HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 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
2015
“A
thing
is
right
when
it
tends
to
preserve
the
integrity,
stability
and
beauty
of
the
biotic
community.
It
is
wrong
when
it
tends
otherwise.”
–Aldo
Leopold
(1949)
2
Acknowledgements
We
are
thankful
for
the
additional
help
from
interns
Alexandra
Rubin
and
John
Marra,
who
combined
efforts
to
assist
in
monitoring
the
20
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(NYS
DEC)
designated
sites
across
Southold
Town
during
the
2015
breeding
season.
In
addition,
we
are
indebted
to
Donna
Abrams,
Barbara
Butterworth,
Michael
Corso,
Rick
and
Linda
Kedenburg,
Gaelle
Lair,
Alan
and
Lorin
Litner,
Brewster
McCall,
Russ
McCall,
Bev
Prentice,
Dane
Riva,
John
Sepenoski,
Otto
and
Marie
Tews,
Missy
Weiss,
and
Barbara
and
Zachary
White,
all
of
whom
contributed
sightings,
erected
string
fencing/exclosures,
allowed
access
to
private
property,
or
taught
education
programs
to
local
students
and
scout
groups
during
the
2015
breeding
season.
Without
the
help
of
our
staff,
volunteers,
and
community-‐at-‐
large
this
report
would
not
be
possible.
Introduction:
Vandalism
and
Threats
to
Shorebirds
and
Stewards
In
2015,
GFEE
faced
unusual
difficulties
that
had
not
occurred
in
the
previous
four
years
while
monitoring
for
Southold
Town.
It
is
important
to
note
these
negative
encounters,
most
notably
with
homeowners,
so
complications
will
be
limited
or
avoided
in
the
future.
The
two
sites
where
incidences
occurred
were
at
Breakwater
Beach
(Mattituck
Inlet)
in
Mattituck
and
at
Kenney’s
Beach
(Goldsmith
Inlet)
in
Southold.
At
Breakwater
vandalism
was
significant.
On
the
morning
of
May
12,
a
Piping
Plover
(PIPL)
exclosure
that
had
been
erected
the
evening
before
was
found
damaged
(the
incident
report,
including
timeline
of
events
are
contained
in
Appendix
A
of
this
report).
Wire
cutters
or
a
similar
tool
had
been
used
to
open
the
exclosure
and
remove
the
four
PIPL
eggs
within.
This
occurred
on
private
property
and
before
access
to
the
site
had
been
granted
(access
was
granted
on
the
afternoon
of
May
12).
The
local
NYS
DEC
Environmental
Conservation
Officer,
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(USFWS),
and
Southold
Town
Police
were
notified
of
the
incident
immediately.
An
investigation
by
the
NYS
DEC
and
USFWS
was
carried
out,
however
without
gaining
a
confession
and
video
documentation
of
the
vandalism
and
subsequent
theft
of
eggs,
no
charges
were
filed.
A
second
minor
incident
occurred
10
days
later
along
the
private
section
of
Breakwater
Beach.
This
involved
property
owners
(sisters)
that
refused
to
grant
access
for
string
fencing
and
a
PIPL
exclosure.
After
the
second
day
of
not
allowing
access,
a
NYS
DEC
officer
was
asked
to
meet
with
the
women
and
access
was
subsequently
granted.
As
a
follow
up,
a
determination
was
made
at
the
NYS
DEC
regional
office
to
have
NYS
DEC
staff
monitor
the
private
section
of
Breakwater
Beach
during
the
remainder
of
the
2015
field
season.
A
third
incident
occurred
at
Breakwater
Beach
on
May
30
or
31,
however
this
incident
was
on
the
public
or
Mattituck
Park
District
section.
Similar
to
last
year,
large
rocks
were
heaved
on
top
of
the
exclosure
thus
weighing
down
the
mesh
cover.
Unlike
last
year,
the
rocks
crushed
the
eggs
and
the
nest
was
lost.
The
exclosure
was
removed
within
a
few
weeks,
shortly
after
confirming
a
potential
“re-‐nest”
of
a
PIPL
pair
roughly
60
yards
to
the
northeast.
Following
protocol,
this
4-‐
egg
nest
was
not
exclosed
(due
to
prior
vandalism
at
the
site)
and
eventually
fledged
2
chicks.
3
A
fourth
and
final
incident
of
serious
proportions
occurred
in
late
May.
As
steward,
Christine
Tylee,
carried
out
the
daily
practice
of
walking
the
shore
and
upper
beach
at
Kenney's
Beach
looking
for
nests
and
assembling
string
fencing
and
exclosures
when
necessary,
she
listened
to
the
concerns
of
property
owners
on
North
Sea
Dr.,
as
she
had
the
previous
two
field
seasons.
“I
rent
my
home
out
for
the
summer
and
promise
beach
front
property”,
“the
terns
defecate
on
us
and
may
cause
disease”,
“our
children
are
afraid
of
the
birds”,
“the
fenced
area
is
too
large
and
unnecessary”,
etc.,
are
a
few
of
the
remarks
Christine
heard
in
2015
alone.
In
late
May,
she
received
a
call
from
a
homeowner
who
said
he
would
“sue
for
trespassing”
and
stated
that
another
homeowner
of
North
Sea
Dr.
“will
kill
you”
for
going
on
his
property
to
monitor.
There
were
additional
complaints
from
one
homeowner
who
was
later
witnessed
within
the
string
fencing.
The
threats
that
took
place
at
Kenney’s
Beach
were
unwarranted,
especially
when
staff
had
been
willing
to
work
and
accommodate
the
homeowners.
A
preseason
letter
(see
Appendix
B
for
example)
was
sent
to
all
property
owners
along
North
Seas
Drive.
