Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 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 2016 "In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand and we will understand only what we are taught" -Baba Dioum "One way or another, the choice will be made by our generation, but it will affect life on earth for all generations to come" - Lester Brown 2 Acknowledgements We are thankful for the additional help from interns Alex Goerler and Amy Dries 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 2016 breeding season. Also, we are indebted to Michael Corso, Rick Kedenburg, Gaelle Lair, Alan and Lorin Litner, Brewster McCall, Russ McCall, Jillian Liner and Amanda Pachomski of Audubon New York, Christine Rivera, and John Sepenoski, 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 2016 breeding season. In addition, we owe a debt of gratitude to Peconic Sounds Shores, The Group to Save Goldsmith Inlet, Captain Kidd’s Estates Home Association, and Kenney’s Beach Civic Association, whose members anonymously contributed sightings, helped clean up debris on the beaches, fixed symbolic string fence, and notified law enforcement when illegal activities occurred at nest sites. Without the help of our staff, volunteers, and community-at-large this report would not be possible. Additional Monitoring and Education In 2016, Group for the East End (GFEE) developed a strong partnership with Audubon New York, the state program of the National Audubon Society. The relationship sprouted for two reasons; when Stewardship Coordinator Christine Tylee was asked to help Audubon monitor Orient Beach State Park, and later when she read about Audubon’s “Be A Good Egg” project. Willing to help monitor Audubon’s most eastern and hard to reach stewardship site, and very impressed by what the “Be A Good Egg” program offered, the 2016 season was greatly enhanced compared to prior years. These efforts encouraged GFEE to branch further out into the community allowing us to focus on education, and expanding our overall monitoring expertise - all while expanding the shorebird-monitoring program established with the Town of Southold. GFEE was asked to help Audubon NY monitor Orient Beach State Park to help alleviate excessive travel by Audubon stewards coming from western Suffolk. As GFEE monitors North Fork sites from Mattituck to Greenport, when asked by Audubon NY for assistance with their Orient site, the decision was an easy one. Christine made the five-mile Orient trip once a week for the duration of the breeding season, assisting with string fencing, exclosures, surveys of eggs, adults and chicks, and overall site observations. Piping Plover (PIPL) and Least Tern (LETE) continue to face tremendous pressure from habitat loss, shore hardening and natural predators. In a few cases, property owners chose not to participate in the program and thereby refused to have string fence placed on their property before the nesting season commenced. This not only was a negative impact on the breeding birds, but it also greatly hindered monitoring efforts. As in prior years, GFEE staff and volunteer stewards attended annual homeowner association meetings and community events to better connect people with this vital and often misunderstood work. The development of stronger, healthier, long-term relationships with homeowners and their associations are needed in order to greatly expand our conservation methods and to promise full protection of these threatened birds. Captain Kidd’s Homeowner Association in Mattituck and overlooking Breakwater Beach 3 suggested a sign be placed next to their entrance road saying, “We Support Group for the East End and the Town of Southold’s Shorebird Monitoring Program”. For the “Be A Good Egg” program, more than 150 students took part to learn about breeding and migratory shorebirds on the North Fork. The program allows them to create their own signs, with some chosen for display at local beaches to better raise awareness about the sensitive nesting habitat. The program was featured in numerous local newspapers and on website media portals. Southold science teacher, Russ Karsten, noted the program “helped [the students] identify the wildlife and discuss the importance of preserving the local ecosystem. The sign contest brought the students attention to a community problem, and allowed them to work with a local organization on managing a solution.” The “Be a Good Egg” program was a great success, and we hope to continue and expand this program in the future. (l. to r. – GFEE Stewardship Coordinator, Christine Tylee, presenting the “Be A Good Egg” program at Cutchogue East; students at Peconic Community School create artwork for potential signs; students display signs at Little Creek Beach. Key Notes for Stewardship Program • A preseason (before April 1, 2016) letter was sent to the property owners in areas where there has been or there is a high potential of nesting on private property. The goal of the letter is to better inform