Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 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 2017 “The human race is challenged more than ever before to demonstrate our mastery, not over nature but of ourselves.” Rachel Carson 2 Acknowledgements We are thankful for the help from seasonal staff Amy Dries, Stephanie Licciardi, and Hannah Weinstein whose combined efforts greatly assisted us during the 2017 monitoring season. We are also indebted to Michael Corso, Rick Kedenburg, Pino and Irene Licul, Brewster McCall, Russ McCall, Jillian Liner and Amanda Pachomski of Audubon New York, Christine Rivera, John Sepenoski, Barbara and Peter Terranova, and John Zablockey all of whom contributed sightings, erected string fencing/exclosures, allowed access to private property or taught education programs to local students and scout groups this year. In addition, we owe a debt of gratitude to Peconic Sound Shores, The Group to Save Goldsmith Inlet, Captain Kidd’s Estates Home Association, and Kenney’s Beach/McCabe’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 program would not be possible. Education In 2016, Group for the East End (GFEE) initiated the “Be a Good Egg” program, a program developed by the National Audubon Society, in which more than 200 students from Southold Elementary, Cutchogue East Elementary and Peconic Community schools learned about breeding and migratory shorebirds on Long Island. As a result of the program, students were encouraged to “Be a Good Egg” by taking the following pledge: 1. Keep away from marked or fenced areas where birds are nesting. 2. Keep the beach clean by using proper receptacles and/or carrying out trash. 3. Keep my dog away from nesting beaches during March – August. Students were tasked to create their own signs, with twelve chosen for professional printing and display at local beaches to better raise awareness about the sensitivity of nesting shorebirds and their shrinking habitat. The signs enhance our beaches with their playful, colorful, yet important information. In addition, beachgoers who visited sites where the “Be a Good Egg” signs are displayed delivered only positive and promising feedback. Due to the program’s success, we have decided to continue this popular program within the North Fork schools for 2018. (l. to r.) Peconic Community School student creating artwork for signs; GFEE Stewardship Coordinator, Christine Tylee, presenting the “Be A Good Egg” program at Southold Elem.; students taking the “Be a Good Egg” pledge 3 Key Notes for Stewardship Program • Prior to the start of the season, GFEE communicated verbally and through mailings with property owners in areas where a high likelihood of nesting could occur. The goal was to better inform them about the biology of PIPL, LETE, and other shorebirds and water birds, while highlighting the reason behind symbolic string fence and exclosures, how to prevent disturbance, and ways they can help become more involved. A listing of all GFEE monitoring staff and volunteers, as well as signatures by the GFEE President, Southold Town Supervisor, and NYS DEC Senior Wildlife Biologist. • Pre-fence and signage was placed at all public and private beaches, with permission of property owners, in early April based on the site recommendations from the 2016 Report. • Due to illegal activities observed in the past, and again this year, we highly recommend increased patrols by law enforcement for unleashed dogs and illegal ATV use, since both pose grave threats to PIPL and LETE. We highly recommend changing the dog leash law to include ALL hours from May-October, not 9am-6pm. Regardless, the leash law needs to be enforced. • During the breeding season, GFEE stewards and educators increased awareness of the program by presenting the “Be A Good Egg” program to three schools. Children learned about shorebird biology and competed in a sign contest. Program Background The following is a site-by-site summary of the 20 sites monitored during April 1- August 15, 2017. The North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) initiated the monitoring program with 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 systematically determine the population size of these protected species (in NYS, PIPL is listed as “Endangered”; 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 and/or predator presence; 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; 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. 