The
threat
was
relayed
to
John
Sepenoski,
Southold
Town
liaison
for
the
beach-‐nesting
program,
who
conveyed
to
Scott
Russell,
Town
Supervisor.
Both
Ms.
Tylee
and
Mr.
Virgin,
along
with
Mr.
Sepenoski,
appeared
before
the
Town
Board
work
session
in
August
to
update
them
on
the
program,
most
notably
the
friction
with
some
property
owners
and
the
threat
leveled
against
Ms.
Tylee.
This
is
an
indication
to
the
Town
that
GFEE
staff
needs
more
support
from
the
Town
of
Southold,
USFWS,
and
NYSDEC
officers.
PIPL
and
LETE
are
already
facing
tremendous
pressures
from
the
loss
of
habitat,
shore
hardening,
and
natural
predators.
The
fact
that
homeowners
have
a
right
to
say
they
deny
string
fencing
or
inhibit
the
protection
of
these
threatened
species
is
deeply
troubling.
In
the
past,
GFEE
staff
and
volunteer
stewards
have
attended
homeowner
association
meetings
and
community
events
to
better
connect
people
with
this
important
work.
It
has
been
made
clear
that
the
development
of
stronger,
healthier,
long-‐term
relationships
with
homeowners
and
their
associations
must
be
organized
in
order
to
greatly
expand
our
conservation
methods
and
to
promise
full
protection
of
these
threatened
birds
in
the
future.
Key
Notes
for
Stewardship
Program
• A
preseason
(before
April
1)
letter
sent
to
the
property
owners
in
areas
where
there
is
potential
of
nesting
on
private
property.
This
will
better
inform
them
about
the
biology
of
PIPL
and
LETE,
as
well
as
to
include
reasoning
behind
the
string
fencing
and
exclosures,
how
to
prevent
disturbance,
and
ways
they
can
help.
This
letter
will
list
the
GFEE
monitoring
staff,
and
signed
by
the
GFEE
President,
Southold
Town
Supervisor,
and
NYS
DEC
Senior
Wildlife
Biologist.
• Pre-‐fence
and
place
signage
at
public
and
private
beaches
(with
permission)
early
in
the
season
(early
April),
based
on
the
site
recommendations
in
this
report.
• Increased
patrols
and
tickets
issued
from
Southold
Town
police
officers
for
unleashed
dogs
and
illegal
ATV
use,
as
both
pose
grave
threats
to
PIPL
and
LETE.
• Dredging,
raking,
and
grading
at
the
20
nesting
sites
should
not
be
permitted
May
-‐
August.
• During
breeding
months,
GFEE
stewards
and
educators
will
increase
the
presence
in
schools
teaching
children
about
plovers
and
terns,
and
by
taking
students
on
a
field
trip
to
the
beaches
4
where
the
birds
nest.
If
early
on,
kids
make
a
connection
with
PIPL
and
LETE,
they
are
more
likely
to
protect
the
birds
and
preserve
their
habitat
in
the
future.
Program
Background
The
following
is
a
site-‐by-‐site
summary
of
the
20
sites
monitored
by
Group
for
the
East
End,
in
partnership
with
North
Fork
Audubon
Society
(NFAS),
during
April
1-‐
August
15,
2015.
NFAS
and
The
Nature
Conservancy
(TNC)
initiated
the
monitoring
program
in
1996.
Each
section
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
for
PIPL
and
LETE
and
relay
this
information
to
the
NYS
DEC
and
USFWS,
who
can
roughly
determine
the
population
size
of
these
protected
species
–
in
NYS,
PIPL
listed
as
“Endangered”
and
LETE
listed
as
“Threatened”,
along
the
Atlantic
Coast.
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
is
present;
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
and
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.
Productivity
Piping
Plover
Total
number
of
pairs:
8
Number
of
nest
attempts:
12
Number
of
nests
that
hatched:
8
Number
of
young
fledged:
8
Number
of
young
fledged
per
pair:
1
Least
Tern
Number
of
colonies:
5
Number
of
nesting
pairs:
83
Number
of
young
fledged:
39
Number
of
young
fledged
per
pair:
.47
5
Disclaimer:
This
map
only
depicts
sites
covered
under
contract
with
Group
for
the
East
End
and
the
Town
of
Southold
in
2015.
Other
beach-‐nesting
bird
sites
are
monitoring
on
County
parklands
and
beaches
by
Suffolk
County
staff,
and
at
Orient
Point
State
Park
by
Audubon
New
York.
6
2015
Site
Overview
Site
Habitat
Suitability
Number
of
PIPL
Pairs
Number
of
PIPL
Nests
Total
PIPL
Fledglings
Size
of
LETE
Colony
Number
of
Visits
Angel
Shores
5
0
0
0
0
3
Corey
Creek
Mouth
1
1
2
1
0
31
Cutchogue
Harbor
(Mud
Creek)
2
0
0
0
0
14
Cutchogue
Harbor
(Meadow
Beach)
2
1
1
0
20
23
Downs
Creek
4
0
0
0
0
12
Goldsmith
Inlet
(Inlet
West)
3
0
0
0
0
18
Goldsmith
Inlet
(Kenney’s
-‐
McCabe’s)
1
3
4
3
0
42
Goose
Creek
(Southold
Bay)
3
0
0
0
0
7
Gull
Pond
West
1
2
3
2
40
49
Hashamomuck
Beach
(Town
Beach)
4
0
0
0
0
3
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
3
Little
Creek
2
0
0
0
6
29
Little
Hog
Neck
(Nassau
Point)
4
0
0
0
0
5
Marratooka
Point
(Deep
Hole
Creek)
5
0
0
0
0
3
Mattituck
Inlet
(Breakwater
Beach)
1
1
2
2
50
49
Mattituck
Inlet
(Baillie
Beach)
3
0
0
0
0
7
Port
of
Egypt
3
0
0
0
50
19
Richmond
Creek
2
0
0
0
0
12
7
2015
Site
Summaries
and
Recommendations
Angel
Shores
Similar
to
previous
years,
neither
PIPL
nor
LETE
were
observed
during
the
breeding
season.
