DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating the Effects of Mechanical and Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF MECHANICAL AND MANUAL REMOVAL OF Ammophila arenaria WITHIN COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Biological Sciences ____________ by Ayla Joy Mills Spring 2015 EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF MECHANICAL AND MANUAL REMOVAL OF Ammophila arenaria WITHIN COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY A Thesis by Ayla Joy Mills Spring 2015 APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH: _________________________________ Eun K. Park, Ph.D. APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Kristina Schierenbeck, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator _________________________________ Colleen Hatfield, Ph.D. ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Adrienne Edwards, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair Kristina Schierenbeck. She has given me great advice and assistance throughout the process. I would also like to thank my knowledgeable committee members Colleen Hatfield and Adrienne Edwards. A special thanks to Amber Transou and California State Park’s North Coast Redwood District for providing me with guidance, funding, equipment, and for making this project possible. I’d like to thank my wonderful husband Jason who helped me set up my plots and collect data, even when it was cold and raining. I couldn’t have done it without you. I would like to thank my Mom who helped me financially and emotionally make it through graduate school. I would also like to thank my best friend Krystal Godfrey for always being there to listen to me vent and also for helping collect data. Nancy Carter deserves a big thanks for helping me statistically analyze my data and for being a great teacher. The Chico State Associated Students Sustainability Fund provided me with funding for the materials required for setting up and monitoring my experimental plots. I would also like to thank my friends, and Chico State Alumni, Tony Vertolli and Aurelia Gonzalez for helping me collect data. I would also like to thank the California Native Plant Society’s Mt. Lassen Chapter and the Chico State Biology Department for funding trips to present my research at the Centennial Celebration of the California Botanical Society and the CNPS Conservation Conference. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... iii List of Tables.............................................................................................................. vi List of Figures............................................................................................................. viii Abstract....................................................................................................................... x CHAPTER I. Introduction.............................................................................................. 1 II. Literature Review..................................................................................... 7 The State of the Coast................................................................... 7 California Coastal Dunes.............................................................. 8 Geology ........................................................................................ 8 Climate ......................................................................................... 9 Soils .............................................................................................. 10 Dune Plant Adaptations................................................................ 10 Dune Morphology ........................................................................ 11 Common Dune Mat Plant Species of Northern California........... 13 Study Species................................................................................ 15 III. Methods.................................................................................................... 19 Study Area.................................................................................... 19 Project Plan................................................................................... 20 Removal........................................................................................ 20 Monitoring.................................................................................... 22 Time Comparison Monitoring...................................................... 25 Statistical Analysis ....................................................................... 26 iv CHAPTER PAGE IV. Results...................................................................................................... 28 A. arenaria before Treatment and Within the Control Sites ........ 28 Analysis of the Treatment Method of A. arenaria ....................... 29 Analysis of the Monitoring Time Intervals for A. arenaria ......... 30 Analysis of the Interaction Between Treatment and Monitoring Time Interval for A. arenaria ............................ 32 Analysis of the Treatment for Native Plant Recovery After A. arenaria Removal ................................................... 33 Analysis of the Monitoring Time Intervals for Native Plant Recovery After A. arenaria Removal.......................... 33 Analysis of the Interaction Between Treatment and Monitoring Time Interval for Native Plants ......................... 34 Analysis of the Treatment and Time Interval for Other Non-native Plants After A. arenaria Removal...................... 34 Analysis of the Interaction Between Treatment and Monitoring Time Interval for Other Non-native Plants........ 36 Analysis of the Time Comparison Sites ....................................... 37 V. Discussion................................................................................................. 44 VI. Conclusions.............................................................................................. 53 Literature Cited........................................................................................................... 55 Appendices A. Plant Species List for Gold Bluffs Beach................................................. 64 B. Plant Species List for Little River and Clam Beach................................. 67 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Dates of Initial Mechanical Removal and Manual Removal of A. arenaria at Gold Bluffs Beach .................................................. 22 2. Modified Braun-Blanquet Cover Scale Used to Estimate Percent Cover Values for Vegetation Within Quadrats ..................... 24 3. Project Timeline Including Vegetation Monitoring Dates at Time Zero (Before Initial Removal of A. arenaria Occurred), 3 Months Post-Removal, 6 Months Post-Removal, and 12 Months Post-Removal Occurred at Gold Bluffs Beach ................ 24 4. Time frame in which monitoring and removal of A. arenaria occurred at the time comparison sites ................................................ 25 5. Mean Cover Class Values (± SD) for A. arenaria and Tukey Pairwise Comparisons of Treatment and Monitoring Time Interval Interactions .................................................................. 29 6. Mean Cover Class Values (± SD) for A. arenaria and Tukey Pairwise Comparisons of Treatment Method (Mechanical, Hand, and Control) Averaged over All the Time Frames .................. 31 7. Mean Cover Class Values (± SD) for A. arenaria and Tukey Pairwise Comparisons of Monitoring Time Interval (Time Zero, 3 Months, 6 Months, and 12 Months Post-Removal) When Averaged over All the Treatments........................................... 32 8. Mean Cover Class Values (± SD) for Native Plants and Tukey Pairwise Comparisons of Monitoring Time Interval (Time Zero, 3 Months, 6 Months, and 12 Months Post-Removal) When Averaged over All the Treatments........................................... 33 9. Mean Cover Class Values (± SD) for Native Plants and Tukey Pairwise Comparisons of Treatment and Monitoring Time Interval Interactions............................................................................ 35 vi TABLE PAGE 10. Mean Cover Class Values (± SD) for Other Non-Native Plants and Tukey Pairwise Comparisons of Treatment and Monitoring Time Interval Interactions ....................................... 38 11. Mean Cover Class Values (± SD) and Tukey Pairwise Comparisons for A. arenaria regrowth and Native Plant Recovery at the Time Comparison Sites ............................................ 40 vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Map of Gold Bluffs Beach Divided into Blocks 1-7 ................................ 21 2. Experimental Design Used to Examine Treatment Effects ...................... 23 3. Interaction Plot for A. arenaria Removal Showing Differences Between the Hand Treatment (in Red), Mechanical Treatment (in Green), and the Control Treatment (in Blue) Across Time Intervals (Time Zero, 3 Months After Removal, 6 Months After Removal, and 12 Months After Removal) at Gold Bluffs Beach............................................................................... 30 4. Interaction Between Treatments (Hand (H), Mechanical (M), and Control(C)) and Monitoring Time Interval (Time Zero, 3 Months After Removal, 6 Months After Removal, and 12 Months After Removal) of A. arenaria at Gold Bluffs Beach ........... 31 5. Interaction Plot for Native
Recommended publications
  • RESTORATION ACTION PLAN MARINA DUNES PRESERVE Marina, California

