HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 End of Season Report Final
Town of Southold – Beach-Dependent Bird
Species Management Program
NYS DEC Designated Monitoring Sites
Prepared By: Aaron Virgin
September 2012
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Least Tern (Sterna antilarrum)
“Conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner
who conserves the public interest.” - Aldo Leopold (1934)
2
Acknowledgements
Tom Damiani and Juliana Duryea worked tirelessly as stewardship coordinators monitoring the 20
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) designated sites across Southold
Town during this past breeding season. Without their strong birding skills and keen observations, this
report would not be possible. We are indebted to Barbara Butterworth, Carol Coakley, Kate Fullam, Bob
and Carol Gelling, Jenn Hartnagel, Liz Jackson, Rick and Linda Kedenburg, Kristina Lange, Bob Maddalena,
Mary Mulcahy, Bev Prentice, John Sep, and Diana van Buren, all of whom contributed sightings and/or
erected string fencing/exclosures during the 2012 breeding season.
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 - August 2012. This monitoring
program was initiated by NFAS in 1996, as the Endangered Species Program. Each section includes site-
specific information regarding Piping Plover (PIPL) habitat suitability, nesting activity, overall
productivity, number of visits, as well as presence of Least Tern (LETE) colonies. The chief goal of the
program is to determine overall productivity for PIPL and LETE and relay this information to the NYS
DEC and United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), who can determine the overall population of
these federally-protected species (In NYS, PIPL listed as “Endangered”; LETE listed as “Threatened”).
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 Plovers Total number of pairs: 12
Number of nest attempts: 16
Number of nests that hatched: 9
Number of young fledged: 11
Number of young fledged per pair: .92
Least Terns Number of colonies: 3
Number of nesting pairs: 49
Number of young fledged: 34
Number of young fledged per pair: .69
3
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 2 1 1 0 0 25
Cutchogue
Harbor
(Mud Creek)
3 1 0 0 0 8
Cutchogue
Harbor (TNC -
Meadow Beach)
1 1 1 3 0 31
Downs
Creek 4 0 0 0 0 5
Goldsmith Inlet
(Inlet West) 2 1 1 2 0 26
Goldsmith Inlet
(Kenney’s -
McCabe’s)
3 1 2 0 0 39
Goose
Creek
(Southold Bay)
3 0 0 0 0 7
Gull Pond
West 1 3 5 5 15 44
Hashamomuck
Beach
(Town Beach)
4 0 0 0 0 5
James
Creek 5 0 0 0 0 3
Jockey Creek
(Spoil Island) 5 0 0 0 0 5
Kimogener
Point
(West Creek)
5 0 0 0 0 3
Little
Creek 2 1 2 1 0 20
Little Hog Neck
(Nassau Point) 4 0 0 0 0 8
Marratooka
Point (Deep
Hole Creek)
5 0 0 0 0 6
Mattituck
Inlet
(Breakwater)
1 3 4 0 50 35
Mattituck Inlet
(Bailie Beach) 4 0 0 0 0 5
Port of
Egypt (Island) 3 0 0 0 4 14
Richmond
Creek 3 0 0 0 0 7
4
2012 Site Summaries and Recommendations
Angel Shores
This site no longer has suitable nesting habitat for PIPL and LETE, and continues the trend of 0
encounters with these birds of recent years. Extensive bulk heads and a lack of upper beach habitat
dissuade beach-nesting birds from occupying this site (see Figure 1-3). No transient birds were seen
foraging at this site at any time during the seven visits.
Recommendation – should be removed from list of monitored sites due to lack of viable nesting and
foraging habitats.
Figures 1-3 – Bulkhead and lack of upper beach habitat
Corey Creek Mouth
A pair of PIPL was observed in the central or South Harbor Beach section (west of Corey Creek), and
subsequently an incomplete nest was located. However, the nest was predated upon (likely an American
Crow, which have been problematic in past nesting years) before a full clutch (4 eggs) was laid. The pair
had been seen within this section of the site during the remainder of the summer, but no additional
nesting attempts were witnessed.
Another pair of plovers was observed in the eastern or Takaposha Shores section (east of Corey Creek)
during the nesting season, however no nests were located nor is it possible to rule out whether it is the
same pair from the South Harbor Beach section (see previous comment). It should be noted that this site
has featured an active Red Fox den (tracks and den observed but no fox sightings) during the past two
breeding seasons, which further diminished any successful breeding attempts this year. An interesting
observation was a nesting pair of Willets on the western end of the Takaposha section. This likely did
not, but cannot be ruled out, have an impact on nesting PIPL. Lastly, LETE were noted foraging in the
area but none were seen attempting to nest at this site (either sections).