Lack
of
upper
beach
habitat
due
to
human
influence,
e.g.
small
watercraft
coming
on
shore,
bulkheads,
limit
nesting.
Another
disturbance
features
a
patch
of
invasive
Phragmites
(Fig.
1).
There
is
a
small
portion
of
potential
nesting
habitat
northwest
of
the
access
point
on
Sunset
Lane
(Fig.
2).
However,
further
to
the
west
there
is
a
steep
slope
(Fig.
3),
and
a
thick
stand
of
cedar
trees
that
likely
deter
nesting
shorebirds.
Predators
(e.g.
raccoons)
can
use
this
area
as
cover
before
raiding
a
nest
or
group
of
young.
Figs.
1-‐3
–
Phragmites
patch
(lf.),
potential
nesting
habitat
(mid.),
steep
slope
(rt.)
Recommendation
–
none
at
this
time.
Corey
Creek
Mouth
In
2015,
one
PIPL
pair
was
observed
on
multiple
occasions
in
the
central
or
South
Harbor
Beach
section
(west
of
Corey
Creek).
This
site
featured
two
PIPL
nests
in
total,
but
the
first
of
the
two
was
predated.
The
two
nests
occurred
in
the
upper
beach
portion
on
private
property
where
native
vegetation
is
sparse
(Fig.
4).
The
first
complete
nest
was
found
on
May
4,
and
upon
visiting
the
following
day
to
exclose
all
four
eggs
were
gone.
The
second
nest
was
discovered
on
May
19,
approximately
25
feet
east
of
the
initial
nest
attempt
and
exclosed
immediately.
This
four-‐egg
nest
hatched
on
June
18,
one
chick
was
not
initially
observed
and
the
three
remaining
chicks
and
two
adults
were
observed
foraging
along
the
shore
together.
Unfortunately,
two
of
the
three
chicks
were
picked
off
most
likely
by
crows
–
a
persistent
problem
at
this
site
–
while
the
one
remaining
chick
fledged
on
July
20.
Sand
built
up
near
the
octagon
house
continues
to
be
carried
further
east,
exposing
the
groin
extending
out
into
the
bay
(Fig.
5).
As
seen
in
Fig.
6,
the
area
east
of
the
house
could
also
be
suitable
nesting
habitat,
as
it
is
open
and
sandy,
however
young
birds
are
unable
to
climb
up
the
shelf
from
the
shore.
Figs.
4-‐6
-‐
nesting
area
(lf.),
shelf
created
from
shifting
sands
(mid.),
additional
suitable
nesting
site
(rt.)
8
Corey
Creek
Mouth
-‐
con’t
Recommendation
–
there
continues
to
be
an
issue
with
unleashed
dogs
at
the
site,
most
notably
at
South
Harbor
Beach.
It
is
recommended
that
the
Town’s
leashed
dog
sign
be
moved
and
positioned
directly
at
the
South
Harbor
walkway
entrance.
Cutchogue
Harbor
(Mud
Creek)
Both
the
private
and
public
sites
have
a
considerable
amount
of
disturbance
from
beachgoers,
boaters,
and
dog
walkers.
These
factors,
coupled
with
the
result
of
last
year’s
rearing
failure,
likely
led
to
an
absence
of
PIPL
and
LETE
nests.
In
addition,
the
house
nearest
to
where
the
birds
nested
last
year
had
been
under
construction
this
year.
Breeding
birds
may
have
felt
threatened
and
fled
to
find
other,
more
suitable
locations.
During
survey
periods
on
the
western
section
of
Mud
Creek,
PIPL
and
LETE
were
seen
foraging,
but
neither
attempted
to
nest.
This
site
faces
a
decline
in
habitat
quality
due
to
its
steeply
sloped
nature,
recurring
flooding,
and
continued
erosion.
Breeding
PIPL
requires
a
larger
buffer
between
the
upper
beaches
and
housing.
On
the
wide,
sandy
beach
west
of
Wickham
Creek,
there
is
less
human
activity,
however
the
locust
trees
and
rock
revetment
wall
may
deter
nesting
birds
(Fig.
7).
Fig.
7
-‐
remote
location
for
possible
future
nesting
Recommendation
–
In
early
April,
letters
were
sent
to
remind
homeowners
of
potential
shorebirds
nesting
on
their
property.
Though
a
few
seemed
content
with
breeding
birds
last
year,
pre-‐fencing
did
not
take
place
this
season
as
a
way
to
prevent
resistance
from
other
homeowners.
Increased
outreach
to
homeowners
should
continue
but
fencing
should
only
occur
once
nests
are
found.
Cutchogue
Harbor
(Meadow
Beach)
This
area
has
been
a
very
good
breeding
site
in
recent
years.
In
2015,
PIPL
and
LETE
nested
in
a
similar
location
to
where
they
have
in
prior
years.
The
size
of
the
LETE
colony
included
10
pairs.
A
few
days
after
the
eggs
were
laid,
all
10
nests
were
gone;
raccoon
tracks
and
scat
were
discovered
within
the
colony.
A
pair
of
PIPL
made
a
four-‐egg
nest,
which
was
exclosed
on
Memorial
Day
weekend
(Fig.
8).
All
four
eggs
hatched;
two
chicks
went
missing
within
two
days
of
hatching
and
the
other
two
were
seen
foraging
with
the
adults
on
the
southern
beach.
However,
a
week
later
the
remaining
chicks
were
gone.
As
the
summer
progressed,
the
site
was
a
popular
stopover
for
post-‐breeding
PIPL
and
other
migrating
shorebirds,
most
notably
American
Oystercatcher,
Sanderling,
Ruddy
Turnstone
and
Willet.