4 Productivity Piping Plover Total number of pairs: 12 Number of nest attempts: 17 Number of nests that hatched: 10 Number of young fledged: 15 Number of young fledged per pair: 1.25 Least Tern Number of colonies: 4 Number of nesting pairs: 125 Number of young fledged: 189 Number of young fledged per pair: 1.51 Disclaimer: This map depicts sites covered under contract with Group for the East End and the Town of Southold in 2017. 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. GFEE staff is in direct communication with both entities to relay positive and negative information, as it occurs in the field. 5 2017 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 1 1 0 0 42 Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek) 3 0 0 0 0 10 Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach) 3 0 0 0 0 15 Downs Creek 4 0 0 0 0 8 Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West) 2 1 1 2 0 37 Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s - McCabe’s) 3 1 1 0 0 49 Goose Creek (Southold Bay) 2 1 1 0 20 35 Gull Pond West 2 2 3 0 20 48 Hashamomuck Beach (Town Beach) 5 0 0 0 0 4 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 5 Little Creek 2 2 3 3 40 57 Little Hog Neck (Nassau Point) 4 0 0 0 0 6 Marratooka Point (Deep Hole Creek) 5 0 0 0 0 3 Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater Beach) 2 5 7 10 170 55 Mattituck Inlet (Baillie Beach) 4 0 0 0 0 5 Port of Egypt 3 0 0 0 0 14 Richmond Creek 2 0 0 0 0 9 6 2017 Site Summaries and Recommendations Angel Shores For the sixth year in a row, not a single nesting shorebird was observed at this site. Lack of upper beach habitat due to human influence (housing, bulkheads) severely impacts nesting. A patch of Phragmites - an invasive plant - grows too tall and dense for shorebirds to nest among and detracts from the natural habitat of these birds (Fig. 1). There is a small portion of potential nesting habitat northwest of the access point on Sunset Lane. However, further to the west the shoreline was heavily eroded this season (Fig. 2). A thick stand of cedar trees likely deter nesting birds, as predators (e.g. raccoons, crows) can use this area as cover before raiding a nest or unsuspecting adults and young (Fig. 3). Figs. 1-3 (l. to r.) – Phragmites patch; steep slope; stand of cedar trees Recommendation – due to a lack of PIPL and LETE activity at the site, maintain low-level monitoring as in the past. Corey Creek Mouth This site hosted a single pair of PIPL that completed a four-egg nest, and was the first season in three years where all four eggs hatched (Fig. 4). Unfortunately, none of the four chicks fledged. Based on the high amount of crow activity at this site, we suspect natural predation continues to be the cause of failure (all four chicks disappeared within a week). A pair of Killdeer also nested (4 eggs) in close proximity to the PIPL pair, but the nest was predated. Disturbances at this site continue to be unleashed dogs, fishermen, bonfires, and crows and other predators. Sand previously built up near the octagon house continues to be carried further east, exposing the groins that extend out into the bay. The area east of the house could also be suitable nesting habitat, as it is open and sandy (Fig. 5). Figs. 4-6 (l. to r.) - current nesting area; potential nesting site; TOS dog leash sign has been removed 7 Recommendations – unleashed dogs continue to be a problem at this site, specifically within South Harbor Beach. The Town’s dog leash sign, which has been removed (Fig. 6) should be replaced and positioned directly at the park’s entrance. Also, the Town Police and Bay Constable need to visit the site and enforce the leash law on a regular basis. Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek) Between fishermen, beachgoers, boaters and dog walkers, Cutchogue Harbor endures a significant amount of visitation during the breeding season. In addition to the disturbances listed above, new home construction creating increased noise and human activity negatively impacts the nesting suitability of the site (Fig. 7). Not surprisingly, 2017 was the second consecutive season in where PIPL or LETE did not nest. While the bay side can be easily accessed as foraging grounds, the site features poor nesting habitat due to steep slopes, frequent flooding and continued erosion. On the wide, sandy beach east of Wickham Creek, there is very little human activity, but to date no birds have attempted to nest. Fig. 7 – new home construction and lack of undisturbed upper beach Recommendation – monitoring efforts and outreach to homeowners should continue, but string fence should only occur once nests are found. Given permission and funding, the removal of the locust trees, which could be used to as Osprey poles, on the beach east of Wickham Creek could increase habitat and make the site more attractive to PIPL and LETE. Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach) This site saw a further decrease in productivity, which has been the case the last four years. While the beach was a popular stopover for migrating shorebirds (Semi-palmated Plover, Sanderling, Ruddy Turnstone), and a foraging site for LETE, Great Black-backed Gulls, American Oystercatchers (AMOY), and Willet, not a single PIPL or LETE attempted to nest (10 LETE pair in 2015, 2 LETE pair in 2016). One pair of AMOY did nest, but was predated (Fig.8). Gulls, raccoons and foxes are known to hunt this beach, with the latter to blame for prior nest failures. Numerous holes were found in the immediate vicinity of predated nests (Fig. 9). Figs. 8-9 – AMOY nesting site (l.), holes dug by predators (r.) 8 Recommendation – continue to pre-fence at this site from the peninsula south towards the osprey pole. Trapping and relocating known predators may also increase or contribute to a higher breeding success. Downs Creek Despite the dredging in 2015, much of the sand has returned (Fig. 10). LETEs were seen foraging but no nests were located. There still remains a large pool of water branching from the creek flowing to the southeast. The property owners are content with the size of the post- Sandy, reformed beach, and we hope to see a resurgence of shorebird activity in the next year or two should the pool of water fill in with sand to create suitable nesting habitat (Fig. 11). In addition to the loss of habitat since Sandy, shorebirds at this site also compete with beachgoers to find prime nesting sites. Clammers, kayakers, dog walkers (most unleashed) and beach walkers continue to be causes of disturbance at the site. Figs. 10-13 – map of site (top l.), new nesting habitat created (top r.), additional potential nesting habitat (bot. l.) water on both sides of the peninsula (bot. r.) Recommendation – none at this time Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West) After three consecutive years with no PIPL activity at this site, one pair nested successfully. Of the four eggs laid, three hatched and two fledged. Historically, PIPLs had nested on the dredge material adjacent to the parking lot. True to form the pair nested in the same spot. Within days of hatching, the birds relocated to the western beach portion of the site (Fig. 14). As has become usual for this site, large tire depressions were observed prior to string fencing. Other disturbances include beach bathers, dog walkers, and fishermen (Fig. 15), all of whom infringe on the breeding area in one way or another. Garbage in the parking lot was another major disturbance because it attracts predators, such as gulls and raccoons (Fig. 16). 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 pickup by the Town DPW should occur more regularly or better yet invest in solar compactors that alleviate the need to pick up garbage as 9 frequently. The western portion of the beach (just before the bluffs) should be kept pristine, as this is the area where the shorebirds relocate to and are raise their young. In addition, the town dog leash law sign should be installed at this site. Fig. 14-16 (l. to r.) – foraging habitat where young are raised; fishermen; garbage cans overflowing Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s Beach-McCabe’s Beach) Unlike prior years, this site had very little activity. Past nest failures, storm-related events and predation are all contributing factors to a decline in productivity. One PIPL pair nested, hatched four young and within three days all were predated (Fig. 17). Two other pairs were noted in the vicinity of the lone nest, but did not remain to breed. Another factor is the growth and rapid expansion of beach grass in and near past nesting areas. This, along with increased flooding of the beach from storm events, is limiting the amount of suitable nesting habitat (Fig. 18). Figs. 17-19 (l. to r.) - exclosing lone PIPL nest; storm aftermath Recommendation – Continue the dialogue with property owners and Town DPW to ensure awareness and best management practices, respectively. Goose Creek (Southold Bay) In 2016, this site featured the first known breeding activity in nearly a decade when two LETE courted, laid eggs, and fledged young (no PIPL activity site had been observed). Despite otherwise great nesting habitat for both species (Fig. 20), the area had been non-productive for years due