DOCSLIB.ORG

Set-Back Distances to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from Human

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Set-Back Distances to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from Human 0047502 Set-BackDistances to ProtectNesting Bird Colonies fromHuman Disturbance in Florida JAMESA. RODGERS, JR.,*AND HENRY T. SMITHtt *WildlifeResearch Laboratory,Florida Game and FreshWater Fish Commission,4005 South Main Street, Gainesville,FL 32601, U.S.A. tOfficeof EnvironmentalServices, Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard,Tallahassee, FL 32399, U.S.A. Abstract: Breeding colonial waterbirdsare particularlysusceptible to human disturbancebecause of their high-densitynesting habits. Identified detriments to reproductivesuccess include egg and nestlingmortality, nest evacuation, reduced nestling body mass and slower growth,premature fledging and modifiedadult behaviors.Fifteen species of colonial waterbirdsnesting at 17 colonies in northand centralFlorida were exposed to threedifferent human disturbance mechanisms (HDMs) in order to determinerecommended set-back(RS) distancesfor protecting these mixed-species nesting assemblages. Both intraspecificand inter- specificvariation were observedin flushingresponse distances to thesame human disturbancemechanisms. In general, colonial waterbirdsexhibited greater average flush distances in reaction to a walking approach than to approaching motorboats. Recommendedset-back distances were estimated using aformula based on A themean plus 1.6495 standard deviations of theobserved flushing distances plus 40 meters[RS = exp (|i + 1.64956 + 40)]. In general,a recommendedset-back distance of about 100 metersfor wading bird colonies and 180 metersfor mixed tern/skimmercolonies should be adequate to effectivelybuffer the sites we studied from human disturbance caused by approach of pedestrians and motor boats. We recommendfollow-up studies to testour model at otherbreeding colonies. Distancia de alejamientopara protegerde las perturbacioneshumanas a las colonias de aves nidificadorasen Florida Resumen: Las aves acuaticas que habitan en colonias durante el periodo de cria' son particularmente susceptiblesa las perturbacioneshumanas por sus habitos conducentesa una alta densidad de nidos. Los factoresque disminuyenel exito reproductivo,incluyen la mortalidad del huevo y el pichon, la evacuacion del nido, la reduccion de la masa corporal delpichon o crecimeientolento, el abandono prematurodel nido por parte de los pichones y comportamientosadultos modificados. Quince especies de colonias de aves acuaticas que nidificaronen 17 colonias del nortey centrode Florida fueron expuestas a 3 mecanismos de perturbacionhumana diferentes,a los efectosde determinardistancias de alejamiento recomendablespara protegerlas agregaciones mixtas de e'stas especies. Variaciones intra-especificase inter-especificasen las distancias de respuestafrente a los mismos mecanismos de perturbacionhumana En general, las colonias de aves acuacticasexhibieron una mayordistanciapromedio antes de volar en reaccion a la cercania depasos que al acercamiento de una embarcaci6n a motor.La distancia recomendada de alejamiento fue estimada utilizando unaf6rmul9 basada en la media ma's 1.6495 desviacionesstandard de la distancias antes de volar observada ma's 40 m [RS = exp ( + 1.64956 + 40)]. En general,una distancia de alejamiento de alrededor de 100 m para las colonias de aves zancudas y 180 m para las colonias mixtas ("tern/skimmer"),seria adecuada para amortiguar a los sitios que estudiamos de los impactos de las perturbaciones humanas causadas por la aproximacion de caminantes y embarcaciones con motor Recomendamos estudios de seguimientopara probar nuestromodelo en otras colonias de cria. .?Current address: Florida Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection, Florida Park Service,13 798 S.E. Federal Highway,Hobe Sound, FL 33455, US.A Paper submittedNovember 22, 1993; revisedmanuscript accepted March 16, 1994. 