9
Cutchogue
Harbor
(Meadow
Beach)
–
con’t
Figs.
8
&
9–
exclosure
at
isolated
Meadow
Beach
(left),
additional
nesting
habitat
(right)
Recommendation
–
continue
to
pre-‐fence
this
site,
both
at
the
peninsula
and
near
the
osprey
pole,
where
potential
nesting
habitat
exists
(Fig.
9).
Downs
Creek
After
Hurricane
Sandy
in
2012,
the
beach
at
Downs
Creek
changed
slightly
as
sand
had
been
deposited
within
a
50-‐ft
wide
section
east
of
the
osprey
pole
(Fig.
10).
Throughout
the
season,
many
transient
birds
were
observed
foraging
there.
Although
LETE
nested
in
2014,
they
did
not
nest
this
year
due
to
the
severe
loss
of
the
upper
beach
by
erosion
(Fig.
11).
During
the
past
year,
this
site
has
deteriorated
tremendously
due
to
the
shifting
sands
and
currents
(Fig.
12).
Not
only
are
the
birds
suffering
from
habitat
loss,
they
compete
with
beachgoers
to
find
a
prime
nesting
site.
Marginal
habitat
for
LETE
exists
on
the
northwestern
peninsula
and
should
be
fenced
pre-‐season
(Fig.
13).
Clammers,
kayakers,
dog
walkers
and
beach
walkers
continue
to
be
a
leading
cause
for
disturbance.
Figs.
10-‐13
–
map
of
site
(top
lf.),
erosion
(top
rt.),
expansion
of
peninsula
(bot.
lf.),
marginal
habitat
(bot.
rt.)
Recommendation-‐
Downs
Creek
should
be
dredged
and
the
material
placed
immediately
west
of
the
osprey
pole,
where
most
of
the
beach
has
been
lost.
Homeowners
on
New
Suffolk
Avenue
were
disappointed
with
the
change
in
shoreline
and
are
eager
to
see
the
beach
brought
back
as
much
as
possible.
10
Goldsmith
Inlet
(Inlet
West)
Even
though
at
least
a
single
PIPL
pair
has
nested
here
consistently
during
the
past
six
years,
no
breeding
was
detected
in
2014
or
‘15.
The
birds
have
historically
nested
on
the
dredge
material
adjacent
to
the
parking
lot
(Fig.
14).
Similar
to
past
years,
large
tire
depressions
were
observed
prior
to
string
fencing
(Fig.
15).
This
beach
draws
beach
bathers,
dog
walkers,
and
fishermen,
all
of
which
contribute
to
a
lack
of
nesting
by
PIPL
and
LETE.
Despite
these
disturbances,
a
Killdeer
laid
four
eggs
on
the
dredge
material
in
front
of
the
parking
lot
(Fig.
16).
This
may
suggest
that
the
habitat
is
adequate
enough,
however,
killdeer
are
more
tolerant
of
disturbances
than
LETE
and
PIPL.
The
loss
of
breeding
PIPL
at
Inlet
West
was
most
likely
due
to
human
encroachment,
but
if
the
protective
measures
are
adhered
to,
the
birds
may
return
in
2016.
Fig.
14-‐17
–
dredge
material/nesting
habitat
(lf.),
tire
marks
(2nd
lf.),
killdeer
eggs
(3rd
lf.),
garbage
cans
(rt.)
Recommendation
–
This
site
would
benefit
from
the
installation
of
a
guardrail
or
split
rail
fence
along
the
length
of
the
parking
lot
to
prevent
cars
from
driving
on
the
beach.
Garbage
in
the
parking
lot
was
another
major
disturbance
because
it
attracts
predators,
such
as
gulls
and
raccoons
(Fig.
17).
Garbage
pickup
should
occur
more
regularly,
and/or
place
additional
garbage
cans
with
lids
on
site
or
invest
in
solar
compactors
that
alleviate
the
need
to
pick
up
garbage
as
frequently.
Goldsmith
Inlet
(Kenney’s-‐McCabe’s)
This
was
the
most
abundant
nesting
site
this
year,
as
well
as
in
2014.
Three
PIPL
pairs
nested
with
a
total
of
16
eggs,
and
three
chicks
fledged.
Threats
included
beach
bathing,
predation
by
crows,
gulls,
rodents
and
possibly
mockingbirds
and
snakes,
unleashed
dogs,
fire
pits
(Fig.
18),
construction
of
a
nearby
house,
and
flooding.
Due
to
these
factors,
nests
were
exclosed
immediately.
All
four
nests
were
within
approximately
400
feet
of
each
other,
from
725
North
Sea
Drive
to
1125
North
Sea
Drive.
The
first
nest
was
discovered
on
May
4
with
two
eggs,
exclosed
when
it
reached
4
eggs,
and
eventually
fledged
two
young.
The
second
pair
was
further
east,
with
another
four
eggs,
and
fledged
one
young.
A
third
nest
was
discovered;
exclosed
and
eggs
disappeared
(possible
snake
or
mockingbird
predation)
within
4
days.
The
fourth
and
final
pair
laid
four
eggs
close
to
the
second
pair,
approximately
100
feet
to
the
east.
This
nest
was
exclosed
and
three
of
the
four
eggs
had
hatched,
however
the
chicks
were
not
seen.
In
total,
the
three
pairs,
who
laid
16
eggs,
only
fledged
three
young.
Comparatively,
in
2014
a
PIPL
pair
laid
four
eggs
and
fledged
four
with
a
productivity
of
1.
Seven
PIPL
chicks
were
lost
this
year
and
it
can
be
concluded
that
these
birds
struggled
more
in
2015.
