Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019 End of Season Report Town of Southold – Beach-Dependent Bird Species Management Program NYS DEC Designated Monitoring Sites Prepared By: Christine Tylee and Aaron Virgin September 2019 2 Acknowledgements We are grateful for the help from seasonal staff Tom Damiani and Keith Klein, whose efforts greatly assisted us during the 2019 monitoring season. We are also indebted to Edwin Babajanians, Michael Corso, Chris Cyprus, Sandy Cyprus, Brendan Grady, Rick Kedenburg, Jillian Liner and Amanda Pachomski of Audubon New York, Brewster McCall, Russ McCall, Gino Menchini, Lynn Normandia, Christine Rivera, Richard Rivera, John Sepenoski, Sarah Stein, Brittany Thompson, Barbara White, Zachary White, and John Zablockey, all of whom contributed sightings, erected string fencing/exclosures, allowed access to private property or taught education programs to local students and scout groups this year. In addition, we owe a debt of collective gratitude to Peconic Sound Shores, the Group to Save Goldsmith Inlet, Captain Kidd’s Estates Home Association, Kenney’s Beach /McCabe’s Beach Civic Association, Mattituck Park District, Suffolk County Parks, and Town of Southold Department of Public Works, whose members or staff contributed sightings, helped clean up debris on the beaches, fixed symbolic string fence, and notified local law enforcement when illegal activities occurred at nest sites. Without everyone’s cooperation and help in the 2019 season, this program would not be possible. Education and Outreach This year marked another great year in the “Be a Good Egg Program”, delivered to local schools by Group for the East End (GFEE). In 2016, GFEE initiated the “Be a Good Egg” program - a program developed by the National Audubon Society - in which nearly 200 students from Southold Elementary, Cutchogue East Elementary and New Suffolk schools learned about breeding and migratory shorebirds on Long Island. The program has since been expanded to include Oysterponds and Greenport schools, as well as additional schools in the Riverhead School District. Participants in the program are encouraged to “Be a Good Egg” by taking the following pledge: 1. Respect fenced-off areas where birds are nesting. 2. Properly dispose of or carry out your trash. 3. Keep your dog off of nesting beaches. Students are tasked to create their own signs, with fifteen chosen for professional printing and displayed at local beaches to better raise awareness about the sensitivity of nesting shorebirds and their decreasing habitat. The signs are attractive and engaging , which enhance the Town’s beaches with their playful, colorful, yet critical information. In addition to educating students in local schools, GFEE has hosted numerous “Be a Good Egg” tabling events at local beaches, libraries, and at Hallock State Park Preserve. This resulted in an additional 130+ pledges from adults living or visiting the North Fork. The program’s success has received positive attention from beachgoers where the signs are displayed and has even attracted the attention of The Suffolk Times. Due to the positive reception, we plan to continue this popular program within the local schools and at local tabling events in the future. 3 (l. to r.) GFEE Stewardship Coordinator, Christine Tylee, working with students in the classroom to create signs; “Be A Good Egg” sign unveiling at Breakwater Beach; a student proudly displaying his winning sign Lastly, GFEE worked with Audubon New York in August to create a “Bird-Friendly Beaches Have Dogs on Leashes” brochure. By reading this two-sided handout, dog-walkers will learn the importance of keeping their dogs on leashes and under control when visiting active shorebird nesting sites. These cards will also be useful in future monitoring seasons to help stewards engage in meaningful conversations with dog-walkers by encouraging them to #ShareTheShore. (l. to r.) front side of handout; backside of handout 4 Key Notes for Stewardship Program • As in previous years, GFEE staff communicated verbally and through mailings with property owners in areas where a high likelihood of nesting could occur prior to the start of the nesting season. The goal was to better inform local residents about the biology of Piping Plover (PIPL), Least Tern (LETE), and other shorebirds, while highlighting the reason ing behind symbolic string fence and exclosures, how to prevent disturbance, and ways they can become more involved in the program. • Preseason string fence and signage were placed at all public and private beaches with permission of property owners in early April based on the site reco mmendations from the 2018 Report. • Due to continued illegal activities, we – once again – highly recommend increased patrols by law enforcement for unleashed dogs and illegal ATV use, as both pose grave threats to breeding PIPL and LETE. We highly recommend changing the dog leash law to include ALL hours from April 1 – August 31, not 9am-6pm. Regardless, the existing laws NEED TO BE ENFORCED at several Town- owned beaches and at other locations in Southold Town, as they are continually violated with impunity. Case in point, during a visit to Goose Creek on June 20, 2019, a Bay Constable told a GFEE steward that he ‘gets it’ when locals want to bring their dogs to the beach and let them run around, and that it is ‘not worth it’ to ticket violators of the exist ing leash laws. • Another possible solution to the ATV problem could be the installation of permanent bollards so as to prevent the entry of ATVs on beaches where their use is prohibited . Field cameras could also be used to identify trespassing from private to public beaches. Program Background The following is a site-by-site summary of the 20 sites (3 subsites) monitored from April 1- August 31, 2019. The North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) initiated the monitoring program with the Town of Southold in 1996, under coordination with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Each section in this report includes site-specific information regarding PIPL habitat suitability, nesting activity, overall productivity, number of site visits, as well as presence of LETE colonies. The chief goal of the program is to determine the overall productivity of PIPL and LETE during the given breeding season, and relay this information to the NYS DEC and USFWS who can systematically determine the population size of these protected species (in NYS, PIPL is listed as “Endangered”; LETE listed as “Threatened”). 5 Note: This map depicts sites covered under contract with Group for the East End and the Town of Southold in 2019. Other beach-nesting bird sites are monitored on Suffolk County parklands and beaches by Suffolk County, and at Orient Beach State Park by Audubon New York. GFEE is in direct communication with both entities to relay positive and negative information as it occurs in the field. Habitat Suitability Rating: 1 Ideal habitat. Ample beach space is present between high tide mark and beginning of vegetation and valuable foraging grounds. 2 Suitable nesting habitat. Some human disturbance and/or predator presence; ample beach space above the high tide mark and valuable foraging grounds. 3 Adequate nesting habitat but frequent human disturbance and/or predator presence. Ample beach space above the high tide mark is present, but other factors diminish nesting success. 4 Generally unsuitable habitat. Significant human disturbance and/or predators are present. Insufficient area above high tide mark for nesting; some suitable foraging habitat is present. 5 Unsuitable habitat. Extreme human disturbance and predators are present. No beach area above high tide mark due to groins, bulk heading or periodic flooding. 6 Habitat Suitability: Site Habitat Suitability # PIPL Pairs # PIPL Nests # PIPL Fledglings Size LETE Colony # Visits Angel Shores 5 0 0 0 0 3 Corey Creek Mouth 2 1 2 0 0 49 Conkling Point 3 1 1 0 2 12 Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek) 3 0 0 0 0 8 Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach) 2 0 0 0 0 10 Downs Creek 4 0 0 0 0 7 Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West) 2 2 2 5 0 45 Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s - McCabe’s) 2 1 1 3 0 30 Goose Creek (Southold Bay) 2 1 1 4 4 47 Gull Pond West 2 2 4 3 20 40 Hashamomuck Beach (Town Beach) 5 0 0 0 0 4 James Creek 5 0 0 0 0 3 Jockey Creek (Spoil Island) 5 0 0 0 0 3 Kimogener Point (West Creek) 5 0 0 0 0 5 Little Creek 2 1 3 3 22 56 Little Hog Neck (Nassau Point) 4 0 0 0 2 10 Marratooka Point (Deep Hole Creek) 5 0 0 0 0 3 Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater Beach) 2 5 5 6 200 52 Mattituck Inlet (Baillie Beach) 4 0 0 0 0 5 Paradise Point 4 0 0 0 0 4 Pipes Cove 4 0 0 0 0 5 Port of Egypt 3 0 0 0 150 14 Richmond Creek 2 1 1 0 0 20 7 Productivity Summary 2019 Piping Plover Total number of nesting pairs: 15 Number of nest attempts: 20 Number of nests that hatched: 12 Number of young fledged: 24 Total Productivity: 1.6 (10-year avg. = 1.24) Least Tern Number of colonies: 7 Number of nesting pairs: 200 Number of young fledged: 44 Total Productivity: .22 (10-year avg. = 0.56) 2019 PIPL chick, newly hatched at Gull Pond (taken from a distance with a zoom lens). 2019 LETE chicks, newly hatched nestling in a human footprint at Little Creek (taken from a distance with a zoom lens). 