Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 End of season reportNorth Fork Audubon Society, Endangered Species Project Piping Plover and Least Tern Monitoring End of Season Report The North Fork Audubon Society monitors and protects Piping Plover and Least Tern nesting activity every year throughout the months of April-August. The following report is a site-by-site summary of each of the 24 sites managed by the North Fork Audubon Society, beginning with an overall numerical summary. Each section includes site-specific information regarding nesting activity, habitat suitability, overall productivity, as well as other relevant information. Size of Number Habitat Number of Number of Total PIPL Site LETE of Suitability PIPL Pairs PIPL Nests Fledglings Colony Visits Angel 5 0 - - - 4 Shores Conkling 2 2 2 1 - 6 Point Corey 2 2 2 0 8 43 Creek Cutchogue 3 0 - - - 13 (Private) Cutchogue 1 1 1 3 - 39 (TNC) Downs 4 0 - - - 7 Creek Goldsmith’s 2 1 2 0 - 34 Inlet Goose 3 0 - - - 5 Creek Gull Pond 2 2 4 3 40 47 West Hallocks 1 1 2 0 - 18 Landing Hashamomuck 3 0 - - - 7 Beach James 5 0 - - - 5 Creek Jamesport 3 1 2 0 30 59 Town Beach Jockey Creek 5 0 - - - 6 Spoil Island Kimogener 4 0 - - - 6 Point Little 3 2 3 0 30 44 Creek Little Hog 4 0 - - - 10 Neck Marratooka 5 0 - - - 6 Point Miamogue 3 1 1 0 - 54 Point Mattituck 3 2 3 0 80 51 Inlet Paradise 3 0 - - - 3 Point Pipes 2 0 - - - 5 Cove Port of 3 0 - - 30 12 Egypt Richmond 2 0 - - - 10 Creek Simmons 2 (1) 1 0 8 26 Point Habitat Suitability Rating: 1 Ideal habitat. Ample beach space between high tide mark and beginning of vegetation, valuable foraging grounds. 2 Suitable nesting habitat. Some human disturbance. Ample beach space above the high tide mark, and valuable foraging grounds. 3 Suitable nesting habitat but frequent human disturbance and/or predator presence. Ample beach space above the high tide mark, but other factors diminish nesting success. 4 Generally unsuitable habitat. Insufficient area above high tide mark to make a nest but somewhat suitable foraging habitat. Significant human disturbance. 5 Unsuitable habitat. No beach area above high tide mark due to groins or bulk-heading. Significant human disturbance. Productivity Total numbef of PIPL pairs: 15 Number of nest attempts: 23 Number of nests that hatched: 14 (2 abandoned, 1 flooded, 6 predated) Number of confirmed fledged chicks: 7 Number of LETE colonies: 7 Approximate number of nesting LETE pairs: 220 Approximate number of fledged LETE chicks: 15 Southold and Riverhead sites (24): 0.47 Riverhead sites only (4): 0 Southold sites only (20): 0.58 Angel Shores Angel Shores does not contain suitable nesting habitat and has not been occupied by Piping Plovers or Least Terns in recent years. No transient birds were seen foraging at this site at any time in the nesting season. I recommend that it be removed from the list of sites covered by the North Fork Audubon Society. Conkling Point Corey Creek Cutchogue Harbor (Private) Cutchogue Harbor (TNC) Downs Creek Goldsmith’s Inlet Goose Creek Gull Pond West Hallocks Landing Hashamomuck Beach James Creek James Creek does not contain suitable nesting habitat and has not been occupied by Piping Plovers or Least Terns in recent years. No transient birds were seen foraging at this site at any time in the nesting season. I recommend that it be removed from the list of sites monitored by the North Fork Audubon Society. Jamesport Town Beach Jamesport Town Beach was one of the most active nesting sites of 2009. A colony of about 80 LETE nested there early in the season, but dwindled to only about 20 birds later in the season. 1 pair of PIPL nested there, as well. Their A-nest hatched 4 chicks that were missing within days, and their B-nest also hatched 4 chicks which were predated within about 1.5 weeks. It is possible that their first clutch died of exposure rather than predation, since they hatched during a very rainy, cool period. This site is a very popular community beach, which clearly was a significant disturbance to the PIPL and LETE in August. Seagulls were frequently seen on the beach, most likely because they were feeding on scraps left behind by beachgoers. The Seagulls undoubtedly predated nests in the LETE colony; many shell fragments were found at the shoreline on multiple occasions. Feral cats were a problem at this site, and their prints were seen on the beach throughout the season. One cat being regularly fed near the parking lot was removed from the location mid- way through the season. However, cat tracks were seen on the beach well into August by a volunteer. Jockey Creek Spoil Island Jockey Creek Spoil Island does not contain suitable nesting habitat and has not been occupied by Piping Plovers or Least Terns in recent years. No transient birds were seen foraging at this site at