As
a
carry
over
from
last
year,
some
homeowners
did
not
care
for
the
placement
of
string
fencing
early
in
the
season
(late
April).
Calls
and
written
notification
were
made
to
begin
a
dialogue
with
those
who
own
property
in
popular
nesting
areas.
Some
complained
that
the
11
Goldsmith
Inlet
(Kenney’s-‐McCabe’s)
–
con’t
LETE
were
very
noisy
and
“attacked”
them
when
they
dive-‐bombed
their
heads.
While
no
LETE
young
were
recorded
in
2015,
they
were
successful
in
fledging
15
young
in
2014.
Once
again,
one
homeowner
hired
people
to
rake
the
beach
on
their
property
surrounding
the
string-‐fenced
area
(Fig.
19).
Figs.
18-‐20
–
fire
pit
(lf.),
raking
of
beach
(ctr.),
construction
of
house
and
chairs
(rt.)
Recommendation
–
Tax
maps
should
be
on
hand
at
times
when
visiting
the
site.
In
the
future,
a
more
informative
letter
and
a
fact
sheet
on
PIPL
and
LETE
should
be
sent
to
all
property
owners
(to
where
tax
bill
is
received).
In
addition,
a
presentation
should
be
made
to
the
Kenney’s/McCabe’s
Civic
Association
prior
to
and/or
during
the
breeding
season
to
help
answer
any
questions
and
work
with
each
property
owner
before
the
birds
begin
nesting.
Fortunately,
the
Department
of
Public
Works
(DPW)
did
not
have
the
public
sections
of
beach
graded
in
mid-‐June,
as
was
the
case
in
2014.
While
leveling
and
cleaning
the
public
beach
is
necessary
on
an
annual
basis,
this
work
should
occur
in
late
April
or
early
May,
prior
to
nesting
and
hatching
of
PIPL.
Reach
out
to
DPW
to
work
with
their
schedule
to
ensure
the
public
beach
is
not
only
ready
for
Town
residents,
but
also
breeding
shorebirds,
as
the
public
section
was
once
the
favored
area
for
nesting
PIPL
and
LETE.
Goose
Creek
(Southold
Bay)
Outside
of
the
warm
summer
months,
this
site
appears
to
have
good
nesting
habitat
for
PIPL
and
LETE
(Fig.
21).
However,
the
popularity
with
beachgoers
tends
to
keep
nesting
beach
birds
at
away.
Also,
the
parking
lot
(Fig.
22)
behind
the
beach
entrance
constantly
has
incoming
cars
and
pedestrians,
as
well
as
an
active
playground
(Fig.
23),
which
collectively
are
why
PIPL
and
LETE
avoid
nesting
here.
Fig.
21-‐23
–
good
habitat,
parking
lot,
swing
set
Recommendation–
none
at
this
time
12
Gull
Pond
West
After
an
unsuccessful
year
in
2014
(0
young
fledged),
two
PIPL
pairs
returned
in
April
to
later
nest
in
May.
When
the
first
nest
attempt
failed
due
to
predation,
the
pair
relocated
to
a
patch
of
beach
grasses
near
the
jetty,
and
laid
another
four
eggs.
Like
the
first
nest,
this
clutch
was
not
exclosed
because
it
was
surrounded
by
thick
vegetation.
Second
attempts
rarely
have
a
clutch
of
four
eggs
because
of
the
physical
constraints,
e.g.
calcium
to
produce
the
eggshell
in
the
female.
However,
this
year
all
our
second
nest
attempts
contained
four
eggs.
Two
of
the
four
eggs
hatched
in
late
June
and
one
chick
fledged
at
the
end
of
July.
The
second
pair
laid
a
complete
clutch
north
of
the
first
pair,
in
a
sandy
patch
(Fig.
24).
This
nest
was
exclosed
as
soon
as
it
was
discovered
in
mid-‐May.
However,
only
one
chick
fledged.
The
presence
of
predators
(gulls,
crows,
fox,
raccoons,
rodents)
in
this
area
makes
it
extremely
difficult
for
chicks
to
survive.
Other
threats
to
this
beach
include
flooding
of
the
back
portion
of
the
upper
beach
to
the
west
(near
the
jetty),
dog
walking,
and
small
watercrafts.
With
the
Gull
Pond
PIPL
population
on
the
rebound,
the
LETE
colony
was
also
larger
and
more
successful
this
year
than
last,
with
approximately
40
nesting
birds.
The
extreme
high
tides
and
subsequent
normal
high
tides
have
proved
challenging
in
previous
years.
However,
this
season
12
LETE
young
fledged.
There
was
a
slight
berm
that
was
recently
created
(Fig.
25)
where
terns
nested
to
avoid
being
flooded.
Fig.
24-‐26
–
2nd
nest
location
(lf.),
shelf
where
LETE
nested
(mid.),
upper
beach
area
and
volleyball
net
(rt.)
Recommendation-‐
While
overall
the
homeowners
at
this
site
seem
to
be
accepting
of
PIPL
and
LETE
breeding
on
this
beach,
there
continues
to
be
the
occasional
disturbance.
There
is
a
public
access
(next
to
50
Bay
Rd)
for
people
in
the
community,
which
interferes
with
breeding
LETE.
Each
time
someone
passes
through
the
walkway,
the
birds
temporarily
pop
off
their
nest.
The
longer
the
birds
are
off
their
nest,
the
longer
the
eggs/chicks
are
exposed
to
the
elements
or
predators.
One
homeowner
left
chairs
next
to
the
string
fencing,
created
fire
pits,
dragged
driftwood
into
the
fenced
area,
and
had
an
active
volleyball
court
very
close
to
the
nesting
habitat
(Fig.
26).
The
same
homeowner
complained
about
the
size
of
the
fenced
area
and
suggested
shrinking
it
and
“sacrificing”
some
of
the
tern
nests.