8 2019 Summaries and Recommendations: Twelve active sites (listed in order of PIPL productivity) and town action recommendations 1) Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater Beach) – 5 PIPL nests, 6 young fledged. Approximately 105 LETE nests, 30 fledged. Needs “No Dogs Allowed”/leash law sign and ATV enforcement. Due to its wide expanses of flat, natural, and non-fragmented beach habitat, this site is by far the most productive for both PIPL and LETE every year. Despite five PIPL pairs – three on the public portion and two on the private side – only 6 young fledged in total. This is a major decrease from the 11 fledglings in 2018. The sharp decline in success rate is likely attributed to predation and/or ATVs crushing the chicks. The LETE colony decreased slightly from last year, with 1 00 pairs fledging approximately only 30 young. LETE nested on both the public and private sides. The most dangerous disturbance to this site continues to be illegal ATV use on the public and private sides of this beach (Fig. 1). Although ATV use is currently legal on the private section of beaches (with property owner approval), this is a critical danger for young birds, which are vulnerable to being run over soon after hatching and before they can fly. In addition to the harm that ATVs cause to the NYS endangered PIPL, they are also a nuisance to neighboring homeowners – some of whom request that we leave string fencing up beyond the breeding season so as to prevent ATVs from crossing their properties. Additional disturbances at the site include: beachgoers, bonfires, lawn furniture, fireworks, visitors flying drones, raking on the private side, and unleashed dogs near the string fence (Fig. 2). One homeowner (350 Soundbeach Dr.) erected posts in the nesting area for the sole purpose of hanging pinwheels and fake owls in hopes to deter birds from nesting (Fig. 3). When birds finally did nest there, somebody removed our protective fencing, and the homeowner demanded that each nest have only a 4 ’ x 4’ perimeter around it. Another homeowner demanded that we violate USFWS and NYS DEC guidelines by installing exclosures not exceeding knee-height so as not to block his view of the Long Island Sound . Fearing that the PIPL pair might abandon a nest surrounded by such a short exclosure, the decision was made to not install one at all. In addition, someone attached kites to th e string fencing at numerous locations and on several occasions in an apparent attempt to scare the nesting birds and to deter others from nesting there (Fig. 4). Since the site is a popular destination, a major focus again this year was public outreach. We maintained a strong presence on the beach by holding numerous tabling events and beach cleanups (collected 260 pounds of trash), made regular site visits, and once again installed “Be a Good Egg” signs around the nesting perimeter on the publ ic portion. We also attempted to nurture a healthy relationship with existing and new private property owners, most of whom willingly participated in the program when nests were found on their property . Figs. 1-4 (l. to r.) – ATV tracks on the private beach below mean high tide (not allowed per town law); firework remains from 4th of July; posts with noisemakers installed by homeowner to disturb shorebirds; kite tied to string fence 9 Recommendation – As noted in the past, increased enforcement of the Town’s leash law and ATV law on public beaches is urgently needed on this critical beach that hosts the largest number of endangered PIPL and threatened LETE in our coverage area every year. In addition, it is recommended that the town consider banning ATV use on ALL beaches – whether public or private (at least between April and September). We will continue outreach to the private homeowners, as more PIPL and LETE are nesting on the private beach. 2) Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West) - 2 PIPL nest, 5 fledged. 0 LETE. Needs guardrail installation and leash law enforcement. Two PIPL pairs nested successfully in the dredge material adjacent to the parking lot (Fig. 5). Six eggs hatched and five young fledged. Historically, within days of hatching, PIPLs at this location relocate to the western beach portion of the site. This year, however, all five young (and adults) crossed the inlet to the more-secluded eastern section (County-owned) of Goldsmith Inlet where they remained for the rest of the season. GFEE hosted a tabling event at this site to educate beachgoers on the presence of shorebirds. Each engagement was met with enthusiasm from the beachgoers and many of whom pledged to take part in the “Be a Good Egg” program. As in the past, large tire depressions were observed prior to string fencing . These were both in the nesting area and on the beach (Fig. 6). Other disturbances include