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.