.uri.edu/~codiga/foster/main.htm 2004-06 (D. Codiga URI). Based on the website it appears that the BP/PJ ferry does not have a chlorophyll sensor. (http://www.stonybrook.edu/soundscience/main.html)
      • Include the chlorophyll on buoys as well as those on ferries. Both would require intercalibration with the ship obs. (Jim O’Donnell UConn)
      • CTDA/BA have been and are currently monitoring phytoplankton - The DA/BA examines plankton tows and shellfish meats as necessary to evaluate the potential for marine biotoxins that can be formed by certain types of phytoplankton.
      • Riley data (at Yale?). Riley collection of articles was acquired by R.Rozsa (CTDEP-retired) and scanned by Ralph Lewis (CTDEP-retired) http://www.lisrc.uconn.edu/lisrc/bingham.asp.
      • Yarish and Capriulo - Capriulo, G.M., Smith, G., Wikfors, G., Yarish, C., Troy, R., Richards, S., Pettet, J., and Welsh, B.. 1996. Alteration of the planktonic food web of Long Island Sound due to eutrophication. Hartford, CT: Connecticut. Department of Environmental Protection. Office of Long Island Sound Programs. Final Report submitted to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT, under Grant Number CWF 315-R, 185 p. Full record/report at LISRC. Also published in Hydrobiologia, vol 475-476, pages 262-333, DOI: 10.1023/A:1020387325081.
   2. Group Discussion
      • A wide variety of data is available Sound-wide, from multiple sources. Some historical data is available and monitoring is ongoing.
      • Decision: Yes
        
        
7. Species composition within coastal forests, shrublands and grasslands
   1. Sources:
      • Flower bloom timing historical information may be available from horticultural societies (Bronx) (e.g. the Horticultural Society of New York http://thehort.org although specific data availability not clear from their website) and arboretums [RR2] (CCE http://cce.cornell.edu/Ag/Pages/default.aspx but data availability not clear); Andy Senesac (Suffolk County weed scientist)); perhaps the NY Flora Association http://www.nyflora.org/
      • LI Botanical Society; http://libotanical.org/
      • Tom O’Dell (Town of Westbrook) collecting data on coastal forest spp before and after treatment for invasive plant species
      • JBarrett (CT Sea Grant) doing same in coastal forest in Fenwick with permanent transects
      • Avalonia Land Conservancy (southeastern CT; coastal shrubland data) http://www.avalonialandconservancy.org/
      • Connecticut Arboretum long term surveys (G. Dreyer - ConnCollege)
      • Ken Metzler (CTDEP - retired) surveys at Bluff Point - Old Growth Natural Area at Bluff Point may be a place to establish/extend long-term monitoring.
      • Tom Siccama (Yale) - had online a series of photostations starting with the George Nichols collection in the 1910’s
      • Plant community mapping by Ron Rozsa at West Rock Ridge - 1976 - digital copy available
      • J. Barrett (CT Sea Grant) - Futures Fund grant 2011 to include descriptions of CT Coastal Forests
   2. Group Discussion
   • We need to follow up with some of these contacts to determine actual data availability
   • We need to work on the description of the sentinel, as it currently includes phenology in addition to composition.
   • Decision: Yes (given caveats listed above)
     