beach bathers, unleashed dogs, and fishermen. Figs. 5-6 (l. to r.) – habitual nesting site; vehicle on emergency access road directly next to area where birds nest Recommendation – As noted in previous reports, this site would greatly benefit from the installation of a guardrail or split rail fence along the length of the parking lot to prevent vehicles from driving on the beach. Garbage pickup by the Town DPW should occur more regularly or the town could invest in a solar compactor that alleviates the need to pick up garbage as frequently. In addition, a town dog leash law sign should be installed at this site. 3) Goose Creek (Southold Bay) – 1 PIPL nest, 4 fledged; 2 LETE nests, 0 fledged. Needs leash law enforcement and new guardrail installation. This site had its second successful PIPL nest with four fledglings in a decade (the first was in 2018). The low number of LETE nests is assumed to be due to the extremely busy nature of the beach during the peak summer season and the small area of this beach in general (Fig. 7). Sunbathing, dog-walking and boat/kayak landings limit foraging areas for the LETE. In addition, 10 ATV use continues to be a problem, as do overflowing trash cans which attract predators to the beach (Fig. 8). The few LETEs that did nest here likely had their nests predated, as there was no sign of vandalism or flooding at the time of nest failure. Most beachgoers were respectful of the symbolic string fence. Figs. 7-8 (l. to r.) – busy beach and limited nesting area; ATV’s have easy access to drive on the beach from the parking lot Recommendation– Installation of a guardrail or bollards between the parking lot and the beach area to prevent entry of ATVs. Enforcement of local leash law. GFEE will continue to string fence with two lines of string early in the season to establish a protected breeding area that is inviting to LETE and PIPL. GFEE will continue hosting outreach events and posting “Be A Good Egg” signs at this popular site to educate visitors of the importance of being responsible beachgoers. 4) Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s Beach-McCabe’s Beach) – 1 PIPL nest, 3 fledged. 0 LETE. Needs leash law enforcement. This site provided adequate nesting habitat for PIPL. Despite construction at 1125 North Sea Drive, one PIPL pair nested at that location for the second consecutive year (Figs. 9 & 10). The homeowner, while initially reluctant, allowed us to fence the area since construction at the home forbid family visits. Upon all four eggs hatching, the young moved west to the more secluded area of Peconic Dunes (County-owned) where three fledged. Decreased nesting habitat due to beach changes (e.g. increased beach debris, smaller nesting section) may contribute to the minimal activity at this site. Unleashed dogs continue to be a disturbance at this site, although it should be noted that the dog walkers leashed their dogs upon seeing the GFEE steward at each visit. Further disturbances include stray cats in the area and beachgoers feeding the wildlife. Figs. 9-10 (l. to r.) – construction performed on the house directly behind PIPL nest; PIPL nest within the storm debris above high tide mark Recommendation – continue dialogue with property owners to ensure cooperation with string fence and exclosures in the future, should PIPL and/or LETE decide to nest on their property. Host more outreach events focusing on the importance of leash ed dogs. Adopt the Suffolk County section of this site (between Peconic Dunes and Goldsmith Inlet), as GFEE already monitors the adjacent sites. Said adoption would make it easier to monitor birds that migrate from one site to an adjacent area after hatching. Installation of a "Do Not Feed the Wildlife" sign could make the site less attractive to predators such as crows and gulls. 11 5) Little Creek – 3 PIPL nests, 3 fledged. 11 LETE nests, 8 fledged. Needs “No Dogs Allowed” enforcement as well as codifying USFWS guidelines regarding fireworks displays. This site continues to provide adequate foraging and nesting habitat for PIPL and LETE (Fig. 11). One pair of PIPL accounted for all PIPL activity this year. Their first tw o nests were flooded , while their third and final nesting attempt was successful with 3 fledglings (Fig. 12). Fortunately, there was more LETE activity than in 2018. Unleashed dogs continue to be problematic at this site, although most beachgoers were supportive and respectful of the program. In addition, despite USFWS guidelines implemented Long Island - wide by other private and public groups, Stanley Lomangino’s fire works display took place only ¼ of a mile from NYS endangered PIPL nest (USFWS guidelines recommend at least ¾ mile buffer). Figs. 11-12 (l. to r.) PIPL and LETE nesting habitat – beachgoers very close to string fence; PIPL 3rd nest attempt above high tide Recommendation - continue string fence with two lines and signage early in the season. Regular police presence may deter people from walking their dog (s) unleashed. Codification of USFWS guidelines into law would protect our endangered birds from the unnecessary stresses of nearby fireworks displays. 