    RESTORATION ACTION PLAN MARINA DUNES PRESERVE Marina, California

    RESTORATION ACTION PLAN MARINA DUNES PRESERVE Marina, California Prepared for: Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District 4860 Carmel Valley Road Carmel, CA 93923 Prepared by: Burleson Consulting Inc. 1900 Garden Road, Suite 210 Monterey, CA 93940 March 2021 This page intentionally left blank Restoration Action Plan, Marina Dunes Preserve CONTENTS CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................................i APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... iii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2. UPDATED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .............................................................................. 3 2.1 Weed Eradication and Control .....................................................................................................
  • Types of American Grasses

    Types of American Grasses

    z LIBRARY OF Si AS-HITCHCOCK AND AGNES'CHASE 4: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM oL TiiC. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE United States National Herbarium Volume XII, Part 3 TXE&3 OF AMERICAN GRASSES . / A STUDY OF THE AMERICAN SPECIES OF GRASSES DESCRIBED BY LINNAEUS, GRONOVIUS, SLOANE, SWARTZ, AND MICHAUX By A. S. HITCHCOCK z rit erV ^-C?^ 1 " WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1908 BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Issued June 18, 1908 ii PREFACE The accompanying paper, by Prof. A. S. Hitchcock, Systematic Agrostologist of the United States Department of Agriculture, u entitled Types of American grasses: a study of the American species of grasses described by Linnaeus, Gronovius, Sloane, Swartz, and Michaux," is an important contribution to our knowledge of American grasses. It is regarded as of fundamental importance in the critical sys- tematic investigation of any group of plants that the identity of the species described by earlier authors be determined with certainty. Often this identification can be made only by examining the type specimen, the original description being inconclusive. Under the American code of botanical nomenclature, which has been followed by the author of this paper, "the nomenclatorial t}rpe of a species or subspecies is the specimen to which the describer originally applied the name in publication." The procedure indicated by the American code, namely, to appeal to the type specimen when the original description is insufficient to identify the species, has been much misunderstood by European botanists. It has been taken to mean, in the case of the Linnsean herbarium, for example, that a specimen in that herbarium bearing the same name as a species described by Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum must be taken as the type of that species regardless of all other considerations.
  • Heathland 700 the Park & Poor's Allotment Species List