to a high interest in recreational activities, e.g. sunbathing (Fig. 21), dog- walking, boat/kayak landing, all of which were suspected as the cause for the lack of shorebird activity. In 2016, GFEE recommended to string fence early in the season to establish a protected breeding area for LETE and PIPL with the hope that would continue to nest here and increase their colony size to more than a single pair. This year fencing occurred in April and the site was even more productive than we could have hoped for. The size of the LETE colony increased tenfold! A PIPL pair, whose nest had been 10 predated a month earlier at Gull Pond, also attempted to nest (one bird was banded and thus easily identifiable). The pair laid four eggs, but just two days before the expected hatch date all four went missing. No footprints were seen in the area and none of the neighboring LETE nests had been predated. The cause of failure remains unknown. The recreational activities listed above continue to cause disturbance at the site. In addition, bonfires and trash on the beach were issues this season, as were human footprints noted beyond the string-fence-line early in the season. Figs. 20-21 (l. to r.) – PIPL & LETE nest location; beachgoers Recommendation– continue to string fence early in the season to establish a protected breeding area that is inviting to LETE and PIPL. Continue posting “Be A Good Egg” signs at this popular site to educate visitors of the importance of being responsible beachgoers. Add a second line of string fence a few feet below the top of the string fence posts to discourage beachgoers from simply ducking below the fence and thus trespassing on the breeding grounds. Frequent community cleanups will also help mitigate the trash along the beach. Gull Pond West After a great 2016 season, which saw six PIPLs fledge, 2017 was a disappointment at this site. New home construction, predation, and loss of habitat due to flooding and erosion conspired to prevent a single PIPL from fledging this year. In addition, breeding numbers of the more- tolerant LETEs dropped from 54 to 20. The first PIPL pair completed a nest in early May, only to be wiped out by an abnormally high spring tide 3 weeks later. The pair re-nested further up the beach at higher elevation and completed a second four-egg nest, which was exclosed (Fig. 22). This second nest was abandoned and was possibly due to the nearby home construction, as it was closer to the new home and related beach walkway. A second PIPL pair was seen courting in mid-April, later nested and laid a single egg on the first of May. However, it was predated the very next day (Fig. 23). This pair was not seen again at the site, but one bird was banded and seen at Goose Creek later in the season. LETE numbers were down due to loss of habitat and flooding of the back portion of the upper beach (Fig. 24). The presence of predators (gulls, crows, fox, raccoons, mockingbirds, and rodents) in this area also makes it extremely difficult for eggs and chicks to survive. Other threats include dogs (both leashed and unleashed), kite boarding, small watercraft coming ashore, and beachgoers. While nearly all property owners support the monitoring program, for the second year there was one that does not allow access to perform preseason fencing. This person/property 11 causes multiple disturbances (e.g. volleyball court, open pit fires, large gatherings). This is unfortunate because shorebirds, in particular LETE, have nested successfully on this property. Unleashed dogs have become a great disturbance at this site (Figs. 25 & 26). On one occasion, two women had unleashed dogs at the public beach. The police were called, came, and were briefed of the offense. No summons was issued. A similar incident took place last year (see last year’s report). The Town of Southold must take the leash law more seriously in 2018. Figs. 22-26 – PIPL 2nd nest attempt (top l.), predated egg (top c.), flooding (top r.), unleashed dog and owner nowhere in sight (bot. l.), dog tracks within string fence (bot. r.) Recommendation - further action working with property owners on the multiple disturbances is needed. Instead of looking at the shorebird fencing in a negative way – “losing money” or “it’s ugly” - homeowners and renters need to be convinced that the program is a unique and educational experience for visitors, especially children. Aside from calling to gain permission for string fence and exclosures, we should continue to educate them about the importance of being good stewards to these vulnerable species. Literature