89 ConservationBiology, Pages 89-99 Volume 9, No. 1, February1995 0047503 90 Set-BackDistances for Bird Colonies Rodgers& Smith Introduction to defendon legal and biological grounds.Therefore, a multispeciesstudy was conducted to determinethe set- Human disturbancecan adverselyaffect wildlife, with back distances necessary to protect nesting colonial colonial breeding birds being particularlysusceptible wading birds and seabirdsfrom human disturbance. because of their high-densitynesting habits. Several We were interestedin determiningif individualspe- studies have shown both qualitative(Johnson & Sloan cies members of the ground nesting guild (order 1976; Ellison & Cleary 1978; Anderson& Keith 1980) Charadriiformes)and tree nestingguild (orders Pele- and quantitative(jenni 1969; Tremblay& Ellison 1979; caniformesand Ciconiiformes)would exhibit similar Parsons& Burger1982; Kaiser & Fritzell1984) human flushdistances to the same typeof human disturbance. impactson colonial waterbirds.Adverse effects include In Florida,the ground-nestingguild is representedby egg and nestlingmortality (Teal 1965; Schreiber1979; the gulls,terns, and skimmers(family Laridae), and the Jeffrey1987), prematurefledging or nest evacuation tree nestingguild is representedby wading birds (fam- (Veen 1977), and reduced body mass or slowergrowth ilies Ardeidae,Threskiornithidae, and Ciconiidae) and of nestlings(Kurry & Gochfeld 1975; Pierce & Simons otherseabirds (families Pelecanidae, Anhingidae, Phala- 1986). Adult behavior also may be altered by distur- crocoracidae). One proposed advantageof colonialityis bance, resultingin alteredforaging patterns (Skagen et its antipredatorrole (Lack 1968), and a primaryadvan- al. 1991) and otherdetrimental effects on reproduction tage of increasedvigilance is to allow the alertedbirds (Gillet et al. 1975; Tremblay& Ellison 1979; Cairns to flee (Krebs 1978). Thus, colonial nestingmay facili- 1980; Safina & Burger 1983). Responses of colonial tate group vigilance,and similar species within each waterbirdsto disturbancemay varywith habitattype, colonial nesting guild may exhibit similar flush dis- physiographyof the colony, food supply,seasonality, tances.In addition,we wanted to identifythe potential and bird species (Manuwal 1978; Ollason & Dunnet of varioustypes of humanactivities for causing wildlife 1980; Erwin 1989). Some researchers also have re- disturbance.Pedestrian and boat trafficare the most ported no significanteffects in relationto frequencyof frequentforms of human disturbance to waterbirdnest- disturbanceon breeding success (Goering & Cherry ing in Florida,especially at colonies on islands and ma- 1971) or variousdegrees of habituationto disturbances rine coastal sites. (Robert & Ralph 1975; Burger 1981a; Burger& Goch- Our primarygoal in this study,however, was to rec- feld 1981). ommend set-backdistances to prevent human distur- The increasingpopularity of outdoor recreationalac- bance of single-species and mixed-species colonies. tivitiesin recentyears has resultedin increasedhuman Herein,we develop a technique to calculate set-back disturbancesof colonial waterbirdbreeding sites. This distances around breeding-birdcolonies and recom- frequentlyhas led to increasedprotection of these sites mend this method as a general model thatmay be ap- by placing them in public ownership and concomi- plied elsewhere for bufferzones specificallydesigned tantly,restricted recreational access to land and water foreach species and location. around these breeding colonies. Conservationperson- nel are facedwith the difficulttask of effectivelybuffer- ing importantwildlife resources from disruptive human StudyArea activitiesdespite increasingdemands for access to pub- lic lands. We definea set-backdistance as a minimum Data were collected at eightwading bird and nine sea- distanceof nonintrusionby humansmeasured from the bird (collectively termed colonial waterbirds)nesting perimeterof a colony thatwill preclude disturbancesto sitesin Floridaduring the spring-summerof 1989-199 1: nestingbirds. Previous recommendationsfor set-backs Dee Dot Ranch (Duval Co.), a mixed-specieswading- around nestingcolonial waterbirdsas a strategyto alle- bird colony in a sparselytreed freshwater swamp, dom- viate disturbanceshave rangedfrom 50 to 200 meters inantnesting vegetation was cypress(Taxodium disti- fortern (Sterninae) species (Buckley & Buckley 1976; chum); Matanzas Point (St. Johns Co.), two separate Erwin 1989) and 100 to 250 metersfor wading bird tern nesting sites in natural coastal dune habitat, (Ardeidae) species (Vos et al. 1985; Erwin 1989). sparselyvegetated with sea oats (Uniola paniculata); Anderson(1988) suggested a "threshold"estimate of PortOrange (Volusia Co.), a mixed-specieswading-bird 600 metersto protecta Brown Pelican (Pelecanus oc- colony on a marinedredged-material island, dominant cidentalis) colony in Mexico. AlthoughFlorida began vegetation was black mangrove (Avicennia germi- protectingcolonial waterbirdnesting sites fromhuman nans); Oaks Mall (Alachua Co.), a mixed-specieswad- disturbancein 1976, the set-backdistances currently ing-birdcolony in a freshwaterswamp, dominant vege- used by a natural-resourcepersonnel to protect avian tationwas southernwillow (Salix caroliniana); Lake colonies in Floridaare not based on regionalempirical Yale (Lake Co.), a mixed-specieswading-bird colony in data. Most set-backdistances were derived from"best a freshwaterswamp, dominant vegetation was cypress; estimates" at the time of posting but were difficult HauloverCanal (BrevardCo.), a mixed-specieswading- ConservationBiology Volume 9, No. 1, February1995 0047504 Rodgers& Smith Set-BackDistances for Bird Colonies 91 bird colony on a coastal dredged-materialisland, vege- ridor(>5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan Conservation Seabird Pacific Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region 120 0’0"E 140 0’0"E 160 0’0"E 180 0’0" 160 0’0"W 140 0’0"W 120 0’0"W 100 0’0"W RUSSIA CANADA 0’0"N 0’0"N 50 50 WA CHINA US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region OR ID AN NV JAP CA H A 0’0"N I W 0’0"N 30 S A 30 N L I ort I Main Hawaiian Islands Commonwealth of the hwe A stern A (see inset below) Northern Mariana Islands Haw N aiian Isla D N nds S P a c i f i c Wake Atoll S ND ANA O c e a n LA RI IS Johnston Atoll MA Guam L I 0’0"N 0’0"N N 10 10 Kingman Reef E Palmyra Atoll I S 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W L Howland Island Equator A M a i n H a w a i i a n I s l a n d s Baker Island Jarvis N P H O E N I X D IN D Island Kauai S 0’0"N ONE 0’0"N I S L A N D S 22 SI 22 A PAPUA NEW Niihau Oahu GUINEA Molokai Maui 0’0"S Lanai 0’0"S 10 AMERICAN P a c i f i c 10 Kahoolawe SAMOA O c e a n Hawaii 0’0"N 0’0"N 20 FIJI 20 AUSTRALIA 0 200 Miles 0 2,000 ES - OTS/FR Miles September 2003 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W (800) 244-WILD http://www.fws.gov Information U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sterna Hirundo)
    Vol. 1931XLVIII1 j JACKSONANDALLAN, C0•/gat/• ofTer•. 17 EXPERIMENT IN THE KECOLONIZATION OF THE COMMON TERN • (STERNA HIRUNDO). BY C. F. JACKSON AND PHILIP F. ALLAN. DURINGthe summerof 1929an attemptwas made at the Marine ZoologicalLaboratory at the Islesof Shoalsto establisha colony of Terns (Sternahitundo) on North Head of AppledoreIsland. This colonization was tried because of the threatened destruction of the colonyon Londoner'sIsland. The first recordsof a colonyof thesebirds at the Shoalscome from two of the oldest inhabitants. "Uncle" Oscar Leighton, ninety-oneyears of age, recalls a colony on Duck Island where thousandsof "mackerelgulls" nestedyearly. In his boyhood the fishermenused to collectthe eggsfor food,and the men and youthsshot the adults for the feathers. This colonypersisted until 1898 when "Captain" Caswellmoved to Duck Island. As a resultof this disturbance,the colonymigrated "down the Maine Coast" and settledon variousislands. In 1922a few pairsstarted nestingon Londoner'sIsland. This new colonyincreased rapidly and duringthe summerof 1928approximately one thousandpairs were breeding on the island. The year after the establishmentof the colony,a cottagewas erectedon the'island. The cottage,however, was not occupied to any extent until the summerof 1927. At this time the island wassold and the newowner, not desiringthe presenceof the birds, set aboutto drive them from the island. The eggswere destroyed, the youngwere killed, and the adultskept in a state of constant confusion. During the summerof 1929 large numbersof eggs were broken,and numerousyoung were killed. A dog was kept rovingthe islandand nosedout and killed many of the fledglings, and a flockof hensdestroyed great numbers of eggs. Althoughthe situationwas unfortunate, the ownerwas evidently well within his rightsin destroyingthe birdson his own property.