6) Gull Pond West – 4 PIPL nest, 3 fledged. 10 LETE nests, 0 fledged. Needs leash law enforcement and habitat restoration. This was a mixed season with one successful PIPL nest fledging three young (same as 2018), but 0 LETE fledglings (compared to 40 in 2018). Flooding and predators were major issues this season – resulting in a complete loss of the LETE colony (Figs. 13 & 14). Homeowners with nesting birds on their property allowed symbolic fencing. Unleashed dogs were a disturbance at times , and beachgoers were generally respectful of the birds and fenced areas with the exception of one homeowner who kept a boat and lawn furniture extremely close to a PIPL exclosure (Fig. 15). Figs. 13-15 (l. to r.) gully where upper beach floods; predator tracks surrounding exclosure; lawn furniture next to fence/exclosure Recommendation – Continue cultivating good relationships with homeowners. Leash law needs to be enforced to better protect this important breeding site. Habitat restoration is recommended to prevent further flooding of the upper beach. 12 7) Corey Creek Mouth – 1 PIPL nest, hatched but failed, 0 fledged. 0 LETE. Needs routine leash law enforcement and predator control. This year, a single PIPL pair nested twice but at two different locations. First, a nest was established at 1695 Old Wood Path. It was suggested that the nest NOT be exclosed in case potential predators might associate an exclosure with an as -of-yet undiscovered (by them) nest – leading to subsequent predation. The nest was predated at three eggs. The pair then re-nested at 650 Old Wood Path and produced three eggs. This nest was exclosed and later hatched (Fig. 16 & 17). Unfortunately, one-by-one over the following three weeks all three were predated. This follows a pattern that has occurred annually, and it is suspected that the high amount of crow, raccoon, and fox activity at the site is to blame for the recurring failures. Additional disturbances include unleashed dogs and dog-owners throwing dog toys near/at the string fence line . Of note, the Town’s dog leash law sign is missing (Fig. 18). Figs. 16-18 (l. to r.) – PIPL nesting area with 1 egg nest; PIPL exclosure; missing leash law sign Recommendation – unleashed dogs continue to be a problem at this site (specifically within South Harbor Beach). As was suggested last year, the Town’s dog leash sign – which has been removed – should be replaced and positioned at the park’s entrance. Town Police and Bay Constables should visit the site and enforce the leash law on a regular basis. Routine garbage pickup would discourage predators from frequenting the site. Installing effigies after the eggs hatch could also deter predators from loitering and predating the would -be fledglings. 8) Conkling Point – 1 PIPL nest, nest failed, 0 fledged. 1 LETE nest, 1 fledged. 1 AMOY nest, nest failed, 0 fledged. Needs cooperation from property owner and predator control. Very sensitive to tidal activity, this narrow spit of land provides only a very thin section of beach that is suitable for nesting. In addition to flooding, predators (crows and gulls), small boat landings, and the occasional unleashed dogs deter nesting. Further, the property owner at this site refuses to allow fencing at their property. Despite these deterrents, this year there was one PIPL nest (see Fig. 19), one AMOY nest, and one LETE nest. Of the LETEs, two hatched and one fledged. Fig. 19 – Site of PIPL nest 13 Recommendation – Request NYS DEC work cooperatively with the property owner to allow protection of nesting shorebirds on the property. 9) Richmond Creek – 1 PIPL nest, nest failed, 0 fledged. 0 LETE. Needs leash law enforcement and bonfire control. Once again, this site hosted one PIPL pair nest in nearly the same location as last year (Fig. 20). The pair produced a single egg, but it was predated with animal tracks seen at the failed nest. As in previous years, LETE were seen loafing and scraping in the upper beach, but no nests were found. Overall, this site provides good foraging on the bayside and on the adjacent beach at Corey Creek. Disturbances to the site include boat landing, predators, and unleashed dogs (Fig. 21). A GFEE steward spoke to one dog-walker numerous times about her unleashed dog to no avail. She was seen during subsequent visits with her unleashed dog running uncontrollably (Figs. 22 & 23). Figs. 20-23 (l. to r.) – PIPL nesting area; boat landing; unleashed dogs (x2) Recommendation – continue pre-season fencing, as this provided suitable habitat for PIPL. Make routine garbage pick-ups and implement the use of garbage receptacle lids so as to make the site less attractive to predators. Leash laws should be enforced to protect the birds. 