Recommendation – this site should be split into two areas to better define nesting opportunities (see
Figure 4). This is very important when developing a dredge management plan for Corey Creek. Potential
names are: Corey Creek West (South Harbor Beach) and Corey Creek East (Takaposha Shores). By sub-
dividing this site, it will allow for more efficient coverage and descriptions when visiting the area.
5
Figure 4 – Proposed Site Names (for split)
Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek)
This private section of Cutchogue Harbor has potentially good nesting habitat, and a single pair of PIPL
was observed early in the breeding period. However, an extreme high tide and storm-related event
prohibited this pair from nesting. In addition, late May – early June featured heavy disturbances by
beachgoers, boaters, and dog walkers. Due to the nature of the steeply sloped beach (lack of upper beach
habitat) and potential nesting habitat, disturbance by flooding and human intrusion will continue.
Moreover, this section of beach in this site has, and will continue to be, eroded more than other sections
of the harbor. LETE were seen foraging in the area, but no nesting attempts were observed.
Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach)
This site featured the first PIPL nest of the season. Known as Meadow Beach due to the extensive salt
marsh meadow present at the site, the area is a very good nesting site since it is a privately owned
preserve held by The Nature Conservancy and difficult to reach unless by boat (Figures 5 & 6). In the
past there have been problems with trespassing and vandalism, but nothing remotely occurred this year.
In addition, flooding of the low-lying site has been an issue in the past, which resulted in the complete
breeding loss of the LETE colony in 2011. One LETE nest was observed late in the season but was
unsuccessful. This is unique, though not rare, as LETE are colonial nesting species.
Figures 5 & 6 – Isolated Meadow Beach site and first PIPL exclosure of the season
South Harbor Beach
(including private beach)
Takaposha Shores
6
One pair of PIPL produced three young, which fledged by June 27. A second pair of PIPL was observed in
early June, but no subsequent nests were observed. As the summer progressed, the site was a popular
stopover for post-breeding plovers and other shorebirds migrating through our area.
Downs Creek
This site contains some marginal nesting habitat (see Figure 7) and transient shorebirds, including PIPL,
were observed during the breeding season. However, due to a lack of nesting habitat above the high tide
line and a variety of human activities (most notably a new home being constructed), this site will remain
an unsuitable nesting area.
Figure 7 – Marginal nesting habitat at Downs Creek
Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West)
Following the recommendation of the 2011 report, the Goldsmith Inlet site was sub-divided into two
areas: Inlet West and Kenney’s – McCabe’s. The former is described as the area geographically west of
the inlet and jetty (see Figure 8).
One pair of PIPL fledged two young in late June from the site. An exclosure was erected on former dredge
spoil (adjacent to town parking lot) from four years prior. This is the second consecutive year a pair has
nested in this area. As was the case in 2011, the plover adults led the young away from the busy parking
area locale to a quieter section of beach roughly 300 yards west of the inlet. A third adult plover was
observed in mid-summer and was likely a transient bird, as were 8 LETE periodically seen in July.
Figure 8 – Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West)
Marginal beach-nesting
habitat for PIPL and LETE
Nesting site of PIPL in
2011 and 2012 on
dredge material from
6-7 years prior
7
Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s-McCabe’s)
Previously a subsection of Goldsmith Inlet (see previous comments), the Kenney’s and McCabe’s beach
sections have been vulnerable to a number of factors in the past: heavy beach bathing use, predation
(crows, raccoons, rodents), unleashed dogs, and flooding. The latter thwarted the nesting attempt by one
pair of PIPL in early June, but a second attempt a few weeks later produced a rare clutch of four eggs.
Second attempts rarely have a clutch of four eggs due to the physical constraints, e.g. calcium to produce
the eggshell, on the female. However, only two young were observed with the adults five days after
hatching in mid-July and no young were observed after August 1, thus fledging success is unknown.
Recommendation – this site will benefit from increased public outreach in the future, as many visitors
were ill-informed about the monitoring of these threatened birds, their status, why string fencing and
exclosures were being employed (see Figure 9), and simply what to do or not to do if a PIPL is
encountered.
Figure 9 – McCabe’s Beach PIPL exclosure and string fence
Goose Creek (Southold Bay)
There is adequate to a fair amount of nesting habitat at this site, however it continues to be a very
popular destination with beach bathers and the occasional beach driver (see Figure 10). As a result, PIPL
and LETE tend to avoid this area as a nesting site, and no nesting attempts for either species were noted.
Recommendation – consider placement of string fence and signage prior to the nesting season to sanction
off good nesting habitat. In addition, conduct public outreach at the site to better inform visitors about
the monitoring efforts and protective measures in place for beach-nesting birds. Barriers are also needed
adjacent to the parking lot to prohibit vehicles from driving on the beach.
