Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 End of the Year Report Town of Southold – Beach-Dependent Bird Species Management Program NYS DEC Designated Monitoring Sites Prepared By: Elsa Acerbo, Christine Tylee and Aaron Virgin September 2018 “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” John Muir 2 Acknowledgements We are thankful for the help from seasonal staff Keith Klein, whose efforts greatly assisted us during the 2018 monitoring season. We are also indebted to Michael Corso, Rick Kedenburg, Brewster McCall, Russ McCall, Jillian Liner and Amanda Pachomski of Audubon New York, Christine Rivera, John Sepenoski, Sarah Stein, Brittany Thompson, Barbara and Zachary White, 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 This year marked another great year in the “Be a Good Egg Program”, delivered to local schools by Group for the East End (GFEE). In 2016, GFEE initiated the “Be a Good Egg” program; a program developed by the National Audubon Society, in which nearly 200 students from Southold Elementary, Cutchogue East Elementary and New Suffolk 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 continuing success, we plan to continue this popular program within the North Fork schools in the future. (l. to r.) One of the 12 winning signs produced by students in 2018; GFEE Stewardship Coordinator, Christine Tylee, presenting the “Be A Good Egg” program 3 Key Notes for Stewardship Program • As in previous years, prior to the start of the season, GFEE staff communicated verbally and through mailings with property owners in areas where a high likelihood of nesting could occur. The goal was to better inform 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 become more involved in the program. • Pre-fence and signage was placed at all public and private beaches, with permission of property owners, by the first two weeks in April based on the site recommendations from the 2017 Report. • Due to illegal activities observed in the past, and again this year, we – once again – highly recommend increased patrols by law enforcement for unleashed dogs and illegal ATV use, since both pose grave threats to breeding 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 and in more than two-dozen instances the law was violated at several Town-owned beaches and at other locations in Southold Town. • 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 involving science, conservation, art and design principles. Program Background The following is a site-by-site summary of the 22 sites monitored during April 1- August 15, 2018. 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 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (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 of PIPL and LETE during the given breeding season, 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. 4 Note: This map depicts sites covered under contract with Group for the East End and the Town of Southold in 2018. Other beach-nesting bird sites are monitored on Suffolk County parklands and beaches by Suffolk County staff, and at Orient Beach 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. 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. 5 Habitat Suitability: Site Habitat Suitability # PIPL Pairs # PIPL Nests # PIPL Fledglings Size LETE Colony # Visits Angel Shores 5 0 0 0 0 3 Corey Creek Mouth 2 1 1 0 0 37 Conkling Point 5 0 0 0 0 8 Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek) 3 0 0 0 0 10 Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach) 2 1 1 0 0 28 Downs Creek 4 0 0 0 0 7 Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West) 2 1 1 3 0 39 Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s - McCabe’s) 2 1 1 0 0 27 Goose Creek (Southold Bay) 2 1 1 4 4 42 Gull Pond West 2 1 3 3 80 46 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 1 1 2 4 45 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 6 11 208 59 Mattituck Inlet (Baillie Beach) 4 0 0 0 0 5 Paradise Point 4 0 0 0 0 7 Pipes Cove 4 0 0 0 0 9 Port of Egypt 3 0 0 0 0 16 Richmond Creek 2 1 1 0 0 19 6 Productivity Summary 2018 Piping Plover Total number of pairs: 13 Number of nest attempts: 16 Number of nests that hatched: 12 Number of young fledged: 23 Total Productivity: 1.77 (10-year avg. = 1.08) Least Tern Number of colonies: 4 Number of nesting pairs: 138 Number of young fledged: 150 Total Productivity: 1.09 (10-year avg. = 0.55) 2018 PIPL chick, newly hatched at Breakwater Beach (Taken from a distance with a zoom lens) A female PIPL that successfully nested at Breakwater Beach in 2017 was rediscovered at Richmond Creek in 2018. This bird was banded by research biologists from Virginia Tech. in June 2013 at Cupsogue Beach County Park, NY. 7 2018 Summaries and Recommendations: Nine active sites (listed in order of productivity) and town actions required: 1) Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater Beach) – 5 PIPL nests, 11 young fledged. Approximately 104 LETE nests, 100 young fledged. Needs leash law and ATV enforcement. Due to its wide expanses of flat, natural, non-fragmented beach habitat, this site is by far the most productive for both PIPL and LETE every year. This year there were five PIPL pairs – three on the public side and two on the private side – who fledged 11 young. The LETE colony decreased slightly from last year, with 104 pairs fledging approximately 100 young. LETE nested on the public and private sides. The most dangerous disturbance to this site is illegal ATV use on both the public and private sides of this beach. Although ATV use can occur on the private section of beaches (with property owner approval), this is a critical danger for young birds, which are vulnerable to being run over soon after hatching and before they can fly (Fig. 1). Minor disturbances at the site included beachgoers, bonfires, lawn furniture, raking on