Despite
informing
him
that
the
overall
LETE
population
is
on
the
decline,
he
seemed
annoyed
that
the
string
fence
was
in
place,
even
though
it
was
the
same
size
and
identical
layout
as
previous
years.
This
is
where
education
is
essential.
Though
this
person
does
not
want
the
fencing
on
his
property
for
prolonged
periods
of
time,
he
complies
but
wishes
to
review
the
mapping
for
next
year.
Alone
these
can
all
be
described
as
minor
disturbances
but
when
collectively
held
can
be
quite
caustic
to
beach-‐nesting
birds.
Further
action
working
with
homeowners
on
these
disturbances
is
needed.
13
Hashamomuck
Beach
(Town
Beach)
While
the
beach
replenishment
and
erosion
control
measures
put
in
place
in
2012-‐13
has
helped,
the
disturbances
that
exist
continue
to
deter
breeding
shorebirds.
These
disturbances
include
dog
walking,
beach
bathing,
and
an
active
playground
(Figs.
27
&
28).
In
2014,
the
steep
slope
of
this
beach
made
it
extremely
difficult
for
any
young
bird
from
accessing
the
upper
beach
because
of
the
uneven
level
of
sand
coupled
with
their
inability
to
fly
but
this
year
the
beach
had
a
gradual
slope,
almost
to
the
point
where
it
leveled
out
(Fig.
29).
Unfortunately,
there
is
a
population
of
approximately
60
gull
species
(predominately
Herring,
Great
Black-‐backed)
that
inhabit
this
beach
year-‐round.
This
mixed
gull
colony
is
intimidating
to
breeding
and
foraging
PIPL
and
LETE,
and
most
likely
deter
both
species
from
nesting
and
foraging
at
the
site.
Figs.
27-‐29
–
gradual
slope
and
multiple
disturbances
Recommendation
–
Place
better
signage
stating
the
importance
to
pick
up
litter
and
to
not
feed
wildlife,
notably
the
gull
species
present.
James
Creek
As
noted
in
prior
reports,
PIPL
and
LETE
will
not
nest
at
this
site
due
to
the
abundance
of
bulkheads
and
groins
present
(Fig.
30).
Both
contribute
to
the
loss
of
upper
beach
habitat.
At
high
tide
most
of
this
beach
is
inaccessible
because
the
water
laps
the
bulkheads,
leaving
no
space
for
walking,
let
alone
foraging
and
nesting.
One
area
that
may
attract
nesting
is
the
widest
portion
of
the
beach
(Fig.
31),
however
this
is
where
there
is
a
strong
presence
of
human
activity
(boating,
beach
bathing,
fishing).
Figs.
30-‐32
–
bulkheads
and
groins
(left),
possible
nesting
area
(middle),
drain
pipe
(right)
Recommendation
–
A
drainage
pipe
was
noted
this
year
when
surveying
the
site.
Being
that
these
homeowners
live
directly
adjacent
to
the
beach,
their
fertilizer/pesticide
use
should
be
closely
monitored
to
prevent
runoff
from
entering
and
negatively
impacting
the
bay
(Fig.
32).
14
Jockey
Creek
(Spoil
Island)
This
site
has
not
been
occupied
by
PIPL
or
LETE
in
recent
years
mainly
because
it
lacks
upper
beach
habitat
(Fig.
33).
This
small
section
of
exposed
beach
is
frequently
flooded
at
high
tide.
The
peninsula
is
dominated
by
woody
vegetation
(black
locust,
tree
of
heaven),
and
if
the
vegetation
were
to
be
removed
there
would
be
open,
sandy
beach
available.
The
result
could
be
PIPL
and
LETE
visiting
more
frequently
and
potentially
staying
to
nest
(Fig.
34).
Additionally,
the
site
is
a
popular
destination
for
small
craft
boaters,
swimmers
from
the
neighboring
Goose
Creek
Beach,
the
occasional
fisherman,
and
a
resident
population
of
Canada
geese.
As
noted
previously,
while
other
birds
and
wildlife
benefit
from
visiting
this
site,
so
much
activity
on
a
small
island
is
not
conducive
to
PIPL
and
LETE.
Figure
33-‐35
–
lack
of
upper
beach
(lf.),
woody
vegetation
(mid.),
Phragmites
&
human
encroachment
(rt.)
Recommendation–
to
attract
nesting
shorebirds,
the
upland
woody
vegetation
on
the
peninsula
should
be
removed
and
dredge
material
added.
Once
deposited,
native
beach
grasses
should
be
planted.
Also,
Phragmites
has
begun
spreading
(Fig.
35),
and
unless
removed
will
likely
overrun
the
site
within
a
few
years.
Kimogener
Point
(West
Creek)
Once
again
loafing
terns
were
observed
foraging
at
this
site,
but
no
breeding
activity
occurred
for
PIPL
and
LETE.
This
site
features
many
disturbances
such
as
bulkheads
and
groins
(Fig.
36),
boat
and
vehicle
traffic,
broken
concrete
slabs
(Fig.
37),
an
active
fire
pit
(Fig.
38),
and
simply
lacks
upper
beach
habitat
due
to
the
close
proximity
of
yards
and
houses.
Just
east
of
the
inlet
there
is
an
extensive
bulkhead.
On
the
eastern
side
of
the
groins,
the
beach
continues
to
erode,
creating
a
steep
slope
that
is
very
difficult
for
PIPL
and
LETE
chicks
to
navigate
once
hatched.
In
areas
where
there
is
wide,
undisturbed
sandy
habitat
human
activity
dominates.
Figure
36-‐38
–
groins
and
bulkheads
(lf.),
concrete
slabs
(mid.),
fire
pit
w/
potential
nesting
habitat
(rt.)
Recommendation
–
none
at
this
time.