them about the biology of PIPL and LETE, as well as to include reasoning behind the string fence and exclosures, how to prevent disturbance, and ways they can help and become more involved. A listing of all GFEE monitoring staff and volunteers is includes, as are signatures by the GFEE President, Southold Town Supervisor, and NYS DEC Senior Wildlife Biologist. • Pre-fence and signage was placed at public and private beaches with permission of property owners early in early April based on the site recommendations from the 2015 Report. • Based on illegal activities observed this year and in the past, we recommend increased patrols of by law enforcement 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, as this unnecessary disturbance deeply impacts beach-nesting birds. • During the breeding season, GFEE stewards and educators increased awareness of the program by presenting to three schools and one scout group. Children learned about shorebird biology and took field trips to nesting beaches. 4 Program Background The following is a site-by-site summary of the 20 sites monitored by Group for the East End during April 1- August 15, 2016. The North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) initiated the monitoring program within the Town of Southold in 1996, under coordination with the NYS DEC and 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 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 is 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: 10 Number of nest attempts: 13 Number of nests that hatched: 8 Number of young fledged: 18 Number of young fledged per pair: 1.8 Least Tern Number of colonies: 7 Number of nesting pairs: 96 Number of young fledged: 56 Number of young fledged per pair: .58 5 Disclaimer: This map only depicts sites covered under contract with Group for the East End and the Town of Southold in 2016. Other beach-nesting bird sites are monitored on Suffolk County parklands and beaches by Suffolk County staff, and at Orient Point State Park by Audubon New York. In both cases, GFEE is in direct communication with both entities to relay positive and negative information, as it occurs in the field. 6 2016 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 2 0 0 0 0 35 Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek) 3 0 0 0 0 9 Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach) 2 0 0 0 4 29 Downs Creek 4 0 0 0 0 9 Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West) 3 0 0 0 0 14 Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s - McCabe’s) 1 3 3 0 0 38 Goose Creek (Southold Bay) 3 0 0 0 2 28 Gull Pond West 1 2 5 6 54 63 Hashamomuck Beach (Town Beach) 5 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 2 2 6 20 49 Little Hog Neck (Nassau Point) 4 0 0 0 0 7 Marratooka Point (Deep Hole Creek) 5 0 0 0 0 3 Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater Beach) 1 3 3 6 54 63 Mattituck Inlet (Baillie Beach) 3 0 0 0 0 7 Port of Egypt 3 0 0 0 65 24 Richmond Creek 2 0 0 0 0 21 7 2016 Site Summaries and Recommendations Angel Shores For the fifth year in a row, neither PIPL nor LETE were observed. Lack of upper beach habitat due to human influence, e.g. small watercraft coming on shore, bulkheads (Fig. 1) severely impact nesting. A patch of invasive Phragmites also detracts from the natural habitat of these birds (Fig. 2). There is a small portion of potential nesting habitat northwest of the access point on Sunset Lane (Fig. 3), however, further to the west there is a steep slope and a thick stand of cedar trees that likely deter nesting shorebirds at the entire site. Predators, such as raccoons, crows, can use this area as cover before raiding a nest or group of young. Figs. 1-3 – Shore hardening (l.), Phragmites patch (c.), potential nesting habitat (r.) Recommendation – due to lack of PIPL and LETE activity at the site, maintain low-level monitoring. Corey Creek Mouth In 2016, one PIPL pair was observed on multiple occasions in the central or South Harbor Beach section (west of Corey Creek). The pair was observed foraging to the west of nearby Richmond Creek. All signs of nesting - breeding dance, making scrapes, copulation - were observed in the same string-fence area used for nesting in 2015, but no eggs were found (Fig. 4). By Memorial Day weekend, PIPL were no longer seen. It is likely they continued moving west together and ended up at Little Creek, where two PIPL pairs nested later in the season. Disturbances at this site included: dog-walking, unleashed dogs, beach bathers immediately adjacent to string fence, loud music, and bonfires. Crows continue to be a problem as well. Sand previously built up near the octagon house continues to be carried further east, exposing the groins that extend out into the bay (Fig. 5). The area east of the house could also be suitable nesting habitat, as it is open and sandy (Fig. 6), however it remains problematic for young birds, as they are unlikely to climb up the shelf from the shoreline. Figs. 4-6 - courting area (l.), shelf