     
8. Areal extent and distribution of eelgrass
   1. Sources:
      • LISS-funded USFWS surveys 2002, 2006, 2009;
      • 1915 survey at Inner Cold Spring Harbor - gives critical insight as to depth of distribution in western LIS with high tidal range http://www.cteco.uconn.edu/metadata/dep/document/eelgrass_beds_historic_points_FGDC_Plus.htm
      • 1993-95 survey by Yarish and report is available on the LIS Resource Center website http://www.lisrc.uconn.edu/eelgrass/index.html
      • Vaudrey and Kremer work; reports posted on the LIS Resource Center website http://www.lisrc.uconn.edu/eelgrass/index.html
      • Restoration efforts coordinated by CCE [RR3] http://counties.cce.cornell.edu/suffolk/habitat_restoration/seagrassli/restoration/current_projects.html While tracking restoration may not be appropriate here, it is important to note that this may increase acreage.
      • Millstone Environmental Lab has a great current and historic record of eelgrass in the Niantic Area (2002-2003 data set on LIS Resource Center website; Lab Director/point of contact at Millstone is Don Landers)
      • CT DEP OLISP has a report on historic distribution of eelgrass in LIS. Much of the same data are available in GIS format from Yarish et al. (both are available on the LISRC website). R. Rozsa (CT DEP - retired) still has a few historic data points to add. Rozsa has digital copies of all of the historic surveys – 1930’s and 1940’s.
      • From Jamie Vaudrey (UConn): Fred Short (Univ of New Hampshire) is heading up a TNC funded project examining genetic diversity in eelgrass throughout New England. Jamie Vaudrey is CT collaborator and Chris Pickerell (Cornell Coop Ext) is the NY collaborator. While not distribution and areal extent, this project should yield information on eelgrass status.
   2. Group Discussion
   • These data sets, while extending back in time further than many of the other sentinels, appear to be less complete than some of the other sentinels. They are patchier in time; there are some data from the late 1800s/early 1900s and more recent, but not the continuous data sets that we see for some of the other sentinels.
   • Decision: No
     
     
9. Areal extent, diversity and composition of brackish marshes
   1. Sources:
      • From Ron Rozsa (CT DEP - retired): CT marshes mapped from aerial photography (CTDEP OLISP); - need to use a consistent definition – none of the polygon data affix labels such as salt marsh complex (where polyhaline marshes are dominant versus oligo/mesohaline modifiers).
      • Miller (1948) – plant community maps for impounded marshes at Barn Island – Imp IV was entirely brackish meadow; upper limits of Imp I were brackish; Upper limits of Imp V were brackish.
      • Community vegetation mapping at Ragged Rock Creek – Barrett N. (NRCS) http://web2.uconn.edu/seagrant/publications/coastalres/raggedrock.pdf[RR4]
      • From C.Elphick (UConn) - data on broad cover types for some brackish marshes with GPS locations (CT marshes)
      • NBarrett (NRCS) Master’s thesis (UConn) documented extent, diversity and composition of brackish marshes along the CT River;
      • CTDEP has done areal extent mapping: Nels Barrett (NRCS) used the 1980 (?) false color infrared aerial photography to map all of the coastal marshes using NWI classification – mylar overlays at CTDEP OLISP definitely hard copy Xerox there. [USFWS is redoing the NWI for CT although likely at lower resolution
      • CT DEP has digitized the Coast and Geodetic Charts (called T-sheets) from the 1880’s – and extracted the wetland polygons. Helpful with regard to areal extent of tidal wetlands then and now; assess marine transgression – not very helpful for differentiating between tidal wetland classes.
      • 1915 (?) Mosquito control survey of Mill River in New Haven – generated a vegetation map that was georeferenced (CTDEP OLISP (R. Rozsa CTDEP retired)
      • JBarrett (CT Sea Grant) and NBarrett (NRCS) have 4 permanent transects in brackish tidal marsh at mouth of CT River (Data collected from 2005 - 2008)
      • Mark Hoover’s Master’s thesis (UConn 2009) on classification of coastal marshes and inundation projections - should be a good baseline for current conditions and benchmark conditions to compare future changes to.
   2. Group Discussion
   • Available data is primarily from Connecticut. At the pilot level we are interested in bi-state sentinels.
   • Decision: No
     
     
10. Areal extent, diversity and composition of freshwater tidal marshes
    1. Sources:
       • RRozsa (CT DEP - retired) - see comments under brackish marshes
       • NBarrett (NRCS) Master’s thesis (UConn) documented extent, diversity and composition of freshwater tidal marshes along the CT River
    2. Group Discussion
    • Available data is primarily from Connecticut and we are lacking specifics about much of it. At the pilot level we are interested in bi-state sentinels.
    • Decision: No
      