about the birds should be placed in the house for further reading and understanding. Hashamomuck Beach (Town Beach) While the sand replenishment and erosion control measures put in place in 2012-13 have helped stabilize the beach, disturbances and lack of suitable habitat continue to deter breeding shorebirds. As mentioned in prior reports, these disturbances include shore hardening in the form of bulkheads (Fig. 27), homes lining the shore, dog walking, sunbathing, and vehicles in the parking lot. Restoration efforts are continuing, with more sand being delivered so as to enhance the beach (Fig. 28 & 29). The lack of vegetation means that there is no buffer between the water and parking lot, which is a problem for shorebirds as they prefer to nest among scattered vegetation. Unfortunately, there is a population of approximately 40 gulls (various species) that inhabit this site year-round. This mixed gull colony continues to intimidate breeding and foraging PIPL and LETE, and most likely deters both species from nesting and foraging at the site. 12 Figs. 27-29 (l. to r.) high tide & bulkhead; steep slope before restoration; leveled beach after restoration Recommendation – place signage stating the importance of picking up litter and not to feed wildlife, particularly the gull species. Avoid raking and having any heavy machinery on the beach during the breeding season. Plant beach grass to help stabilize from erosion. James Creek This site has been significantly altered due to human activity, such as extensive shore hardening, and therefore PIPL and LETE have not (and very likely will not) nested at this site (Fig. 30). This contributes to the total loss of upper beach habitat and greatly impacts the shorelines to the east and west when storm events occur. At high tide most of the beach is inaccessible because the water reaches the bulkheads and leaves no space for walking, let alone foraging and nesting. The widest portion of this beach may otherwise attract nesting shorebirds, however this is where much human activity (boating, beach bathing, fishing) occurs. Additionally, at various times of the breeding season the slope of the beach exceeds the known comfort level for beach-nesting birds. Fig. 30 – bulkheads and groins Recommendation – none at this time Jockey Creek (Spoil Island) This site continues to be ignored by nesting and transient PIPL and LETE due to the lack of upper beach habitat. The southern half of Jockey Creek is lined with homes (Fig. 31) and the otherwise available small section of exposed beach is regularly flooded at high tide. This section is also being overtaken by Phragmites (Fig. 32) and thus further reducing this marginal breeding habitat. Likewise, the northern peninsula is overgrown with woody vegetation, mainly black locust and tree-of-heaven (Fig. 33 As noted in prior reports, without invasive species control birds should not be expected to nest here. Recommendation – to attract nesting shorebirds, the upland woody vegetation on the peninsula should be removed and dredge material added. Once deposited, native beach 13 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. Figs. 31 – 33 (l. to r.) lack of upper beach, human encroachment; Phragmites; woody vegetation at peninsula Kimogener Point (West Creek) As in the past, LETE, COTE, and various migrant shorebirds were observed foraging at this site, but no breeding activity occurred. This year was the second consecutive season that a single PIPL was not observed at Kimogener Point, even though PIPL tracks were observed in early May. LETE were observed loafing on multiple occasions. Many disturbances – bulkheads, groins, boat and foot traffic, dense native vegetation, high tides and rough currents – hinder potential nesting. The requisite upper beach habitat is lacking due to the close proximity of yards and houses. There is also significant erosion creating a steep slope that inhibits the mobility of PIPL and LETE chicks (Fig. 34). Figs. 34 – 36 (l. to r.) – steeply sloped shore; groins & scalloping 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. Removal of groins might also be considered, as they have “scalloped” the shoreline (Figs. 35 & 36). Little Creek On initial observation, the public access portion (south side) of Little Creek seems too narrow for beach-nesting birds, as it appears to lack adequate upper beach habitat. This, along with a steady flow of traffic on the causeway, the site’s close proximity to a parking lot, and a steady influx of beachgoers would seem to conspire doom at the site. Despite these