15
Little
Creek
Although
pre-‐fencing
was
established
in
March,
PIPL
failed
to
nest
here.
Two
adults
were
observed
on
multiple
visits
early
in
the
season
and
again
later
in
the
season,
but
it
is
likely
that
they
nested
at
a
nearby
beach
and
came
to
the
north
and
south
sides
of
Little
Creek
to
forage.
In
past
years,
nesting
on
dredge
material
in
the
northern
side
of
Little
Creek,
where
there
is
a
mix
of
private
property
and
town-‐owned
land,
had
been
a
favored
and
successful
breeding
site
for
PIPL.
Going
back
an
additional
five
years,
both
PIPL
and
LETE
nested
on
both
sides
of
the
inlet
(Fig.
39).
Due
to
a
stand
of
Phragmites
that
is
greatly
expanding,
nesting
is
being
relegated
to
below
the
dune
on
the
north
side
(Fig.
40).
The
south
side
of
the
inlet,
which
is
also
the
public
beach
access
point,
continues
to
narrow
and
lessen
in
size,
leaving
very
little
nesting
habitat
above
high
tide.
However,
because
the
area
was
fenced
in
April,
and
there
was
a
lack
of
unnecessary
disturbance
(beach
grading
equipment
as
in
2013),
LETE
attempted
to
nest
and
succeeded
(Fig.
41).
This
proves
that
with
a
designated
site
for
birds,
respect
from
beachgoers,
and
without
loud
disruption
from
heavy
machinery,
there
is
still
a
possibility
for
breeding
birds
to
attend
a
site
that
would
otherwise
seem
inadequate.
Vehicular
tracks
were
evident
early
in
the
season
(Fig.
42),
but
no
ATVs
or
trucks
were
observed
while
monitoring
and
did
not
interfere
with
nesting
birds.
Figs.
39-‐42
–
nest
sites
(top),
dredge
material
(bot.
lf.),
Little
Creek
S.
(bot.
mid.),
Little
Creek
N.
(bot.
rt.)
Recommendation-‐
Assemble
string
fence
and
place
signage
early
in
the
season,
as
in
2015.
Any
beach
grading
or
grooming
should
be
coordinated
to
occur
in
late
April
or
early
May,
prior
to
any
nesting
by
PIPL
and
LETE.
Past
PIPL
nesting
areas
LETE
nesting
area
in
2015
16
Little
Hog
Neck
(Nassau
Point)
As
noted
previously,
the
lack
of
upper
beach
habitat,
high
tide
levels,
windy
conditions,
open
exposure
to
the
bay,
nearby
bulkheads,
and
presence
of
predators
make
this
site
inhospitable
to
breeding
PIPL
and
LETE.
Many
transient
shorebirds,
terns,
and
gulls
visit
the
southern
tip
of
this
site
to
forage,
but
neither
PIPL
nor
LETE
have
attempted
to
nest
within
the
past
six
years.
It
is
unclear
if
the
new
Osprey
pole
has
an
impact
or
not
(Fig.
43).
Despite
this,
a
larger
section
of
upper
beach
habitat
exists
next
to
the
inlet
to
the
north
but
the
potential
habitat
is
adjacent
to
a
wooded
area,
which
could
give
sanctuary
to
predatory
animals
(Fig.
44).
A
small
strip
of
beach
exists
where
dredge
material
has
recently
been
placed
(Fig.
45),
but
the
vertical
shelf
is
not
acceptable
for
breeding
PIPL
or
LETE.
Figs.
43-‐45
–
narrow
peninsula
of
Little
Hog
Neck
(lf.)
and
potential
nesting
habitat
(rt.)
Recommendation-‐
Continue
monitoring
the
dredge
material
section
to
see
how
it
may
develop
and
potentially
be
beneficial
for
PIPL
and
LETE.
Marratooka
Point
(Deep
Hole
Creek)
The
close
assemblage
of
seasonal
homes,
suite
of
groins,
and
lack
of
upper
beach
habitat
makes
this
a
very
unattractive
nesting
site
(Fig.
46).
Although
other
shorebirds
were
observed
foraging
here,
the
site
has
not
been
occupied
by
nesting
PIPL
or
LETE
in
at
least
a
decade.
Fig.
46
–
housing,
groins,
no
upper
beach
and
beach
bathers
Recommendation
–
none
at
this
time.
Mattituck
Inlet
(Bailie
Beach)
Despite
an
extensive
beach
replenishment
that
occurred
in
early
2014,
no
PIPL
or
LETE
nested
at
this
site
this
season,
which
is
in
keeping
with
previous
years.
Litter,
high
tides
(Fig.
47),
beachgoers,
unleashed
dogs
and
the
slight
berm
(Fig.
48)
east
of
the
Inlet
all
contribute
to
reasons
why
birds
have
not
nested
here.
As
noted
in
the
past,
LETE
and
PIPL
from
the
Breakwater
Beach
colony
visit
this
site
to
forage.
17
Mattituck
Inlet
(Bailie
Beach)
–
con’t
Fig.
47
&
48
–
debris
(bot.
lf.),
extensive
berm
(bot.
rt.)
Recommendation
–
tickets
should
be
issued
to
prevent
the
recurring
issue
of
unleashed
dogs
on
the
beach,
and
beach
cleanups
should
occur
more
frequently.
The
Mattituck
Park
District
should
also
look
into
the
feasibility
of
grading
the
beach
in
late
April
or
early
May,
prior
to
the
arrival
of
PIPL
and
LETE.
Mattituck
Inlet
(Breakwater
Beach)
As
in
the
past,
Breakwater
Beach
was
an
active
breeding
site.
Two
PIPL
chicks
fledged
in
2015.
This
site
has
always
been
one
of
the
best
breeding
sites
due
to
the
extensive
breeding
and
foraging
habitat
present.