created from shifting sands (c.), additional suitable nesting site (r.) 8 Recommendations – unleashed dogs continue to be a nuisance at this site, specifically South Harbor Beach. There were instances where GFEE stewards approached leash-less dog- walkers and were met with comments such as, “I’m not going to listen to a teenager”. It is therefore recommended that the Town’s leashed dog sign be moved and positioned directly at the South Harbor Beach walkway entrance and requesting the Town Bay Constables visit the site and enforce the leash law on a regular basis. In addition, teenagers were observed “partying” on the eastern or Takaposha side of the site, often leaving garbage behind. Neighbors have complained, particularly because visitors fail to clean up after themselves. The entrance should have a sign encouraging the public to pick up their garbage. Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek) The Cutchogue Harbor area endures a significant amount of visitation during the breeding season, whether beachgoers, boaters or dog walkers. These factors, coupled with the result of previous year’s nest failure, likely led to an absence of PIPL and LETE nests. Breeding birds may have felt threatened and fled to find other, more suitable locations such as nearby Little Creek. During survey periods on the western section of Mud Creek, LETE and other shorebirds were seen foraging, but no adults attempted to nest. Although the bayside of this site can be easily accessed as foraging grounds, the site faces a decline in habitat quality due to its steeply sloped nature, recurring flooding and continued erosion. Breeding PIPL require a larger buffer with enough open sandy area between the upper beaches and buildings. On the wide, sandy beach east of Wickham Creek, there is very little human activity, however the locust trees (Fig. 7) and rock revetment wall continue to deter nesting birds. Figs. 7 & 8- remote location for possible future nesting (l.) and overflowing garbage cans (r.) Recommendation – monitoring efforts and outreach to homeowners should continue, but string fence should only occur once nests are found. If funding is available and permission granted, the removal of the locust trees on the beach east of Wickham Creek could help in making the site more attractive to PIPL and LETE. The locust could then be used for Osprey poles. The Town DPW should remove garbage from trashcans at the end of Pequash Lane more often to avoid overflowing, as seen in Figure 8, as this no doubt attracts predators. Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach) This beach was a popular stopover for PIPL and other migrating shorebirds, most notably American Oystercatcher, Sanderling, Ruddy Turnstone and Willet. While there was 10 pair of LETE that nested in 2015 (none of them successful), this year only two pair attempted and 9 was unsuccessful. Unlike prior years, 2016 was the first year in recent history that no PIPL attempted to nest. On a more promising note, 2016 was the first year the site had nesting AMOY. One pair laid two eggs near the LETE pairs in late May. Unfortunately, both eggs disappeared the same night as those of the LETE. Gulls, raccoons, and foxes have been known to hunt this beach, with the latter likely to blame, as numerous holes were found in the immediate vicinity. Cutchogue Harbor had another first-time resident this year – the Canada Goose (CAGO). Whether or not this is beneficial to shorebirds nesting nearby (they may or may not intimidate the smaller PIPLs and LETEs), it is worth noting that they did indeed nest here this year. Due to the territorial nature of the CAGO, their nest was not monitored. For this reason, and that it does not fit within the scope of our contract with the Town, their breeding success is unknown, but no young were subsequently seen during the breeding season. Fig. 9–additional nesting habitat Recommendation – continue to pre-fence at this site at the peninsula and near the osprey pole, where potential nesting habitat exists (Fig. 9). Trapping and relocating known predators at may also increase or contribute to a higher breeding success. Downs Creek With this year’s dredging (Fig. 10) having returned much of the beach that had been lost during hurricane Sandy, the major transformation at Downs Creek for breeding shorebirds looks hopeful. A large area of the “post-Sandy” creek mouth has now closed, thus increasing the size of the beach providing potential nesting habitat. Birds have not yet returned to the area, however, and there still remains a large pool of water branching from the creek flowing to the east. The property owners are content with size of the reformed beach, and we are hoping to see a resurgence of shorebird activity in the next year or two should the pool of water fill and create even more potential nesting sites (Fig. 11). Throughout the season many transient birds were observed foraging here. Not only have the birds suffered from habitat loss in recent years, they also compete with beachgoers to find prime nesting sites. Clammers, kayakers, dog walkers and beach walkers continue to be leading cause of disturbance at the site. 10 Figs. 10-13 – map of site (top l.), new nesting habitat created (top r.), where water enters the pool (bot. l.), expansion of peninsula (bot. r.) Recommendation - the pool of water east of the mouth of the creek could also be filled to provide a larger, more enhanced area for shorebirds to nest (Figs. 12 & 13). Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West) For the third straight year, no PIPL were observed nesting at this site. Pairs historically nested on the dredge material adjacent (north of) to the Town’s parking lot (Fig. 14). Similar to past years, large tire depressions were observed prior to string fencing (Fig. 15). In addition, this beach draws beach bathers, dog walkers, and fishermen, all of whom infringe on the breeding area in one way or another. Despite these disturbances, a Killdeer (KILL) laid four eggs on the dredge material in front of the parking lot for the second consecutive year (Fig. 16). This may suggest that the habitat is adequate enough, however, KILL are more tolerant of disturbances than PIPL. Fig. 14-17 – dredge material/nesting habitat (l.), tire marks (2nd l.), killdeer eggs (3rd l.), garbage cans (r.) 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 in the parking lot was another major disturbance because it attracts predators, such as gulls and raccoons (Fig. 17). Garbage pickup by the Town DPW should occur more regularly, and garbage cans should be equipped with lids on site or better yet invest in solar compactors that alleviate the need to pick up garbage as frequently. 11 Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s-McCabe’s) Similar to prior years, at least three pair of PIPL attempted to nest at this site. However, unlike prior years not a single pair was successful. As was the case in 2015, the three PIPL pairs nested with a total of 16 eggs. The likely reason for the loss of chicks at two of the nests was marauding crows and gulls, while it is a mystery why the third nest failed. This is due to the fact that the nest was present in a slightly vegetated section of upper beach, and therefore was not exclosed (Fig. 18). The other factor that impacted the first and second nests were large storm events in late May and early June, which resulted in large amounts of sea grasses and an extended high tide (Figs. 19 & 20). One of the chicks from the second nest may have been a victim from the June storm event. Due to an overwhelming resentment and concern about the monitoring program in 2015, outreach began in early 2016 to property owners. A meeting was held with the President and attorney representing (also a property owner) the local home association, Kenney’s and McCabe’s Beach Civic Association. Individual meetings were arranged prior to and during the breeding season, mainly at the availability and willingness of the property owner. Overall the outreach and personal engagement paid off and the program at this site is viewed much more favorably than in prior years. Figs. 18-20 – unexclosed PIPL nest (l.), storm aftermath (c. and r.) Recommendation – While the Town DPW did not grade the public sections of Kenney’s or McCabe’s beaches this year, as was the case in 2014, a tractor was brought in to rake the beach in mid-June. 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. A phone call was initiated by GFEE to the Town DPW Director, with the latter affirming that no machinery would be on the beach during the breeding season. While this was not the case, better communication from the DPW staff to contractors, e.g. GFEE, working on behalf of the Town is critical for the program’s success in the future. Goose Creek (Southold Bay) This site had not had shorebird breeding activity in the recent past due to its popularity for recreational activities, including beach bathing, dog-walking, boat/kayak landing (Fig. 21), and playing on the swing-set (Fig. 22). Although all were present this season, the site maintains good nesting habitat for PIPL and LETE. For the first time in our monitoring history, two LETE adults were observed courting in mid-May. Two days later, a nest in the upper beach was discovered (Fig. 23), and the immediate area was fenced. The complete two- egg nest hatched and by July the two chicks fledged. Due to the disturbances listed above, the 12 LETE were very skittish throughout the season. Another LETE pair was seen on most visits but did nest. There is a good chance that in future years, LETE may continue to nest here and increase their colony size to more than just one pair. This possibility, combined with routine monitoring and string fence installment, may make the area attractive to PIPL in the future. Figs. 21-23 – kayak landing area (l.), swing set (c.), LETE nest location (r.) Recommendation– string fence early in the season to establish a protected breeding area for not only LETE but for PIPL as