any time in the nesting season. I recommend that it be removed from the list of sites monitored by the North Fork Audubon Society. Kimogener Point Kimogener Point contains a great deal of ideal foraging habitat, but very little suitable nesting habitat. Because most of the site is covered with groins that straddle beach-homes, the beach is severely eroded and does not contain much area above the high tide mark. Some transient COTE were observed at this site foraging late in the nesting season, but no PIPL were ever seen here in 2009. Little Creek Little Creek contains a large area of ideal nesting and foraging habitat for both PIPL and LETE. 2 pairs of PIPL nested here in 2009, with one on either side of the creek. Pair 1 nested twice on the public side of the creek. Both nests hatched successfully, but the chicks were predated within days. Pair 2 nested on the private side of the creek, but the nest was predated by a raccoon before it could be exclosed. A colony of about 80 LETE nested on the public side, but did not hatch any chicks. All of the nests dissappeared, presumably to predation by Seagulls or Raccoons. This site is a very populat beach location, but for the most part, people tended to recreate near the bathroom building and away from the fenced-off nesting area. People walking along the beach, however, could not help but disturb the PIPL and LETE, and this seemed to happen almost continuously from June-August. Early in the season, a construction project was underway at this site, spanning the entire length of the nesting area. Some of the loud construction noises appeared to disturb the LETE, but the PIPL seemed to be unphased. The most significant disturbance was one of the worker’s off-leash dogs, who was observed running through the string-fenced area by a volunteer. Little Hog Neck Little Hog Neck is somewhat unsuitable because there is no sandy beach area; the entire peninsula is covered with rocks. Additionally, because this site is so exposed, it is generally much windier than any other site. Many small shorebirds and Seagulls were observed loafing at the point throughout the nesting season. Two migrant LETE were observed foraging at this site once, but no PIPL were observed at any point in 2009. Marratooka Point Marratooka Point does not contain suitable nesting habitat and has not been occupied by Piping Plovers or Least Terns in recent years. Because most of the site is covered with groins that straddle beach-homes, the beach is severely eroded and does not contain any area above the high tide mark that is not immediately adjacent to houses. No transient birds were seen foraging at this site at any time in the nesting season. I recommend that it be removed from the list of sites monitored by the North Fork Audubon Society. Miamogue Point Miamogue Point contains a small patch of highly suitable habitat surrounded by prime foraging areas. One pair of PIPL nested here early in the season, hatched 4 chicks, but the chicks were predated within a week. The pair subsequently moved to Simmons Point and renested a 3- egg nest (which unfortunately met the same fate). The nest site is located directly on private property, but this did not seem to be an issue. I never saw the family who lived there using the area for recreation. This site is a popular beach throughout the nesting season, especially for dog-walkers and fishermen. Although the cause of chick loss is unknown, it was likely due to predation by Seagulls in the area. Between 10-20 Seagulls were feeding along the shoreline nearly every time I visited this site. Mattituck Inlet Mattituck Inlet contains one of the largest areas of suitable nesting habitat of any north fork sites. It was the nesting grounds for 180 LETE, as well as 2 pairs of PIPL. A third pair of PIPL attempted to nest there, but was chased away by the first two pairs. Pair 1 nested twice in front of the Rivera house (the first home on Breakwater Beach). Both times the nest was predated before it could be exclosed, despite attempting to exclose the B-nest before the clutch was completed. Pair 2 nested slightly to the east, and successfully hatched 4 chicks from their A- nest. All 4 chicks were predated within only 2 days. Although the cause of chick loss is unknown, it is almost certain that they were eaten by Seagulls. This site has a significant Black Back Gull population throughout the nesting season, most likely because people feed them from their cars. One volunteer wittnessed a woman emptying the contents of her trunk (a large box full of bread) onto the parking lot for the gulls. Between 100-200 Black Back Gulls were present loafing on the shoreline nearly every time I visited this site. Because the LETE and PIPL nests covered almost the entire extent of the beach this year, a very significant portion