    [Show full text]
  • Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River
    Bonneville Power Administration, USACE – Portland District, USACE – Walla Walla District, and Grant County Public Utility District Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report 1 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report This 2013 Draft Annual Report has been prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Grant County Public Utility District for the purpose of assessing project accomplishments. This report is not for citation without permission of the authors. Daniel D. Roby, Principal Investigator U.S. Geological Survey ‐ Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐737‐1955 Ken Collis, Co‐Principal Investigator Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐382‐3836 Donald Lyons, Jessica Adkins, Yasuko Suzuki, Peter Loschl, Timothy Lawes, Kirsten Bixler, Adam Peck‐Richardson, Allison Patterson, Stefanie Collar, Alexa Piggott, Helen Davis, Jen Mannas, Anna Laws, John Mulligan, Kelly Young, Pam Kostka, Nate Banet, Ethan Schniedermeyer, Amy Wilson, and Allison Mohoric Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 2 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Allen Evans, Bradley Cramer, Mike Hawbecker, Nathan Hostetter, and Aaron Turecek Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Ave. Bend, Oregon 97702 Jen Zamon NOAA Fisheries – Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • South Florida Wading Bird Report 2000
    SOUTH FLORIDA WADING BIRD REPORT Volume 6, Issue 1 Dale E. Gawlik, Editor September 2000 SYSTEM-WIDE SUMMARY the ecosystem prior to the breeding season (probably because of droughts in the SE U.S.), a very wet system at the start of At the start of the dry season, water levels throughout the the dry season (even the short hydroperiod marshes were Everglades were much higher than normal due to Hurricane inundated), and a rapid and prolonged drydown (concentrated Irene. As the dry season progressed, water levels receded prey patches moved over the entire landscape as water receded rapidly so that by June, they were close to, or slightly above, across it). But, other hypotheses are equally plausible (see normal. A heavy rain in April caused water levels to rise Frederick et al. this report). Determining causation so that key quickly, albeit temporarily, but the amount of increase differed conditions can be repeated will require both long-term among regions, as did the response by wading birds. monitoring and shorter-term experiments and modeling. The estimated number of wading bird nests in south Florida in Past differences in survey methodology and effort among 2000 was 39,480 (excluding Cattle Egrets, which are not regions are starting to be addressed. All regions of the dependent on wetlands). That represents a 40% increase over Everglades proper now have systematic aerial colony surveys. 1999, which was one of the best years in a decade. Increased However, ground counts are not universal and no surveys are nesting effort in 2000 was almost solely a function of increases done in Big Cypress National Preserve or Lake Okeechobee.
    [Show full text]
  • Seabird Curriculum Book, by the Alaska
    LEARN ABOUT SEABIRDS DEAR EDUCATOR, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes that education plays a vital role in preparing young Alaskans to make wise decisions about fish and wildlife resource issues. The Service in Alaska has developed several educational curricula including “Teach about Geese,” “Wetlands and Wildlife,” and “The Role of Fire in Alaska.” The goal of these curricula is to teach students about Alaska’s natural resource topics so they will have the information and skills necessary to make informed decisions in the future. Many species of seabirds are found in Alaska; about 86 percent of the total U.S. population of seabirds occur here. Seabirds are an important socioeconomic resource in Alaska. Seabirds are vulnerable to impacts, some caused by people and others caused by animals. The “Learn About Seabirds” teaching packet is designed to teach 4-6 grade Alaskans about Alaska’s seabird popula- tions, the worldwide significance of seabirds, and the impacts seabirds are vulnerable to. The “Learn About Seabirds” teaching packet includes: * A Teacher’s Background Story * 12 teaching activities * A Guide to Alaskan Seabirds * Zoobooks Seabirds * A full color poster - Help Protect Alaska’s Seabirds Topics that are covered in the packet include seabird identification, food webs, population dynam- ics, predator/prey relationships, adaptations of seabirds to their habitats, traditional uses by people, and potential adverse impacts to seabirds and their habitats. The interdisciplinary activities are sequenced so that important concepts build upon one another. Training workshops can be arranged in your region to introduce these materials to teachers and other community members.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Penguin Colonies in the Antarctic Using Remote Sensing Data Final Report