well. Gull Pond West After two unsuccessful years (2014 and 2015) of no PIPL breeding success, this year Gull Pond West fledged a total of 6 young. The first PIPL of the season arrived in early April. There were two pairs who made a total of five nest attempts throughout the season. The initial three nests failed due to predation. The first of the season was laid on the open, sandy part of the beach (Fig. 24) but was left exposed to predators. The next two nests were laid further back in the grassy area to gain cover. These two nests were not exclosed to avoid digging up vegetation. However, they were predated about a week into incubation. The final two nests were found approximately 100 feet from each other, almost immediately above the high tide marks, and exclosed in late May. Second and third nest attempts rarely have a clutch of four eggs because of the physical constraints, e.g. calcium to produce the eggshell in the female. Though, this year all our second and third attempts contained four eggs. Of the eight eggs laid, seven of them hatched in late June and six chicks fledged in late July. The presence of predators - gulls, crows, fox, raccoons, mockingbirds, and rodents - in this area makes it extremely difficult for eggs and chicks to survive. Other threats to this beach include flooding of the back portion of the upper beach to the west (Fig. 25), dog-walking and unleashed dogs, small watercrafts coming on land, and beachgoers (Fig. 26). With the PIPL population on the rebound, the LETE colony also exhibited a robust population and boasted 50 nesting birds. The extreme high tides and subsequent normal high tides have proved challenging in previous years. However, this season nearly 25 LETE young fledged. While most homeowners at this site support the monitoring program, there was one that decided not to participate in preseason fence. It’s unfortunate because these birds have historically nested on this property, in particular LETE. Despite informing him that the overall LETE population is on the decline, he seemed annoyed that the string fence was in place in 2015, even though it was the same size and identical layout as previous years. This person tends to cause the greatest disturbance, e.g. volleyball court, fires, large gatherings. 13 It was later determined that the reason he did not want string fence on his property was because he rented his home for a portion of the summer. When stewards visited the house to inform the homeowner of nesting birds, the renters were there and seemed quite interested and accepting of the birds. This is where education is essential. Instead of looking at the shorebird fencing in a negative way – “losing money” or “it’s ugly” - homeowners and renters must start looking at it as an educational experience for visitors, especially if children are present, and as a special opportunity. Other disturbances included the public access (next to 50 Bay Rd) for people in the community to access the beach. This interferes with breeding LETE, as each time someone passes through the walkway the birds immediately pop off their nest. The longer the birds are off the nest, the longer the eggs/chicks are exposed to the elements or predators. Another troubling encounter occurred when a GFEE steward witnessed two women with unleashed dogs at Gull Pond’s public beach. She noticed a Town bay constable in the parking lot, and to gain a sense of how often the leash-law is enforced she approached him to see if he fines people for unleashed dogs. His reply was “not really, not so much until July 4th weekend.” He added “plus, they are on state property”. Moreover, at Gull Pond there is only public property that is under the ownership of the Town of Southold, and private property. The women were on public grounds. After leaving the constable, our steward politely asked the women to place their dogs on a leash and so they did. The reason this is mind-boggling is because Town of Southold’s leash law, which is posted at every town beach, states “dogs or domestic animals must be restrained on a leash from May 1st to October 1st between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm. Leash and clean up after your dog. It is required by law!” The fact that the bay constable failed to deliver the leash-law information to the women, and that he referred to the Town property as “state property” (thinking he had no right to enforce a law), was alarming. GFEE hopes the Town of Southold will take the leash- law more seriously in the future. Figs. 24-26 – wide sandy beach (l.), severe flooding (c.), beachgoers next to fencing (r.) Recommendation - further action working with property owners on these disturbances is needed. Aside from calling to gain permission for string fence and exclosures, we should talk to them about using the shorebird nesting as an attraction. This would be beneficial for all (homeowners, renters, visitors, shorebirds). Anyone interested in birding or nature may choose their home simply because there are breeding