Figure 10 – Vehicle tracks at site
Excellent beach-nesting habitat PIPL nesting exclosure
Vehicle tracks
8
Gull Pond West
Once again, this site proved to be the most productive of the 20 sites monitored this season (see Figure
11), and may have been even more successful if the extremely high tide in early May did not flood two
earlier PIPL nests. All told, three pairs of PIPL nested successfully, with one pair fledging three young. It
is believed that one pair re-nested and four young hatched in mid-July, and two young were observed
fledging within the month. Predation by raccoons may have been the culprit for the other two PIPL
chicks since tracks in the vicinity were observed.
LETE nested successfully following the extreme high tide, and subsequent normal high tides, resulting in
45 pairs yielding at least 15 fledged young. A strong outreach effort to the five homeowners adjacent to
the site proved successful, as positive interactions and assistance was achieved through the bre eding
season.
Figure 11 – Gull Pond West nesting areas
Hashamomuck Beach (Town Beach)
Following the severe late winter storm of 2010, this site was devastated not only as a potential beach-
nesting site, but also as a desirable destination for beachgoers. Due to substantial beach replenishment
and erosion control measures put in place by the town, this site has undergone a radical transformation.
However, there are several reasons the site remains nonviable for breeding plovers and terns.
First, the large population (avg. 60 individuals) of gull species (Herring, Great Black-backed, Ring-billed)
is intimidating to breeding and foraging birds (see Figure 12), and often are a major predator of young
birds during the summer months. The gulls are present due to the high density of humans that visit the
site and subsequently some give them food. Second, dog walking on the beach (both leashed and
unleashed) is in direct conflict with nesting and foraging PIPL and LETE (see Figure 13). Third, even with
beach replenished there is very little nesting habitat above the high tide mark and the parking lot, which
has constant vehicular traffic by visitors to the site.
Recommendation – place signage at the site asking the public to not feed the gulls and to leash dogs while
walking along the beach. Continue monitoring the site, as it has potential as a migratory stopover and
foraging site for plovers and terns.
Figure 12 – Great Black-backed Gulls Figure 13 – Unleashed dog
LETE Colony
PIPL nest locations
9
James Creek
This site does not contain suitable nesting habitat and has not been occupied by PIPL or LETE in recent
years. This is due to extensive bulkheads and groins employed in the area. The latter has scalloped any
viable nesting habitat to the east of the creek’s mouth, while the former is present on the western portion
of the creek (see Figure 14).
Recommendation – this site should be removed from the list of NYS DEC sites to be monitored in the
future, but included in the annual dredge site habitat assessment report for Southold Town.
Figure 14 – James Creek featuring extensive bulkheads and groins
Jockey Creek (Spoil Island)
This site does not contain suitable nesting habitat and has not been occupied by PIPL and LETE in recent
years. This is due to a lack of upper beach habitat above the high tide line and extensive vegetation (see
Figure 15). Rather than be managed for beach-nesting birds and/or colonial water birds (herons, egrets),
this site was left to “go wild” and naturally became vegetated over time. While this has been beneficial to
other birds and wildlife, it has not proved viable to PIPL and LETE. In addition, it was observed that the
site is a popular destination for small craft boaters, swimmers from the neighboring Goose Creek Beach,
and the occasional fisherman. All said activity on a small island is not conducive to beach-nesting birds.
Recommendation– remove the upland vegetation from the island and add future dredge spoil material
from nearby Goose Creek or Town Creek, thus creating habitat for beach-nesting birds. Increased
policing by the bay constable is also needed, as the “No Trespassing” signs at the site are being ignored.
Figure 15 – Spoil Island lacks nesting habitat
Groins
Bulkheads
10
Kimogener Point (West Creek)
Due to the presence of extensive bulkheads, groins, and lack of any upper beach habitat, there are very
little suitable nesting areas, particularly on the eastern side of West Creek. A peninsula was created or
enhanced by dredging activities in 2008 and contains ideal foraging habitat for migratory PIPL and LETE.
Recommendation – while this site is no longer viable as a nesting location for PIPL and LETE, it should be
monitored as a potential dredge site, as West Creek is an active navigable waterway for small watercraft.
Any future dredging activities should take into account the above-mentioned peninsula (see Figure 16)
when making management decisions.
Figure 16 – Dredge Spoil
Little Creek
Due to extensive beach erosion, there is only marginal nesting habitat at this site. The upper beach at the
public beach off Nassau Point Causeway continues to narrow and lessen in size, leaving very little nesting
habitat for PIPL and LETE to nest above high tide. During the past two years, two pairs of PIPL have
attempted to nest at the public beach, only to have their nest wash away due to the close proximity to
high tide. No LETE were noted as attempting to nest at this site in 2012, however they were consistently
observed foraging nearby.
A pair of PIPL was successful on the northern side of Little Creek, where a public beach does not exist but
extensive private property and town-owned land abounds (see Figure 17). The pair laid a two-egg nest
on dredge spoil, which hatched first week of July. Despite an interaction with a hostile neighbor at the
site, who threatened one of the site monitors with a “hound dog”, one PIPL fledged on August 9.