the private side, unleashed dogs, and playing ball near the string fence. Minor fence incursions by the public were seen this year, which is an improvement from last year when vandalism was noted (Fig. 2). GFEE staff strung a second line of lower string around the fence posts to deter beachgoers from entering. This seemed to work well and should be continued in the future. Since the site is a popular destination, a major focus this year was public outreach. We maintained a strong presence on the beach, held numerous tabling events and beach cleanups, made regular site visits, once again installed “Be a Good Egg” signs, and attempted to nurture a healthy relationship with the private property owners - most of whom willingly participated in the program when nests were found on their property (Fig. 3). Some were not in favor of the shorebird protection program, highlighting the need for further outreach by GFEE. Figs. 1-3 (l. to r.) – ATV tracks on the public beach (not allowed per town law); minor incursions of fencing; lack of homeowner support resulting in a less than optimal protective fence size for nesting PIPL Recommendation – As noted in the past, increased enforcement of the Town’s leash law and ATV law on public beaches is needed on this critical beach that hosts the largest number of endangered PIPL and threatened LETE in our coverage area every year. We at GFEE are also committed to continued outreach to the private homeowners, as more PIPL and LETE are nesting on the private side of the beach. 8 2) Gull Pond West – 1 PIPL nest, 3 fledged. 30 LETE nests, 40 fledged. Needs leash law enforcement. This was an excellent season with one successful PIPL nest fledging three young, and an increased LETE colony of approximately 80 birds fledging 40 young (Fig. 4 & 5). Flooding and predator issues were not a major problem this season, and all homeowners with birds on their property allowed fencing, which greatly contributed to the success of the birds this year. Unleashed dogs were a disturbance at times, but beachgoers and homeowners were respectful of the birds and fenced areas. Fig. 4 & 5 – successful nesting habitat for PIPL and LETE Recommendation – Continue to cultivate a good relationship with homeowners. Fencing on rental properties should only be done when needed. Leash law needs to be enforced to protect this important breeding site. 3) Goose Creek (Southold Bay)- 1 PIPL nest, 4 fledged; 2 LETE nests, 3 fledged. Needs leash law enforcement and new guardrail installation. This site had its first successful PIPL nest in a decade, which hatched and fledged four young. The early LETE colony was significant, but diminished throughout the season, producing only two successful nests and three young that fledged (Fig. 6). This LETE decrease is assumed to be due to the extremely busy nature of the beach during the peak summer season and the small area of this beach in general (Fig. 7). Sunbathing, dog-walking and boat/kayak landings limit foraging areas for the LETE. However, we were pleased that the PIPL navigated the busy beach. Though most beachgoers were respectful of and not bothered by the symbolic string fence, there were a few mishaps with our interpretive signs (Fig. 8). Figs. 6-8 (l. to r.) – PIPL & LETE nest location; high tide limits the beach access for birds and people; vandalism of signs 9 Recommendation– continue to string fence with two lines of string early in the season to establish a protected breeding area that is inviting to LETE and PIPL. Continue hosting outreach events and posting “Be A Good Egg” signs at this popular site to educate visitors of the importance of being responsible beachgoers. 4) Little Creek – 1 PIPL nest, 2 fledged. 2 LETE nests, 3 fledged. Needs “No Dogs Allowed” enforcement. As in past years, this site continues to provide excellent foraging and nesting habitat for PIPL, but only adequate for LETE. One pair of PIPL nested in a similar location to last year, and fledged two young. The LETE colony here was also larger at the beginning of the season, but dwindled until only two nests successfully hatched with three young fledging (Fig. 9-10). Unleashed dogs continue to be problematic at this site, although most beachgoers were supportive and respectful of the program. Figs. 9 & 10 (l. to r.) PIPL and LETE nesting area – narrow beach makes unleashed dogs very disruptive; “Be a Good Egg” sign to encourage compliance with fencing and signs Recommendation - continue string fence with two lines and signage early in the season. Regular police presence may deter people from walking their dog unleashed. 5) Goldsmith Inlet (Inlet West) - 1 PIPL nest, 3 fledged. Zero LETE. Needs guardrail installation and leash law enforcement. For the second year in a row, one PIPL pair nested successfully in the dredge material adjacent to the parking lot (Fig 11). Four eggs hatched, and three young fledged. Within days of hatching, the birds once again relocated to the western beach portion of the site. As in prior years, large tire depressions were observed prior to string fencing - both in the nesting area and on the beach (Fig 12-13). Other disturbances include beach bathers, unleashed dogs, and fishermen. 10 Fig. 11-13 (l. to r.) – habitual nesting site; ORV tracks through nesting site; tracks on where birds raise young 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 the town could invest in solar compactors that alleviate the need to pick up garbage as frequently. In addition, the town dog leash law sign should be installed at this site. 6) Corey Creek Mouth – 1 PIPL nest, hatched but young predated, zero fledged. Zero LETE. Needs routine leash law enforcement and bonfire control. This site hosted a single pair of PIPL that completed a four-egg nest, but in a new location - the less busy eastern end of the site called Takaposha (Fig. 14). Unfortunately, similar to last year, none of the four chicks fledged. Based on the high amount of crow, raccoon, and fox activity, we suspect natural predation is the cause of failure. The area east of the house, where piping plovers historically nested, continues to offer suitable nesting habitat, as it is open and sandy. Disturbances at this site continue to be unleashed dogs, fishermen, bonfires, and crows and other predators (Fig. 15). Figs. 14-15 (l. to r.) - current nesting area; bonfires on the beach 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, 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. 