shorebirds. In addition, literature about the birds could be placed in the house for further reading and understanding. This would be ideal at Kenney’s/McCabe’s and Breakwater beaches as well. 14 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. As mentioned in prior reports, these disturbances include shore hardening in the form of bulkheads (Fig. 27), dog walking, beach bathing, vehicular traffic in the parking lot, and an active playground. In 2014, the beach was steeply sloped, whereas a year later it had a gradual slope. In 2016, during the middle of the breeding season (early June), a 953c track loader was observed (Fig. 28). The tractor was attempting to level the shoreline with the upper beach. Unfortunately, there is a population of approximately 60 gull species (predominately Herring and Great Black-backed) that inhabit this site year-round (Fig. 29). This mixed gull colony continues to intimidate breeding and foraging PIPL and LETE, and most likely deter both species from nesting and foraging at the site. Figs. 27-29 – high tide, tractor, and resident Great Black-backed Gulls Recommendation – place better signage stating the importance to pick up litter and to not feed wildlife, notably the gull species present. Avoid raking and having any heavy machinery on the beach during the breeding season. James Creek This site has been significantly altered due to human activity – shore hardening, beach raking. PIPL and LETE have not, and very likely will not nest at this site because of the overwhelming number of bulkheads and groins present (Fig. 30). Both contribute to the loss of upper beach habitat and impact the coastlines to the east and west when storm events occur. 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. The widest portion of this beach may attract nesting (Fig. 31), however this is where there is a strong presence of human activity (boating, beach bathing, fishing), and it various times of the breeding season the slope of the beach exceeded the known comfort level for beach-nesting birds. Figs. 30 & 31 – bulkheads and groins (l.), open area (r.) Recommendation – none at this time 15 Jockey Creek (Spoil Island) This site continues to be ignored by nesting and transient PIPL and LETE due to the absence of upper beach habitat (Fig. 32). The southern half of Jockey Creek is lined with homes and the small section of exposed beach available is regularly flooded at high tide. Furthermore, this section is being overtaken by Phragmites (Fig. 33). The peninsula is overgrown with woody vegetation, mainly black locust and tree of heaven (Fig. 34), even though there is the potential for shorebird foraging at the site, especially during low tide. As noted prior, unless management is done to control the invasive species and woody vegetation, birds should not be expected to nest here. Figs. 32 - 34 – lack of upper beach (l.), Phragmites & human encroachment (m.), woody vegetation (r.) Recommendation – to attract nesting shorebirds, the upland woody vegetation on the peninsula should be removed and dredge material added. Once deposited, native beach grasses may be planted. It is strongly recommended that the Phragmites patches be removed, while they are still manageable, otherwise they will likely overrun the site within a few years. Kimogener Point (West Creek) As has been the case in the past, LETE and COTE, as well as migrant shorebirds were observed foraging at this site, but no breeding activity occurred was observed. In fact, this was the first season where stewards did not encounter a PIPL at the site. As noted previously, many disturbances (Fig. 35) – bulkheads, groins, boat and foot traffic, dense native vegetation, an active fire pit (Fig. 36), high tides – hinder potential nesting. The requisite upper beach habitat is lacking due to the close proximity of yards and houses. On the eastern side of West Creek there is significant erosion creating a steep slope that prohibits PIPL and LETE chicks to navigate (Fig. 37). Figs. 35 -37 – groins and bulkheads (l.), fire pit (m.), steeply sloped shore (r.) Recommendation – if PIPL and LETE were to nest in the area they would likely choose nearby Downs Creek (as LETE did in 2014). However, property owners and visitors at this site should be informed about breeding shorebirds in the area and precautions to take. 16 Little Creek On initial observation, the public access (south side) portion of Little Creek can be described as too narrow for beach-nesting birds, as it appears to lack adequate upper beach habitat. Along with a regular volume of vehicles on the causeway, the close proximity to a parking lot, and a steady influx of beachgoers, the site seems doomed. However, despite these disturbances 2016 was a very successful breeding season for both PIPL and LETE. The site was pre-fenced in early April and two months later a PIPL nest was found. This first pair laid four eggs and was exclosed upon completion. Three out of the four eggs hatched on 6/25, and about a month later two