Figure 17 – Little Creek
PIPL nesting areas
Dredge Material
11
Little Hog Neck
This site contains marginal to unsuitable habitat, as it lacks much of a sandy beach area and the entire
peninsula has been eroded to a rocky substrate. While a LETE colony attempted to nest at the site in
2011, the weather conditions and tide levels were not conducive for either LETE or PIPL. As noted in
2011, there is some suitable nesting habitat to the east of the beach access point, however this section
was undergoing erosion control measures (rip-rap) and the presence of heavy machinery likely
dissuaded birds from visiting the site. In addition, presence of bulkheads and beach debris has all
culminated in a lack of viable PIPL and LETE nesting habitat (see Figure 18).
Figure 18 – Little Hog Neck
Marratooka Point
This site does not contain suitable nesting habitat and has not been occupied by PIPL or LETE in recent
years. The presence of groins eroding a portion of the beach and nearly a dozen beach homes close to the
high tide mark is negatively impacting potential beach-nesting habitat (see Figure 19).
Recommendation – while this site is no longer viable as a nesting location for PIPL and LETE, it should be
monitored as a potential dredge site, as Deep Hole Creek is an active navigable waterway. It is
recommended that this site be removed from the list of NYS DEC monitored sites, but included in the
annual dredge site habitat assessment report for Southold Town.
Figure 19 – Marratooka Point
Suitable habitat where erosion control
work was conducted in 2012
Extensive bulkhead
Wood debris
Rocky shoreline
Groins
12
Mattituck Inlet (Bailie Beach)
As a whole, Mattituck Inlet contains one of the largest areas of suitable nesting habitat on the North Fork
However the Bailie Beach section (east of the Inlet) currently has a serious unleashed dog problem.
Unlike the Breakwater Beach section (see section below), Bailie Beach did not produce a single
observation of foraging or breeding PIPL, but LETE were seen on most visits foraging in the vicinity.
Recommendation – increased policing and enforcement of the Town’s law on “no dogs allowed” on public
beaches is sorely needed at this site. Due to the large presence of unleashed dogs, it is highly unlikely
that PIPL and LETE will attempt to nest at this site.
Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater Beach)
For the 2012 breeding season, Breakwater Beach was one of the two best breeding sites in Southold
Town. This is due to the extensive breeding and foraging habitat present at the site, especially when
compared to nearby Bailie Beach (see Figure 20). Three pair of PIPL hatched four, two, and three young,
respectively after an initial pair of PIPL lost their nest due to flooding in early June. All nine young were
due to fledge no later than August 12, however no young were observed after July 18, thus resulting in 0
productivity for the site. On a better note, the LETE colony returned and roughly 50 nests were observed
and about 30 fledglings were noted (see Figure 21).
Recommendation – increased policing and enforcement of the Town’s law on ATV use on public beaches is
needed at this site (see Figure 22). NYS DEC was notified as well of illegal ATV use and will also need to
increase patrols in the area to be more effective in prohibiting this recreational activity.
Figure 20 – Expansive nesting habitat Figure 21 – LETE Colony
Figure 22 – Illegal ATV use
13
Port of Egypt
While this site contains some suitable nesting habitat for LETE and PIPL, it has become the nesting site
for a colony of Great Black-back Gulls (GBBG) in recent years. In 2012, roughly 45 GBBG nests were
observed at this site, resulting in a lack of nesting space and foraging areas for LETE and PIPL. The latter
was not observed during the breeding season, while several pairs of LETE attempted to nest late in the
season and no young were observed. On an interesting note, a pair of Common Tern (COTE) nested
successfully on the western section of the island fledging two young, and a pair of American
Oystercatcher (AMOY) attempted to nest in June but their nest was flooded.
Recommendation – work with NYS DEC on a nuisance permit to drastically reduce or eliminate the GBBG
population, as it is prohibiting PIPL, LETE, COTE, and AMOY from nesting at this location, despite the
close proximity to a busy marina and boat traffic (see Figure 23).
Figure 23 – Port of Egypt
Richmond Creek
This site contains a blend of suitable and modest nesting habitat due to a lack of groins and bulkheads in
the area. Due to frequent beach bathers, dog walking and boating along this stretch of beach, PIPL and
LETE did not attempt to nest this year. This site does have very good foraging habitat, and both species
were noted during survey periods.
Recommendation – by placing dredge material from Richmond Creek on the vegetation growing behind
the upper beach habitat, more nesting habitat will be available to PIPL and LETE (see Figure 24).
Figure 24 – Richmond Creek
COTE nest site
AMOY nest site
GBBG colony
Area to add
dredge material
Best suitable
nesting habitat