    TEXTE 30 /2017 Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data Final Report TEXTE 30/2017 Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety Project No. (FKZ) 3713 12 101 Report No. (UBA-FB) 002498/ENG Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data by Osama Mustafa, Jan Esefeld, Hannes Grämer, Jakob Maercker, Marie-Charlott Rümmler, Martin Senf, Christian Pfeifer ThINK - Thuringian Institute for Sustainability and Climate Protection, Jena Hans-Ulrich Peter Polar & Bird Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena On behalf of the German Environment Agency Imprint Publisher: Umweltbundesamt Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau Tel: +49 340-2103-0 Fax: +49 340-2103-2285 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt Study performed by: ThINK - Thuringian Institute for Sustainability and Climate Protection Leutragraben 1 07743 Jena Germany Study completed in: March 2017 Edited by: Section II 2.8 Protection of the Arctic and Antarctic Fritz Hertel Publication as pdf: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen ISSN 1862-4804 Dessau-Roßlau, May 2017 The Project underlying this report was supported with funding from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety under project number FKZ 3713 12 101. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s). Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data Abstract In the context of the already observed population changes at specific time intervals and the shift in penguin breeding sites because of global warming and the fluctuations in availability of food, full-scale monitoring of Antarctic penguins seems reasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • FRAMEWORK for a CIRCUMPOLAR ARCTIC SEABIRD MONITORING NETWORK Caffs CIRCUMPOLAR SEABIRD GROUP Acknowledgements I
    Supporting Publication to the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program CAFF CBMP Report No. 15 September 2008 FRAMEWORK FOR A CIRCUMPOLAR ARCTIC SEABIRD MONITORING NETWORK CAFFs CIRCUMPOLAR SEABIRD GROUP Acknowledgements i CAFF Designated Agencies: t Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada t Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, Finland t Ministry of the Environment and Nature, Greenland Homerule, Greenland (Kingdom of Denmark) t Faroese Museum of Natural History, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands (Kingdom of Denmark) t Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Reykjavik, Iceland t Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim, Norway t Russian Federation Ministry of Natural Resources, Moscow, Russia t Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden t United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska This publication should be cited as: Aevar Petersen, David Irons, Tycho Anker-Nilssen, Yuri Ar- tukhin, Robert Barrett, David Boertmann, Carsten Egevang, Maria V. Gavrilo, Grant Gilchrist, Martti Hario, Mark Mallory, Anders Mosbech, Bergur Olsen, Henrik Osterblom, Greg Robertson, and Hall- vard Strøm (2008): Framework for a Circumpolar Arctic Seabird Monitoring Network. CAFF CBMP Report No.15 . CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. Cover photo: Recording Arctic Tern growth parameters at Kitsissunnguit West Greenland 2004. Photo by Carsten Egevang/ARC-PIC.COM. For more information please contact: CAFF International Secretariat Borgir, Nordurslod 600 Akureyri, Iceland Phone: +354 462-3350 Fax: +354 462-3390 Email: ca"@ca".is Internet: http://www.ca".is ___ CAFF Designated Area Editor: Aevar Petersen Design & Layout: Tom Barry Institutional Logos CAFFs Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program: Framework for a Circumpolar Arctic Seabird Monitoring Network Aevar Petersen, David Irons, Tycho Anker-Nilssen, Yuri Artukhin, Robert Barrett, David Boertmann, Carsten Egevang, Maria V.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Harbor Islands Volunteer Waterbird Monitoring Carol Trocki’S Field Notes, Week of August 3, 2009