10) Port of Egypt – 75 LETE nests, 5 fledged. 2 COTE nests, 0 fledged. 2 AMOY nests, 1 fledged. 60 GBBG nests, 50 fledged. This site continues to host very large numbers of colonial nesting birds. About 120 Great Black-backed Gulls (GBBG) and 150 Least Terns (LETE) built approximately 60 and 75 nests, respectively (Fig. 24). Of the LETE nests, only five young fledged. This low success rate is likely due to predation by the neighboring GBBGs, as they are known to eat the eggs and young of other birds. In addition, two Common Tern (COTE) nests and two American Oystercatcher (AMOY) nests, which fledged zero and one young, respectively (Fig. 25). This could also be due to predation by GBBGs. Figs. 24-25 (l. to r.) – GBBG with young; AMOY adult with young and COTE on nest in foreground Recommendation – Consider control of the GBBG colony. 14 11) Little Hog Neck (Nassau Point) – 1 LETE nest, nest failed, 0 fledged. 0 PIPL. As noted in prior reports, this site lacks upper-beach habitat, openly exposed to the bay, and endures windy conditions - all of which makes the site inhospitable to breeding PIPL and LETE (Fig. 26). Despite this, one LETE pair did nest, but failed the day after it was discovered (Fig. 27). An overflowing trash receptacle at the end of Nassau Point Road is likely responsible for attracting predators to the beach (Fig. 28). Figs. 26-28 (l. to r.) – developed shoreline; LETE nesting area; overflowing garbage can Recommendation – pre-fence early in the season to ensure that potential nests are not trampled by beachgoers or dogwalkers. More frequent garbage pickup would prevent garbage from making its way to the shoreline. 12) Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach) – 1 AMOY nest, nest failed, 0 fledged. 0 PIPL and 0 LETE. No town action needed. This site continues to offer excellent habitat but continues to suffer from predation. This was seen by the presence of animal tracks and holes dug within the nesting area (Figs. 29 & 30). In addition to ground-dwelling predators, crows and gulls frequent the site, while Ospreys often sit atop the string fence posts and signs to eat. All likely discourage birds from nesting. Due to its remoteness, there are few human disturbances and remains a popular stopover for migrating shorebirds, and a foraging site for LETW, AMOY, GBBG, Willet as well as others. One AMOY nest produced three eggs – all of which were predated. Figs. 29-30 (l. to r.) – AMOY nesting site; holes dug by predator Recommendation – continue pre-fencing from the peninsula south toward the Osprey pole. Consider modifying DEC signs to discourage O sprey from perching atop them (perhaps some sort of spikes atop the signs). Trap and relocate known predators to increase breeding success. 15 2019 Summaries and Recommendations: Inactive Sites Angel Shores Consistent with past years , no nesting birds were observed. Lack of upper beach habitat due to human influence (housing, bulkheads). This year’s installation of a rock wall for erosion control at one section of the beach severely impacts nesting (Fig. 31). The patch of Phragmites australis – an invasive plant – continues to grow and detracts from the natural habitat of nesting birds (Fig. 32). Figs. 31-32 (l. to r.) – recently installed rock wall; Phragmites patch and cedar trees Recommendation – remove non-native Phragmites. The deficiency of suitable nesting habitat is due to shoreline hardening and other man-made features. Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek) This section of Cutchogue Harbor is a high-traffic area during the breeding season, with beachgoers, boaters and fishermen frequenting in large numbers. Much of the site is cluttered with beach furniture, kayaks, and other recreational equipment (Figs. 33 & 34). This was the fourth consecutive season that PIPL and LETE did not attempt to nest. Figs. 33-34 – beach/lawn furniture lining upper beach Recommendation – Frequent monitoring early in the season could allow GFEE stewards to find and fence/exclose nests BEFORE beachgoers/homeowners place beach furniture out for the season. Downs Creek The deposit of dredge material and the natural shift of sand to this location have conspired to improve this site over the past few years (Fig. 35). However, there remains one area between the main peninsula and the attached sand bar that routinely floods (Fig. 36 ). Shorebirds at this site