disturbances, Little Creek continues to be a very productive site. The southern section of the site was pre-fenced in early April and one month later a PIPL nest was found. This pair laid four eggs and was exclosed upon completion (Fig. 37). All four eggs 14 hatched and three successfully fledged. A second PIPL pair nested on the northern half of this section of beach, which was in close proximity to the playground and gazebo (Fig. 38). Three eggs were laid, the nest was immediately exclosed and one hatching but not fledging. The LETE population doubled from 20 to 40 with the entire colony nesting in the vicinity of the first PIPL pair mentioned above. Approximately 26 LETE fledged. For the second year, this site gained a tremendous amount of positive feedback from beachgoers. Nearly all avoided the string fencing and gave a wide berth to nesting birds. In preparation for a private July 4th fireworks display, GFEE stewards worked closely with the NYS DEC, the homeowner, and the pyrotechnics company to minimize the risk of a “take” of the sole PIPL chick in the area (Fig. 39). The homeowner was made aware that there were stringent guidelines to be met if the fireworks show were to take place. Unfortunately, as of June 28, the 18-day old chick was not seen at the site. The show was then allowed to proceed. Dogs running along the shoreline without leashes continue to be problematic at this site. One woman was noted at least 4 times with her unleashed dog, Daisy, chasing PIPLs on the beach. A GFEE steward confronted her each time, only to be met with attitude. Figs. 37 - 40 (l. to r.) first PIPL nest; second PIPL nesting area; foraging area for second PIPL pair; “No Dogs Allowed” sign Recommendation - continue string fence and signage early in the season. Add a second line of string a few feet below the top of the fence posts to discourage beachgoers from simply ducking below the fence and trespassing on the bird’s breeding grounds. 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 (Fig. 40). Little Hog Neck (Nassau Point) As noted in past reports, this site lacks upper beach habitat, endures extreme 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 (Fig. 41). Despite this, a large section of upper beach habitat persists next to the inlet, which over time could allure potential nesters. Recommendation – none at this time Fig. 41 – open exposure to the bay 15 Marratooka Point (Deep Hole Creek) This site has not been occupied by nesting PIPL or LETE in over a decade and it’s our opinion that they will not nest anytime soon. The close assemblage of seasonal homes, suite of groins, high tides, snow fencing, boat anchoring, and lack of upper beach habitat make this a very unattractive nesting site (Fig. 42). Figs. 42 & 43 (l. to r.) – housing & groins; potential nesting habitat Recommendation – none at this time Mattituck Inlet (Bailie Beach) Despite the fact that PIPL and LETE have not nested here since 2012, we remain hopeful that they will return to nest following the massive beach replenishment that occurred in early 2014. Beachgoers, unleashed dogs, and the slight berm east of the inlet all contribute to a lack of nesting interest. In addition, the large amount of litter accumulating at the wrack lines (Fig. 44) is a chronic problem at the site. While LETE and PIPL from the nearby Breakwater Beach colony visit this site to forage, it is unlikely they will nest until the listed disturbances are mitigated. Figs. 44 & 45 (l. to r.) – coastal debris within wrack lines; Park District rules Recommendation –Mattituck Park District (MPD) installed a “Beach Rules” sign at the beach entrance, however very little has been done to enforce the rules (Fig. 45). Increased law enforcement is desperately needed to crack down on unleashed dogs on the beach. GFEE should organize a spring coastal cleanup to alleviate the problem of marine debris and will work with the MPD on the logistics of the event. MPD should consider grading the beach in late March/early April, prior to the arrival of PIPL and LETE. This will help provide a gentle and more consistent slope for beach-nesting 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, as it seems to be successful in keeping pedestrians out of fenced areas and off the cliffs/dunes. 