young fledged. A second PIPL pair also nested approximately 50 feet away from the first pair. They too completed a four-egg nest and it was immediately exclosed (Fig. 38). This pair was very successful and all four chicks fledged. LETE also attempted to nest and succeeded. There were approximately 15 pairs that nested within the same quadrant of string fence as the PIPL nests. In total, 17 LETE chicks fledged. This supports the management theory that designated nest sites for birds, respect from beachgoers, and an absence of heavy machinery (beach grading equipment in 2013), there is a strong possibility that birds will nest at a site that would seem inadequate. Outreach and education was also prominently featured at this location. Aside from a few incidences when pedestrians walked through string fencing (Fig. 39), the occasional high tide flood or off-leash dogs, this site gained a tremendous amount of positive feedback from beachgoers. While monitoring, one of the stewards visited each beachgoer to deliver a handout with important information regarding nesting shorebirds and to answer any questions they might have. Of note, there were instances when people saw the string fence and purposefully avoided disturbing the birds. However, on busy weekends some of the chicks were observed weaving in and out of blankets and chairs. One person was interested in the birds and asked to revisit the site for a one-on-one lesson with her children. Towards the end of the season, students and parents gathered to hang some of the professionally printed “Be A Good Egg” winning signs (Fig. 40). In preparation for a private firework display proposed during the July 4th weekend, the NYS DEC contacted GFEE to gather information on breeding activity at the site. The show was planned to take place at the beach neighboring the Little Creek inlet. The show was given approval since the birds were most often observed on the southern portion of the public site. No negative instances occurred following the firework display. Figs. 38 - 40 – second exclosed PIPL nest (l.), footprints through fencing (m.), “Be A Good Egg” sign (r.) Recommendation - continue the assembly of string fencing and signage early in the season. Bay constables should visit more frequently to patrol for unleashed dogs, as the site is clearly posted with “No Dogs Allowed in Park or Beach” signs. 17 Little Hog Neck (Nassau Point) As noted in past reports, this site lacks upper beach habitat, endures high tide levels and windy conditions, and maintains an open exposure to the bay, all of which make this site inhospitable to breeding PIPL and LETE. Despite this, a large section of upper beach habitat persists next to the inlet on the north, which over time could become more alluring to potential nesters (Fig. 41). Across the inlet on the south end of the site, a small strip of beach exists where dredge material was recently placed (Fig. 42). Figs. 41 – flat, upper beach Recommendation - continue monitoring the dredge material section to see how it may develop in the event it transitions to a more suitable site for PIPL and LETE. Marratooka Point (Deep Hole Creek) This site has not been occupied by nesting PIPL or LETE in over a decade, nor will they nest anytime soon. As noted previously, the close assemblage of seasonal homes, suite of groins, high tides, snow fencing, boat anchoring, and lack of upper beach habitat makes this a very unattractive nesting site (Figs. 42 & 43). Figs. 42 & 43 – housing, groins, snow fencing, no upper beach Recommendation – none at this time. Mattituck Inlet (Bailie Beach) We remain hopeful and vigilant that PIPL and possibly LETE will return to nest at this site following a massive beach replenishment that occurred in early 2014. What has become an enormous problem are the large amounts of litter accumulating at the high tide lines (Fig. 44). Beachgoers, unleashed dogs, and the slight berm east of the Inlet all contribute to a lack of 18 nesting interest, and why birds have not nested since 2012. As noted in past years, LETE and PIPL from the Breakwater Beach colony visit this site to forage and occasionally loaf. Figs. 44 & 45 – coastal debris (l.), informative signage (r.) Recommendation – increased law enforcement is desperately needed to crack down on unleashed dogs on the beach. GFEE is organizing another spring coastal cleanup to alleviate the marine debris, and will work with the Mattituck Park District (MPD) on the logistics. The MPD should consider grading the beach in early April, prior to the arrival of PIPL and LETE, which will help provide a more consistent slope for breeding birds. Lastly, the sign that is posted at the base of the dune, near the entrance, should be posted in other locations such as Breakwater Beach and Goldsmiths Inlet West (Fig. 45), as it seems to be successful in keeping pedestrians out of fenced areas and off the cliffs/dunes. Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater Beach) Once again, this site was one of the most active of the season. Out of the three nests (12 eggs), six PIPL fledged. On the public beach or MPD section there were two nesting attempts. The first occurred in late April and was exclosed, three out of four eggs hatched, and two chicks fledged. A second four-egg nest was found in late May, slightly east of the walkway. This nest had four eggs when initially observed and was immediately exclosed. With great fortune all four chicks fledged in mid-July. In addition, two LETE colonies were present on both the park district and the private beaches. They were more successful this year than last, having roughly two-dozen pairs and producing about 25 fledglings. In 2014 and 2015, this site had several incidences of vandalism. Fortunately, none occurred this year. As a deterrent new video surveillance signs (Fig. 46) were placed at the MPD public entrances. Due to vandalism and property owner issues last year, the GFEE stewards did not plan to monitor the private section of beach, as monitoring stewards from the DEC confirmed they would monitor this year. In May, it was determined that DEC staff were not actually monitoring and logically would not be able to. For the rest of the season, GFEE monitored and in the process developed a good relationship with homeowner Christine Rivera. Moreover, the private site hosted a PIPL pair and about 10 LETE pairs. Of the 20 monitoring sites, this PIPL nest hatched last (mid July), and unfortunately none of the four chicks fledged. This may have been due a combination of extreme heat, increased beach activity (Fig. 47) or new disturbances, such as public feeding of birds and wildlife (Fig. 48). Bonfire pits, broken glass and beer bottles, and litter also plagued both portions of beach. GFEE staff organized an outreach event during the July 4th weekend (Fig. 49). The purpose was to encourage beachgoers to “#Be A Good Egg” by taking the following pledge: 19 1. Keep away from marked or fenced areas where birds are nesting 2. Keep the beach clean by using proper receptacles or carrying out trash 3. Keep my dog off of nesting beaches Figs. 46 - 49 – video surveillance sign (l.), large party in upper beach (2nd l.), bagels scattered near fencing (3rd l.), “#Be A Good Egg” pledge supporters (r.) Recommendation – There were numerous complaints about the amount of garbage, especially broken glass, on the beach. GFEE organizes a few cleanups throughout the year, but it would be helpful if the MPD organized their own or became more involved with existing cleanups. Continue posting the video surveillance signs. As noted in the past, increased policing and enforcement of the Town’s ATV law on public beaches is sorely needed. For another year in a row there were multiple eyewitness accounts of ATVs being driven on the bluffs to the west. Law enforcement could prevent this in the future. Port of Egypt As observed on many visits, this site plays host to a variety of shorebirds, gulls, terns, and waterfowl. The only known Great Black-backed Gulls (GBBG) colony (Fig. 50) in the Town continues at this site. Approximately 80 adults and 60 chicks were observed this year, which is a slight decrease from 2015. There is very little suitable PIPL nesting habitat, which can be attributed to the massive presence of GBBG. A loafing Canada Goose (CAGO) was also observed this year but did not find a mate (Fig. 51). Unlike PIPL, LETE can withstand the threats GBBG pose, as they nest in colonial groups as well. This year, 65 adults were noted, but only 5 fledglings occurred. Of note was a pair of American Oystercatcher (AMOY) that nested and fledged three young by mid-July. This is one of only two beaches that hosted AMOY this year. Two pairs of Common Tern (COTE) also nested and fledged four young. Figs. 50 & 51 – GBBG colony (l.), loafing CAGO (r.) Recommendation – though AMOY, COTE, and LETE nested in 2016, all shorebirds (including PIPL) would benefit from a reduced GBBG colony. 20 Richmond Creek This site continues to baffle on why PIPL and LETE do not choose to nest. There are fragmented sections above the high tide mark that seem suitable for nesting. However, disturbance persists in beach bathing, dog walking and boat anchoring – all regular, daily occurrences. These activities, along with the close proximity to the Corey Creek site (South Harbor Beach) where PIPL can be observed, are likely reasons birds do not breed. It has been observed that PIPL and LETE prefer Richmond Creek more as a loafing and foraging site- where the bayside can be easily accessed than a breeding site. As has been the case in the past, transient shorebirds (sanderling, ruddy turnstone) were encountered this season. Figs. 52 - potential nesting area Recommendation – coordinate with the DEC on potential use of dredge material in vegetated areas to enhance the upper beach areas and provide better quality nesting habitat. If human disturbance is limited by installing symbolic string fence, then it is possible plovers and terns may begin to visit the site and remain to nest.