      
11. Areal extent, diversity and composition of salt marshes
    1. Sources:
       • SET’s in CT (N.Barrett (NRCS) and S.Warren (retired - Conn College) set up SET’s in Barn Island marsh, 2003) and CT DEP had 20 SET set ups to be installed in 2005 - H. Yamalis (CTDEP OLISP) is contact person; NY SET’s not yet being monitored.
       • Aerial imagery (see #9 & 10 above);
       • USGS continuous tide-level monitoring at 4 NY embayments (3 sites from 12/07, one site from 5/09); one site with continuous QW (DO, Salinity, pH, turbidity, temp since 4/08) and two sites with temp and SC/sal, since 12/07. All sites are currently still in operation. (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/current?type=tidal ) This doesn’t cover the areal extent, diversity, and composition, however.
       • K. Cochran (Stony Brook University SoMAS)- accretion rate data (210Pb chronologies) for the following marsh locations: New York City (3 cores), Jamaica Bay (3 cores), North Shore of Long Island (7 cores), Peconic Bay system (7 cores), South Shore of LI (4 cores); pore water geochemical data for many of the above sites.
       • C. Elphick (UConn) - data on broad cover types for some salt marshes with GPS locations
       • Mark Hoover thesis (UConn) on potential marine transgression of some CT salt marshes – R. Rozsa (CT DEP - retired) has a GIS coverages comparing 1880 to 1994 wetland polygons.
       • NWI mapped CT wetlands including salt marsh in 1980’s; to be updated by Tiner (USFWS) using 2008 and 2004 imagery. http://www.fws.gov/northeast/wetlands/NWI%20Presentations%20for%20Web/Tiner_Updating%20NWI%20Data%20for%20Connecticut_for_R5-posting.pdf[RR5]
       • From Ron Rozsa (CT DEP - retired): Plant community mapping at Barn Island (various students – I have the Masters reports), Great Meadows in Stratford mapped by Nels Barrett (NRCS) circa 1988 – in digital format with metadata
       • Some permanent transects - but no compilation of theses and locations of these transects; (a few available in GIS – such as Brucker Marsh from Masters Thesis; Scott Warren (Retired Connecticut College) transects in Barn Island, Stonington,CT
       • Microrelief plots are recorded in a GIS coverage – 10 plots. Scott Warren (Retired Connecticut College) has note book. Several have been resurveyed twice. Two new plots established at Barn Island in 1997.
       • R. Tiner (USFWS) Six western LIS embayments – trend analysis using summer aerial photography from 1974 to 2004 using NWI classification. http://longislandsoundstudy.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Salt-Marsh-Trends-in-Selected-Estuaries-in-Southwestern-CT.pdf
       • From Andrew MacLachlan (USFWS): CT DEP mapped tidal wetlands in the 1990’s. This documentation includes: “This coverage shows all mapped tidal wetlands across the state of CT. The mapping has been compiled from two sources: the 1994 Ramsar Tidal Wetlands Mapping and the 1995 OLISP Tidal Wetland Mapping, both produced by CT DEP OLISP. The tidal wetland boundaries are not regulatory boundaries but should be interpreted as a guide to the location of tidal wetlands throughout the state.”
       • EPA-funded project currently under way to map marshes in LIS and Peconic Estuary of NY.
    2. Group Discussion
    • Lots of data available, from multiple sources, in both states.
    • Yes; note, combine with #12 below but for salt marshes specifically.
      