16 Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater Beach) Due to its wide expanses of flat, natural, non-fragmented beach habitat, this site was by far the most productive in 2017. It was also the most productive year for the site since 2012. This year there were five PIPL pairs – four on the public side and a pair on the private section. Of those pairs, three pairs fledged three birds each, one pair fledged a single bird, and one pair hatched chicks, but none fledged. Similarly, there was a three-fold increase in LETE from the prior year (54 birds in 2016 to 170 birds in 2017). Fledglings increased dramatically, as there were 25 in last year and 135 this year. LETE nested on the public and private sides. Minor disturbances at the site included beachgoers, bonfires and the associated trash left behind (Fig. 46), lawn furniture (Fig. 47), raking on the private side, unleashed dogs (one was seen actually chasing PIPL chicks on the beach), high spring tides (Fig. 48), and playing ball near the string fence. Other disturbances featured kids running along and through the fenced area, which can scare the nesting birds and put the eggs at risk of being trampled. Vandalism continues to be a major problem. “Fuck the plover!! Gimmi back my beach!!” was not only the attitude of too-many-a-beachgoer, but was actually written on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife interpretive sign (Fig. 49). Moreover, for the third year in a row rocks were thrown on top of an exclosure on the public side of the beach (Fig. 50). Finally, illegal ATV use was a major disturbance on both sides and enforcement is severely lacking (Fig. 51). Since the site is a popular destination, we maintained a strong presence. We held numerous beach cleanups and tabling events, made regular site visits, installed “Be a Good Egg” signs, and nurtured a healthy relationship with the property owners, some of allowing string fence. Figs. 46 - 51 – beer cans & bonfire pit (top l.), lawn furniture in upper beach (top c.), spring tide nearing exclosure (top r.), vandalized sign (bot. l.), rocks on exclosure (bot. c.), ATV tracks on public beach (bot. r.) Recommendation – As noted in the past, increased enforcement of the Town’s leash law and ATV law on public beaches is needed. GFEE will continue posting the “Area Under Video Surveillance” signs in hopes that this will dissuade beachgoers from vandalizing the site. Add a second line of string a few feet below the top of the fence posts to discourage beachgoers from ducking below the fence and trespassing on the bird’s breeding grounds. The soon-to- be-installed gazebo would be a great place to install an interpretive sign highlighting PIPL and LETE biology and conservation practices. 17 Port of Egypt This site continues to host to several species of gulls and terns, as well as American Oystercatcher (AMOY), and it remains the only known Great Black-backed Gull (GBBG) colony in the Town (Fig. 52). The number of LETE nesting dropped from 65 in 2016 to zero in 2017. While there was no noticeable change in habitat to explain LETEs abandoning the site, it is possible that they chose to nest in more suitable nearby areas. The absence of PIPL, however, can be attributed to the presence of GBBG. While GBBGs are a predator to both LETE and PIPL, the former nest in colonies and will defend more readily than the solitary nesting PIPL. Of note was a pair of AMOY that nested and fledged two young (Fig. 53). This is one of only two beaches that hosted AMOY this year, and the only beach that hosted a successful pair. A pair of Common Tern (COTE) also nested and fledged two young. Figs. 52 & 53 (l. to r.) – GBBG colony; AMOY nesting area Recommendation – none at this time. Richmond Creek This site continues to baffle us on why PIPL and LETE do not choose to nest. There are fragmented sections above the high tide mark that seem suitable for nesting (Fig. 54), however disturbances such as beach bathing, unleashed-dog walking, boat anchoring, and bonfires (Fig. 55) persist on a regular basis. These activities, along with the close proximity to the Corey Creek site at South Harbor Beach, where PIPL nest, are the likely reasons birds do not nest. PIPL and LETE prefer this site more as a loafing and foraging site. Per the recommendation in the 2016 Report, we set up string fencing in early April so as to sanction off an undisturbed habitat in the hopes that PIPL and LETE might nest there. Figs. 54 - 56 (l. to r.) - potential nesting area; bonfire; overflowing trashcan Recommendation – consult with the DEC on potential use of dredge material in vegetated areas to enhance the upper beach areas and provide better quality nesting habitat. The TOS should make more routine garbage pick-ups and we recommend the use of lids on all garbage cans (Fig. 56). Non-enforcement of ordinances concerning unleashed dogs is an issue at this beach.