    Boston Harbor Islands Volunteer Waterbird Monitoring Carol Trocki’s Field Notes, week of August 3, 2009 Summary from Thursday, August 6: We had our last day on Thursday, August 6, 2009. (so this is the last you’ll hear from me for a while because I’ll be busy entering and analyzing data and preparing this year’s Field Season Summary!) We started our day with a visit to the platform off of Spinnaker Island in Hull, where we had observed an estimated 130 adult Common Terns flushing from the colony on June 10th. Given our timing (approximately 2 months later), it was not really surprising to find no terns remaining in the area, though I expected to see some adults and young still hanging about. It is impossible to know if this is an indication of colony success (everyone is grown and gone on time) or colony failure (somebody came by and ate up all the babies, so why stick around?). Not knowing is of course frustrating, but we do what we can. For the purposes of the Massachusetts Tern Census, we reported an estimate of 104 Common Tern nests on the platform off Spinnaker (130 flushed adults X 0.80 estimated nests per adult flushing). Although we didn’t see any Common Terns, we did find a number of Laughing Gulls, impersonating Common Terns, on a boat in Hull Harbor – a sure sign that August has arrived and the breeding season has ended. My main purpose for scheduling a post season trip was to visit the wading bird colony on Sarah Island in Hingham Harbor.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Summary Type: Comprehensive Nearshore Habitat
    http://oregon.marinemap.org/analysis/nsh/print_report/17/all Report Summary Type: Comprehensive Nearshore Habitat: OPAC Cascade Head MR Area for Further Consideration ID #: 17 Geographic Setting Adjacent County Nearest Ports Nearest Incorporated Cities Nearest Rocky Shore Areas TILLAMOOK Pacific City (7.0 mi) Lincoln City (0.2 mi) Road's End Headland (0.0 mi) LINCOLN Siletz Bay (7.4 mi) Depoe Bay (12.6 mi) Harts Cove (0.0 mi) Depoe Bay (13.7 mi) Siletz (19.8 mi) South Cascade Head (0.0 mi) General Site Characteristics Area Perimeter Intertidal Islands Percent of Territorial Sea 23.73 (sq_mi) 24.42 (mi) Yes Yes 1.89 % Intertidal Physical Characteristics Length of Intertidal Percent of Oregon Coast Number of Total Island Shoreline Types & Proportions Shoreline Shoreline Islands Area 1 of 6 09/15/2010 9:09 AM http://oregon.marinemap.org/analysis/nsh/print_report/17/all Intertidal Physical Characteristics Length of Intertidal Percent of Oregon Coast Number of Total Island Shoreline Types & Proportions Shoreline Shoreline Islands Area 66% Exposed Rocky Shores (4.43 mi) 16% Gravel Beaches / Exposed Riprap (1.09 mi) 14% Fine-grained Sandy Beaches (0.94 mi) 10.36 (mi) 2.19 % 1% Exposed Rocky Platforms (0.09 mi) 73 islands 0.015 (sq_mi) 1% Mixed Sand and Gravel Beaches (0.08 mi) 1% Coarse-grained Sandy Beaches (0.07 mi) 0% Undefined (0.00 mi) Subtidal Physical Characteristics Percent Shallow Subtidal Area Seafloor Lithology Average Depth Proximity to Shore Percent Deep 97.5% Sand (23.10 mi) 1.4% Rock (0.33 mi) 0.5% Gravel (0.12 mi) 31.2 % shallow
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Seabirds, Shorebirds, Wading Birds, and Marsh Birds in South Carolina II
    Final Report SC-T-F18AF00961 FINAL REPORT South Carolina State Wildlife Grant SC-T-F18AF00961 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2020 Project Title: Conservation of seabirds, shorebirds, wading birds, and marsh birds in South Carolina II Prepared by: Felicia Sanders, Christy Hand, Janet Thibault, and Mary Catherine Martin Objective 1: Seabird and Shorebird Components a) Reduce disturbance of beach nesting seabirds and shorebirds on public and private islands. b) Annually assess population trends for colonial nesting seabirds: Black Skimmer, Brown Pelican, Gull-billed Tern, Least Tern, Sandwich Tern, Royal Tern, Forster’s Tern, and Common Tern. This information is essential for oil spill, wind energy, and sea-level rise planning. c) Increase nesting productivity, especially for Least Terns. d) Assess migratory shorebird trends in South Carolina, especially for listed species (Red Knot and Piping Plover). Accomplishments: a) Reduce disturbance of beach nesting seabirds and shorebirds on public and private islands. Coordinated with private, federal, state, and county owned beach managers to close part of the beach for nesting seabirds and shorebirds. This involved 2-10 site visits at each property, depending on the partnership with the land manager. Site visits included meeting with managers to discuss the importance of nest protection and monitoring; visits to place, maintain, and remove signs; and nest monitoring. Educational signs were placed at boat ramps and on some beach entrances. We placed closure signs at nesting sites on 21 beaches and at 2 beaches during the winter to protect roosting migratory shorebirds (Figure 1). b) Annually assess population trends for colonial nesting seabirds: Black Skimmer, Brown Pelican, Gull-billed Tern, Least Tern, Sandwich Tern, Royal Tern, Forster’s Tern, and Common Tern.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Audubon Harbor Herons Project