    Heathland 700 the Park & Poor's Allotment Species List

    The Park & Poor's Allotment Bioblitz 25th - 26th July 2015 Common Name Scientific Name [if known] Site recorded Fungus Xylaria polymorpha Dead Man's Fingers Both Amanita excelsa var. excelsa Grey Spotted Amanita Poor's Allotment Panaeolus sp. Poor's Allotment Phallus impudicus var. impudicus Stinkhorn The Park Mosses Sphagnum denticulatum Cow-horn Bog-moss Both Sphagnum fimbriatum Fringed Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum papillosum Papillose Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum squarrosum Spiky Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum palustre Blunt-leaved Bog-moss Poor's Allotment Atrichum undulatum Common Smoothcap Both Polytrichum commune Common Haircap The Park Polytrichum formosum Bank Haircap Both Polytrichum juniperinum Juniper Haircap The Park Tetraphis pellucida Pellucid Four-tooth Moss The Park Schistidium crassipilum Thickpoint Grimmia Poor's Allotment Fissidens taxifolius Common Pocket-moss The Park Ceratodon purpureus Redshank The Park Dicranoweisia cirrata Common Pincushion Both Dicranella heteromalla Silky Forklet-moss Both Dicranella varia Variable Forklet-moss The Park Dicranum scoparium Broom Fork-moss Both Campylopus flexuosus Rusty Swan-neck Moss Poor's Allotment Campylopus introflexus Heath Star Moss Both Campylopus pyriformis Dwarf Swan-neck Moss The Park Bryoerythrophyllum Red Beard-moss Poor's Allotment Barbula convoluta Lesser Bird's-claw Beard-moss The Park Didymodon fallax Fallacious Beard-moss The Park Didymodon insulanus Cylindric Beard-moss Poor's Allotment Zygodon conoideus Lesser Yoke-moss The Park Zygodon viridissimus Green Yoke-moss
  • Coastal Dunes

    Coastal Dunes

    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEL MONTE FOREST COASTAL DUNES DEL MONTE FOREST PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: Pebble Beach Company Post Office Box 1767 Pebble Beach, California 93953-1767 Contact: Mark Stilwell (831) 625-8497 Prepared by: Zander Associates 150 Ford Way, Suite 101 Novato, California 94945 Contact: Michael Zander July 2001 Zander Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures and Plates 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................1 2.0 Overview of Dunes within the DMF Planning Area...................................................2 2.1 Remnant Dunes .......................................................................................................2 2.2 Rehabilitation Area..................................................................................................4 2.3 ESHA Boundary......................................................................................................6 3.0 Relationship to the DMF Plan .....................................................................................8 3.1 Preserve Areas (Area L and Signal Hill Dune) .......................................................8 3.2 Development Areas (New Golf Course and Facilities—Areas M & N).................8 3.2.1 General Design Considerations .......................................................................8 3.2.2 Golf Course Specific Design...........................................................................9 3.2.3 Golf
  • Jason Giessow Testimony

    Jason Giessow Testimony

    Raszka Shelley From: Gallagher Chuck Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:50 AM To: Raszka Shelley Subject: FW: testimony on HB 2183 Attachments: Cal-IPCNews_Winter2015.pdf From: Jason Giessow [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:49 AM To: Gallagher Chuck Subject: testimony on HB 2183 Hi Chuck- I was the primary author on this Impact Assessment for CA. It is posted at this web site: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/research/arundo/index.php Basically- no one should be growing Arundo, it is destroying riverine systems in CA and Texas. There are entire conferences about how to control Arundo and tamarisk (the Deadly Duo). In the report is a CBA for coastal watersheds in CA and estimates $380 million dollars in damage . It destroys habitat- but also severely impacts flooding, fire, and water (the impact report has a chapter on each). That is why folks from both sides of the isle work on eradicating this plant. Planting it for commercial use is exceedingly dangerous, should be banned, or bonded at very high levels. CA has spent about $100 million dollars dealing with Arundo and its impacts (mostly state bond funds dealing with water: conservation, conveyance, and improvement). New state funding (Proposition 1) for water conservation and river conveyance will likely increase state funding for Arundo control to over $200 million dollars. Don’t let Oregon follow this trajectory. This recent article (attached- page 10) on the Salinas River Arundo program is one example of the impacts caused by Arundo, the complicated regulatory approval required to work on the issue, the high cost of the program, and most important- the farmers and landowners who pay the price for the impacts caused by Arundo (flooding, less water, fire, etc….).
  • Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information

    Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information

    APPENDIX C Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information Appendix C1 Resource Agency Coordination Appendix C2 Marine Biological Resources Report APPENDIX C1 RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION 1 The ICF terrestrial biological team coordinated with relevant resource agencies to discuss 2 sensitive biological resources expected within the terrestrial biological study area (BSA). 3 A summary of agency communications and site visits is provided below. 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On July 30, 2020, ICF held a conference 5 call with Greg O’Connell (Environmental Scientist) and Corianna Flannery (Environmental 6 Scientist) to discuss Project design and potential biological concerns regarding the 7 Eureka Subsea Fiber Optic Cables Project (Project). Mr. O’Connell discussed the 8 importance of considering the western bumble bee. Ms. Flannery discussed the 9 importance of the hard ocean floor substrate and asked how the cable would be secured 10 to the ocean floor to reduce or eliminate scour. The western bumble bee has been 11 evaluated in the Biological Resources section of the main document, and direct and 12 indirect impacts are avoided. The Project Description describes in detail how the cable 13 would be installed on the ocean floor, the importance of the hard bottom substrate, and 14 the need for avoidance. 15 Consultation Outcomes: 16 • The Project was designed to avoid hard bottom substrate, and RTI Infrastructure 17 (RTI) conducted surveys of the ocean floor to ensure that proper routing of the 18 cable would occur. 19 • Ms. Flannery will be copied on all communications with the National Marine 20 Fisheries Service 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On August 7, 2020, ICF held a conference 22 call with Greg O’Connell to discuss a site assessment and survey approach for the 23 western bumble bee.
  • Recovery Strategy for Multi-Species at Risk in Vernal Pools and Other Ephemeral Wet Areas Associated with Garry Oak Ecosystems in Canada

    Recovery Strategy for Multi-Species at Risk in Vernal Pools and Other Ephemeral Wet Areas Associated with Garry Oak Ecosystems in Canada

    Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Recovery Strategy for Multi-Species at Risk in Vernal Pools and other Ephemeral Wet Areas Associated with Garry Oak Ecosystems in Canada Bog birds-foot trefoil Tall woolly-heads (Pacific population) Water plantain buttercup Kellogg’s rush Rosy owl clover Dwarf sandwort July 2006 About the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003 and one of its purposes is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.” What is recovery? In the context of species at risk conservation, recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of the species’ persistence in the wild. A species will be considered recovered when its long-term persistence in the wild has been secured. What is a recovery strategy? A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. It sets goals and objectives and identifies the main areas of activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning is done at the action plan stage. Recovery strategy development is a commitment of all provinces and territories and of three federal agencies — Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada — under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.
  • Biological Resources Report City of Fort Bragg Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade

    Biological Resources Report City of Fort Bragg Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade

    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 West Cypress Street (APN 008-020-07) Fort Bragg Mendocino County, California prepared by: William Maslach [email protected] August 2016 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 WEST CYPRESS STREET (APN 008-020-07) FORT BRAGG MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Scott Perkins Associate Planner City of Fort Bragg 416 North Franklin Street Fort Bragg, California PREPARED BY: William Maslach 32915 Nameless Lane Fort Bragg, California (707) 732-3287 [email protected] Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Location & Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Site Directions ..............................................................................................................................
  • Y-17-008 Coastal Dune Ecology.Pdf

    Y-17-008 Coastal Dune Ecology.Pdf

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Reuben Gabriel Biel for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Zoology presented on September 12, 2017. Title: Coastal Dune Ecology, Geomorphology, and Ecosystem Services: How Invasive Beachgrasses, their Interactions, and Sediment Dynamics Shape U.S. Pacific Northwest Dunes Abstract approved: ________________________________________________________________________ Sally D. Hacker Biological invasions and climate change represent two preeminent threats to ecological communities and biodiversity, altering the distribution and abundance of species, disrupting existing species interactions and forming unprecedented ones, and creating novel ecological communities. Many of the most successful invasive species are also ecosystem engineers, species that physically modify the abiotic state of the ecosystem, and consequently have broad impacts on community structure, ecosystem processes, and ecosystem services. As ecosystems face dual hazards from biological invasions and climate change, it is imperative to understand what factors influence invasion success, how invasive species alter physical and biological processes, and how a changing climate alters the course of invasion. In this dissertation, I investigate the interactions of two invasive, dune-forming beachgrasses within the U.S Pacific Northwest coastal dune ecosystem and their influence on dune geomorphology and ecosystem services. Two species of non-native beachgrasses, Ammophila arenaria (L.) Link and A. breviligulata (Fernald), were intentionally introduced to the Pacific Northwest in the early 20th century for the purpose of sand stabilization. Since their introductions, they have displaced numerous endemic plants and animals, and facilitated the formation of tall, stable, and well-vegetated shore- parallel dune ridges throughout the region. However, the two Ammophila species differ in their distributions and their impacts on dunes: biogeographically, A.
  • Ammophila Poster