of the beach was fenced off to the public. This caused some angst amongst homeowners living in the area, as well as casual beachgoers. Carolyn Spilman and I met with the Captain Kidd Homeowner Association to discuss the fencing, and were met with mixed feelings by the homeowners who attended the meeting. Most were respectul of the project and requested simply that the fencing not remin up any longer than absolutely necessary. I complied with their request by retracting the fencing as it was no longer needed, and removing it completely wherever possible. To name a few of the issues encountered throughout the monitoring season: At one point, posts were uprooted and moved, significantly reducing the fenced area and exposing some LETE nests. After looking at John Brushes notes from last year, it appears that the same exact incident happened in 2008, as well. Additionally, I received reports from some homeowners that young boys were playing a “game” in the fencing: one boy would throw a rock into the fencing at an adult bird, and after the bird flew up, another boy would run in and take the eggs. I do not know if this report was accurate, but I gave all my contact information to the homeowner and asked that she call in the event that this happened again, and I was never contacted. We also had issues with off-road vehicle use on Breakwater Beach. In the beginning of the season, I wittnessed on multiple occasions a pair of 4-wheelers doing doughnuts in the beach area where the LETE later nested. Fortunately they did not harm any birds or nests, but very easily could have. I put up “No Vehicle” signs and roped off the entrance so that only walkers could pass through, but my posts were moved on a few occasions and tire tracks were observed directly past the “No Vehicles” sign. It was clear to me that a more permanent structure needs to be in place to discourage 4- wheelers from using this portion of the beach for recreational use. I spoke with Steve Papa in the middle of the nesting season about this issue, but it does not seem that any installation project has been planned. It is my understanding that part of the problem is a bad relationship between the town and the homeowners living in the beach-front property adjacent to the entrance being used as a 4-wheeler access. The homeowners’ last name is Rivera. The Riveras are willing participants in PIPL and LETE protection, and encouraged me to fence off their property from June-August. Regardless of alterior motives or past disagreements between these people and the town, something needs to be done to disrourage 4-wheelers from using this valuable nesting site as a race track. I agree with Steve Papa that it is not possible to block them from entering completely, but simply placing a boulder at various access points, and having the Southold Town Police enforce the “No ORV” policy would go a long way towards protecting these birds from a completely unnecessary form of human disturbance. Paradise Beach Point Paradise Beach Point contains a significant amount of suitable nesting habitat, but no PIPL or LETE have been observed there in recent years. The entire point is privately owned. A large dog has the run of the property, which could act as a deterrent to new birds looking to nest there. Pipes Cove Pipes Cove contains suitable nesting habitat only at the end of Pipes Neck Road. No suitable nesting habitat exists at either of the Silvermere Road access points, and I recommend that these parts of the site be removed from the list of suitable nesting sites monitored by the North Fork Audubon Society. Some transient COTE were observed feeding at the end of Pipes Neck Road late in the nesting season. No PIPL were observed at Pipes Cove in 2009. Port of Egypt Port of Egypt contains suitable nesting habitat for LETE and PIPL, but in recent years has become the nesting site for a colony of Black Back Gulls. The Gulls take over the small dredge spoil island throughout most of the nesting season, making this site an unlikely future PIPL nesting site. This site was, however, the nesting site for a sizeable LETE colony. The LETE nested on the east side of the island. One very young chick was observed during the LICWA survey, but no chicks were subsequently observed. It is unlikely that any LETE chicks could survive sharing such a small area with over 50 Black Back Gulls and their 20+ full-grown chicks. The number of LETE nesting on the island dropped off not long after the LICWA survey window ended. Richmond Creek Richmond Creek contains a significant amount of suitable nesting habitat, and only experiences heavy foot traffic late in the season. This year, no PIPL were observed there despite that a pair nested there last year. The Corey Creek Plovers (Pair 1) would sometimes forage there, but never attempted to nest.