hoping to feed on the exposed sand bar at low tide are also forced to compete with beachgoers. Figs. 35-36 (l. to r.) – growing upper beach habitat; flooding between peninsula and sandbar Recommendation – continue depositing dredge material at this site to increase nesting habitat 16 Hashamomuck Beach (Town Beach) A boat launch, busy parking lot, and modest playground attract a variety of visitors to an area with decent suitable habitat for nesting birds. Further disturbances include bulkheads with adjacent homes and a large population of gulls (Figs. 37 & 38). Heavy machinery (raking) added additional disturbance on May 6, 2019 (Fig. 39), which was well within the breeding window for shorebirds. This happened in 2018 as well. Neither PIPL nor LETE were seen foraging at the site. Figs. 37-39 (l. to r.) – lack of suitable habitat due to bulkheads, parking lot; heavy machinery raking the beach Recommendation – place signage highlighting the importance of picking up litter and not feeding wildlife (particularly gulls). Work with Town DPW to ensure better management practices so as to avoid raking and using heavy machinery on the beach during the breeding season. James Creek Extensive shore hardening has greatly altered the shoreline and therefore PIPL and LETE have not attempted to nest in the past few decades (Fig. 40). At high tide most of the beach is inaccessible because the water reaches the bulkheads and leaves no space for walking, let alone foraging and nesting (Fig. 41). The widest portion of the beach may otherwise attract nesting shorebirds, however this is where human activity (boating, beach bathing, fishing) occurs. Figs. 40-41 – bulkheads and groins allow almost unsuitable habitat for foraging or nesting. Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring due to lack of PIPL and LETE nesting activity. Jockey Creek (Spoil Island) While frequented by transient shorebirds, as well as foraging birds nesting at the adjacent Goose Creek site, it is not used by PIPL and LETE due to the lack of upper beach habitat (Fig. 42). Likewise, the northern peninsula is overgrown with woody vegetation, mainly Phragmites, black locust and tree-of-heaven (Fig. 43). Figs. 42-43 (l. to r.) lack of upper beach and human encroachment; woody vegetation and phragmites at peninsula 17 Recommendation – to attract nesting shorebirds, the upland woody vegetation on the peninsula should be removed and dredge material added with native beach grasses planted. Kimogener Point (West Creek) No shorebirds were observed foraging or nesting at this site. Many disturbances: bulkheads, groins, boat and foot traffic, potential predators (cat tracks were seen here), dense native vegetation, high tides and rough currents hinder potential nesting (Fig. 44). There is also significant erosion creating a steep slope that block the mobility of PIPL and LETE chicks (Fig. 45). Figs. 44-45 (l. to r.) –groins and bulkheads along coastline; steeply sloped shore Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring due to lack of PIPL and LETE nesting activity. Marratooka Point (Deep Hole Creek) This site has not featured a nesting pair of PIPL or colony of LETE in over a decade due to a lack of suitable habitat caused by ongoing erosion . The high density of seasonal homes, a suite of groins, high tides with resultant flooding, snow fencing, steep shelves, boat anchoring, and lack of upper beach habitat make this a very unattractive nesting site (Figs. 46 & 47). Figs. 46-47 (l. to r.) – housing, groins and shelf; flooding in upper beach adjacent to the creek Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring due to lack of PIPL and LETE nesting activity. Paradise Beach Point On the north side of this site, rocks and a bulkhead provide an inhospitable environment for shorebirds. The peninsula itself is exposed to wind, and heavy foliage at the base of the peninsula provides an ideal habitat for potential predators. Despite these deterrents, there is SOME potential nesting and foraging habitat at this site (Fig. 48). Fig. 48 – potential nesting habitat Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring as in the past, due to low nesting activity. 18 Pipes Cove The inlet portion, as well as the bay-side, of this site offers excellent foraging for PIPL and LETE, yet only LETE were seen foraging and neither species nested (Fig. 49). Some suitable habitat for nesting exists at the southern entrance to the inlet, but it is a popular walking area, which likely deters PIPL and LETE (Fig. 50). Figs. 49-50 (l. to r.) – development at n. portion reduces habitat; suitable habitat at s. portion; excellent foraging Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring as in the past due to low nesting activity.