    Ammophila Poster

    Genetic Structure of Natural and Restored Populations of Ammophila breviligulata By Eileen Sirkin, Susanne Masi, and Jeremie Fant. Ammophila breviligulata at Ammophila breviligulata from Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe IL, 60022 Illinois Beach State Park Michigan side of the lake Dune Restorations: Importance of Beachgrass Chicago Lakefront Collection Area Illinois Beach State Park Distribution of Clones in Illinois Beachgrass samples were collected at: American Beachgrass, Ammophila breviligulata, is one of the first Illinois Beach State Park (natural) A comparison of the distribution of individual clones showed that plants to colonize sandy shores beyond the water’s edge. It functions Kathy Osterman Beach (natural) many of the spontaneous beaches shared clones, suggesting that to create and stabilize the beach and dune system, because of its Montrose Beach (natural/augmented) these had spread throughout the region. The nursery stock was tolerance of unstable beachfront conditions and ability to spread South Shore Beach (restored) comprised of a single clone, which was also identified on two of the utilizing underground rhizomes. The importance of Beachgrass for Questions Rainbow Beach (natural) planted beaches, suggesting that this supplier might have been the creating and stabilizing dunes has been recognized since at least 1958 source of the planted material. This clone was also found in many (Olson, 1958). In our own Lake Michigan shoreline study area, This genetic analysis focused on answering of the spontaneous populations, suggesting it is of local origin Beachgrass has been introduced at several Chicago lakefront sites, as two questions. First, what is the natural (assuming it was not introduced by planting). South Shore, a well as in surrounding areas.
  • Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California

    Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California

    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 4-2019 Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California" (2019). Botanical Studies. 41. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/41 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Compiled by James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California Ninth Edition • August 2019 Amaryllidaceae — Onion or Amaryllis Family F E R N S Allium unifolium •One-leaved onion Dennstaedtiaceae — Bracken Fern Family Anacardiaceae — Cashew Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens • Bracken fern Toxicodendron diversilobum • Poison-oak Ophioglossaceae — Adder’s-tongue Family Apocynaceae — Dogbane or Milkweed Family Botrychium multifidum • Leathery
  • Botolph's Bridge, Hythe Redoubt, Hythe Ranges West And

    Botolph's Bridge, Hythe Redoubt, Hythe Ranges West And

    Folkestone and Hythe Birds Tetrad Guide: TR13 G (Botolph’s Bridge, Hythe Redoubt, Hythe Ranges West, and Nickolls Quarry) The tetrad TR13 G contains a number of major local hotspots, with Nickolls Quarry, the Botolph’s Bridge area and part of Hythe Ranges located within its boundaries. As a consequence the tetrad has the richest diversity of breeding birds in the local area, with 71 species having a status of at least possible in the latest BTO Atlas survey. It also had the highest total of species (125) in the winter Atlas survey. Sadly a major housing development is now in progress at the Nickolls Quarry site and much of the best habitat is now being disturbed or lost. Nickolls Quarry has been watched since the late 1940s, though early coverage was patchy, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. As a working quarry the site has undergone significant changes during this time, expanding from two small pits to a much larger area of open water, some of which has since been backfilled. During 2001 to 2004 a series of shallow pools were created which proved particularly attractive to waders. Nickolls Quarry in 1952 Nickolls Quarry in 1998 Looking roughly northwards across the 'old pit' Looking south-west across the site towards the Hythe Roughs towards Dungeness Although a major housing development is underway on the site it still contains some interesting habitats. The lake is easily the largest area of open water in the local area and so remains one of the best areas for wildfowl, particularly during cold weather, for example in December 2010 when there were peak counts of 170 Wigeon, 107 Coot, 104 Pochard, 100 Teal, 53 Tufted Duck, 34 Gadwall, 18 Mute Swan, 12 Pintail, 10 Bewick’s Swan, 8 Shoveler, singles of Goldeneye and Goosander, and 300 White-fronted Geese flew over.