    NEW YORK CITY AUDUBON HARBOR HERONS PROJECT 2007 Nesting Survey 1 2 NEW YORK CITY AUDUBON HARBOR HERONS PROJECT 2007 NESTING SURVEY November 21, 2007 Prepared for: New York City Audubon Glenn Phillips, Executive Director 71 W. 23rd Street, Room 1529 New York, NY 10010 212-691-7483 www.nycaudubon.org Prepared by: Andrew J. Bernick, Ph. D. 2856 Fairhaven Avenue Alexandria, VA 22303-2209 Tel. 703-960-4616 [email protected] With additional data provided by: Dr. Susan Elbin and Elizabeth Craig, Wildlife Trust Dr. George Frame, National Park Service David S. Künstler, New York City Department of Parks & Recreation Don Riepe, American Littoral Society/Jamaica Bay Guardian Funded by: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Hudson River Estuary Habitat Grant and ConocoPhillips-Bayway Refinery 3 ABSTRACT . 5 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 7 METHODS . 8 TRANSPORTATION AND PERMITS . 9 RESULTS . 10 ISLAND ACCOUNTS . 12 Long Island Sound–Pelham/New Rochelle. 12 Huckleberry Island. 12 East River, Hutchinson River, and 2007 Long Island Sound ............................ .13 Nesting Survey Goose Island. .13 East River ......................................14 North Brother Island. 14 South Brother Island. .15 Mill Rock. 16 U Thant. .17 Staten Island – Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull . .17 Prall’s Island. 17 Shooter’s Island . 19 Isle of Meadows . 19 Hoffman Island . 20 Swinburne Island . .21 Jamaica Bay ................................... .22 Carnarsie Pol . 22 Ruffle Bar. 23 White Island . .23 Subway Island . .24 Little Egg Marsh . .24 Elders Point Marsh–West. .25 Elders Point Marsh – East . 25 MAINLAND ACCOUNTS . 26 SPECIES ACCOUNTS . 27 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 29 Acknowledgements . .33 Literature Cited . 34 TABLES . 35 APPENDIX .
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Wading Birds, Shorebirds and Seabirds in South
    T-41-R Final Report FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT SOUTH CAROLINA STATE WILDLIFE GRANT PROJECT T-41-R SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OCTOBER 1, 2008—SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 Project Title: Conservation of water, shore and seabirds in South Carolina Prepared by Felicia Sanders Wildlife Biologist South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 220 Santee Gun Club Road, McClellanville, SC 29458 Christy Hand Wildlife Biologist South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 585 Donnelley Drive, Green Pond, SC 29446 Janet Thibault Wildlife Biologist South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 217 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29422 Mary Catherine Martin Wildlife Biologist South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 305 Black Oak Road, Bonneau, SC 29431 GOAL To maintain continuity in management, monitoring and surveying of waterbirds, seabirds and shorebirds; maintain and update the existing store of information on distribution, habitats needs, abundance and productivity; and make this information available to managers and planners. PROJECT NARRATIVE Need Of the 65 seabird, shorebird, and wading bird species that utilize South Carolina’s coastal habitats throughout the year, 47 are listed in the SC State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) as highest or high conservation concern, 3 are federally listed and 5 are state listed. The State of the Birds report for the US (2009) reports that shorebirds are of highest conservation concern due to small and highly threatened global populations. Declines are attributed to human disturbance and dwindling food supplies. The coast of South Carolina is the most rapidly developing area of the state and the majority of South Carolina’s seabirds, shorebirds and wading birds use this portion of the state.
    [Show full text]