      
12. Changes in distribution and marine transgression of marshes
    1. Sources:
       • See #11 above
    2. Group Discussion
    • This is encompassed in the salt marsh sentinel #11
    • Decision: Yes but combined with #11 above for salt marshes specifically
      
      
13. Extent and distribution of barrier beaches/islands
    1. Sources:
       • Barrier beaches in NY include Port Jefferson, Mt Sinai, Long Beach, Nissequoque/Sunken Meadow,Caumsett, Target rock, Cold Spring Inner Harbor (vegetation transect in 1915 across barrier into lagoon, Mattituck, Inlet Pond, Goldsmith, etc. (R. Rozsa) but no ongoing monitoring in NY
       • CT DEP has done some mapping of barrier beaches (H. Yamalis - CTDEP OLISP)
       • Frank Bohlen’s students (UConn) have permanent (?) transects at Bushy Point Beach; USACOE surveys of the 1950’s established transects – can they be reoccupied? Masters Report for Hammo in OLISP library
       • Ron Rozsa (CT DEP - retired) digital shorelines for Morse Beach in New Haven (CTDEP OLISP)
       • Ron Rozsa (CT DEP - retired) plant community descriptions for Long Beach, Pleasure Beach, Lordship Beach (CTDEP OLISP)
       • From Ron Rozsa (CT DEP - retired): 1880 T-sheets can be used to reconstruct historic barrier beach location (has been done for a few sites like Bluff Point)
    2. Group Discussion
    • Available data is primarily from Connecticut. At the pilot level we are interested in bi-state sentinels.
    • Decision: No
      
      
14. Extent and distribution of coastal forests, shrublands and grasslands
    1. Sources:
       • Larger (50 to 100 acres) cool season grasslands in CT mapped in 2009 by UConn CLEAR - data with CTDEP Wildlife) CTDEP Wildlife has maps of large warm season grasslands (Kate Moran - CTDEP)
       • Coastal woodlands/shrublands in CT mapped by Ken Metzler (CTDEP - retired), data listed on CT ECO http://www.cteco.uconn.edu/
       • From Andrew MacLachlan (USFWS): CT forests were extensively assessed by a group including Patrick Comins (Audubon) – may have delineated coastal forests – need to ask Comins
       • Ron Rozsa (CTDEP - retired) and J. Dowhan (USFWS -retired) mapped plant communities at West Rock Ridge (1977) – available in digital format
    2. Group Discussion
    • Available data is primarily from Connecticut. At the pilot level we are interested in bi-state sentinels.
    • Decision: No
      
      
15. Extent and distribution of habitats associated with coastal embayments (e.g. fringe marsh, shorelines and tidal creeks)
    1. Sources:
       • Few have been surveyed – Alewife done by Roman Zajac (University of New Haven); Mumford Cove survey – since restoration it would be great to resurvey (these are in OLISP library/Harry/ Coves files for Alewife).
       • Mumford/Wequetequock/Quiambog Surveys by Patton et al – critical examination of sediments; reports at LIS Resource Center and published in peer review literature.
       • From Ron Rozsa (CTDEP - retired): Various grey literature reports such as Pellegrino should be at UConn Avery Point library.
    2. Group Discussion
       • Limited available data is primarily from Connecticut. At the pilot level we are interested in bi-state sentinels.
       • Decision: No
         
         
16. Extent and distribution of sea cliffs/bluff and escarpments
    1. Sources:
       • From Ron Rozsa (CTDEP - retired): Mapped as linear features in CT – part of the Coastal Resources map of 1979. (CT DEP OLISP) Most are modified by seawalls and so we devised the mapping term modified bluff and escarpment. These are still functionally bluffs.
    2. Group Discussion
    • Limited available data is primarily from Connecticut. At the pilot level we are interested in bi-state sentinels.
    • Decision: No
      
      
17. Extent and distribution of unvegetated nearshore (submerged and intertidal) habitats, e.g. mudflats, sandflats, rocky intertidal
    1. Sources:
       • T.Getchis (CTSG) working with CT shellfishers to use GIS to map beds
       • NWI – most detailed is the circa 1980’s mapping by Nels Barrett (NRCS). CT Maps housed at CTDEP
       • CT Coastal Environmental Sensitivity Index maps (2002 - Kevin O’Brian contact CTDEP OLISP)
    2. Group Discussion
       • Not enough data available relative to other sentinels
       • Decision: No