However,
this
year
both
PIPL
and
LETE
expanded
their
breeding
range
into
the
private
beach
section.
As
noted
in
the
Introduction,
due
to
vandalism
(Fig.
50)
and
property
owner
issues,
the
Group
staff
and
volunteers
did
not
monitor
the
private
section
of
beach
after
May
15,
as
monitoring
stewards
from
the
NYS
DEC
took
on
these
duties.
For
the
public
beach
or
Mattituck
Park
District
section,
two
nesting
attempts
occurred
with
each
having
a
unique
story.
The
first
attempt
occurred
in
late
May
and
resulted
in
a
second
incidence
of
vandalism,
with
rocks
piled
on
the
netting
and
subsequently
crushing
the
eggs
below
(Fig.
51).
The
opening
in
the
netting
allowed
a
crow
species
to
fly
in
but
was
unable
to
fly
out
later
found
dead
(Fig.
52).
It’s
unclear
if
the
crow
was
killed
by
the
rocks
or
trapped
within
the
exclosure.
Since
the
exclosure
was
on
a
public
beach
and
surrounded
by
string
fence,
it
was
left
in
place.
A
second
four-‐egg
nest
was
found
in
mid-‐June
and
not
exclosed,
due
to
the
prior
act
of
vandalism.
It
is
unclear
if
this
was
the
same
PIPL
pair.
Of
this
nest,
two
eggs
hatched
and
both
birds
later
fledged.
The
LETE
colony
returned
and
had
a
successful
outcome
with
roughly
two-‐dozen
pairs
producing
roughly
15
chicks,
and
about
half
of
those
fledging.
Figs.
50-‐53
–
damaged
exclosure
(lf.),
rocks
on
netting
(lf.
mid.),
dead
crow
(rt.
mid.),
illegal
ATV
use
(rt.)
Recommendation
–
Based
on
early
season
interactions
with
property
owners
along
the
private
beach
section,
it
is
highly
recommended
that
Town
of
Southold
credentials
be
carried
by
GFEE
18
staff
and
volunteers
at
all
times
when
monitoring
this
site,
as
well
as
the
other
19
sites
across
the
Town.
Beach
cleanups
should
be
scheduled
more
frequently,
especially
prior
Mattituck
Inlet
(Breakwater
Beach)
–
con’t
to
the
breeding
season
in
early
April.
As
noted
in
the
past,
increased
policing
and
enforcement
of
the
Town’s
ATV
law
on
public
beaches
is
sorely
needed.
Once
again
there
were
multiple
eyewitness
accounts
of
ATVs
being
driven
on
the
bluffs
to
the
west
(Fig.
53).
Law
enforcement
could
prevent
this
in
the
future
and
NYS
DEC
Officers
must
step
up
patrols.
Surveillance
cameras
and/or
“under
video
surveillance”
signs
should
used
to
deter
vandalism
and
assist
with
string
fencing
and
signage.
Port
of
Egypt
The
only
known
colony
of
Great
Black-‐backed
Gulls
(GBBG)
in
Southold
exists
at
this
site.
A
total
of
approximately
65
pairs
and
85
young
observed
in
2015
(Fig.
56)
-‐
an
increase
of
20
fledglings
from
2014.
While
the
site
features
sections
of
suitable
nesting
habitat,
the
GBBG
colony
alone
is
enough
to
prevent
PIPL
from
nesting
here
(Fig.
57).
LETE
were
successful
and
maintained
a
colony
of
about
30
nests,
and
a
total
of
15
fledged
young.
Because
LETE
nest
in
large
groups,
unlike
PIPL,
they
are
able
to
withstand
the
threats
that
GBBG
pose,
and
have
even
proved
to
carry
on
a
successful
season.
Of
interest
was
a
pair
of
American
Oystercatcher
(AMOY)
that
nested
and
fledged
three
young
by
mid-‐July
(Fig.
58).
Two
pairs
of
Common
Tern
(COTE)
nested
and
fledged
two
young,
most
likely
from
just
one
pair.
Figure
56-‐58
–
nest
sites
for
AMOY,
COTE,
GBBG,
&
LETE
(top),
GBBG
colony
(bot.
lf.),
AMOY
nest
site
(bot.
rt.)
Recommendation–
though
AMOY,
COTE,
and
AMOY
nested
in
2015,
these
birds,
along
with
PIPL
would
benefit
from
the
reduction
of
the
GBBG
colony.
PIPL
do
not
nest
in
close
proximity
to
such
a
predator.
The
terns
and
AMOY
were
frantic
when
a
GBBG
came
close
to
their
nest
or
young.
Least
tern
colony
American
oystercatcher
nest
Great
black-‐
backed
gull
colony
Common
tern
nest
Common
tern
nest
19
Richmond
Creek
On
the
surface,
this
should
be
a
very
active
breeding
site
for
PIPL
and
LETE
(Figs.
59
&
60).
However,
disturbance
persists
in
the
form
of
beach
bathing,
dog
walking
and
boat
anchoring.
These
activities,
along
with
the
lack
of
upper
beach
habitat
is
slightly
sloped
and
heavily
vegetated,
could
be
reasons.
The
close
proximity
to
the
Corey
Creek
site
(South
Harbor
Beach)
is
another
factor,
as
birds
regularly
return
there
to
attempt
to
breed.
As
has
been
the
case
in
the
past,
transient
shorebirds
(sanderling,
ruddy
turnstone)
were
encountered
this
season.
Figure
59
&
60-‐
placement
of
dredge
material
(lf.)
and
potential
nesting
area
(rt.)
Recommendation–
Pre-‐season
fencing
is
an
option
that
should
be
employed
to
secure
the
beach
for
nesting
and
before
throngs
of
beach-‐goers
visit
the
site
later
in
the
spring
and
early
summer.