11 7) Richmond Creek – 1 PIPL nest, young hatched but were predated, zero fledged. Zero LETE. Needs leash law enforcement and bonfire control. For the first time, this site saw one PIPL pair nest, and hatch young (Fig. 16). Unfortunately, the chicks were predated and none fledged. No LETE attempted to nest here this year. Disturbances to this site include unleashed-dogs, boat anchoring, and bonfires (Fig. 17). Figs. 16-17 (l. to r.) - nesting area; bonfire Recommendation – Continue pre-season fencing, as this provided suitable protected habitat for PIPL this season. 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. Make more routine garbage pick-ups, and implement the use of lids on all garbage cans. Leash laws should be enforced here to protect the birds. 8) Cutchogue Harbor (Meadow Beach)- 1 PIPL nest, abandoned, 0 fledged. 0 LETE. No town action needed. This site continues to offer excellent habitat but has ongoing predator issues. This year, one pair of PIPL nested (Fig. 18), but abandoned the nest most likely due to predators (raccoons, fox, gulls) (Fig. 19). No LETE nested this year for the third year in a row. The beach was a popular stopover for migrating shorebirds (Sanderling, Ruddy Turnstone, Semipalmated Plover), and a foraging site for Least Tern, Great Black-backed Gulls, American Oystercatchers (AMOY), Osprey, and Willet. Figs. 18-19 – PIPL nesting site (l.), predator tracks (r.) 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. 12 9) Goldsmith Inlet (Kenney’s Beach-McCabe’s Beach) – 1 PIPL nest, abandoned, 0 fledged. 0 LETE. Needs leash law enforcement. For the second year in a row, this site provided adequate nesting habitat for PIPL, but was unattractive for LETE. One PIPL pair nested, but the nest was abandoned due to an unknown cause (Fig. 20). No LETE nested here this year. Decreased nesting habitat due to beach changes paired with disturbances from beachgoers and homeowners may contribute to the lack of activity at this beach (Fig. 21). Figs. 20-21 (l. to r.) - PIPL nest high on the beach in storm debris; narrow nesting area left after high tides Recommendation – Continue the dialogue with property owners and Town DPW to ensure awareness and best management practices, respectively. 13 2018 Summaries and Recommendations: Inactive Sites in alphabetical order Angel Shores For the seventh year in a row, no nesting shorebirds were observed at this site. Lack of upper beach habitat due to human influence (housing, bulkheads) severely impacts nesting. The patch of Phragmites - an invasive plant – continues to grow and detracts from the natural habitat of these birds (Fig. 22). There is a small portion of potential nesting habitat northwest of the access point on Sunset Lane. 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. 23). Beach erosion has continued this year, making a steep slope adjacent to the wooded area (Fig. 24). Figs. 22-24 (l. to r.) – Phragmites patch; stand of trees around nesting habitat; beach erosion making steep slope Recommendation – due to a lack of PIPL and LETE activity at the site, maintain low-level monitoring as in the past. Conkling Point This narrow spit of land provides adequate nesting and foraging for PIPL and LETE, but flooding, predators, small boat landings, and unleashed dogs deter nesting. This year, one pair of American Oystercatcher (AMOY) attempted to nest, but the nest was washed out by a high tide (Fig. 25-26). Figs. 25-26 (l. to r.) – Narrow end of beach prone to flooding; thick vegetation encourages predators Recommendation – due to a lack of PIPL and LETE activity at the site, maintain low-level monitoring as in the past. 14 Cutchogue Harbor (Mud Creek) Between fishermen, beachgoers, boaters and dog walkers, Cutchogue Harbor is a high traffic area during the breeding season. In addition, new home construction and human activity negatively impacts the nesting suitability of the site (Fig. 27). 2018 was the third consecutive season where PIPL and 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. 27 – new home construction and lack of undisturbed upper beach Recommendation – due to a lack of PIPL and LETE activity at the site, maintain low-level monitoring as in the past. Downs Creek Beach changes have left little usable habitat for nesting at this site (Fig. 28). Available habitat is exposed and a popular foraging area for gulls (Fig. 29). No PIPL or LETE attempted to nest this year. In addition to the loss of habitat since Sandy, shorebirds at this site also compete with beachgoers to find prime nesting sites and feed on exposed sandbar during low tide (Fig. 30). Clammers, kayakers, predators, dog walkers (most unleashed) and beach walkers continue to be causes of disturbance at the site. Figs. 28-30 (l. to r.) – standing water continues to minimize habitat; small and exposed nesting habitat; exposed sandbar creates foraging opportunities for larger birds Recommendation – due to a lack of PIPL and LETE activity at the site, maintain low-level monitoring as in the past. 15 Hashamomuck Beach (Town Beach) Lack of suitable habitat and a year-round gull population continue to deter shorebirds at this site. As in previous years, no PIPL or LETE attempted to forage or nest (Fig. 31). Figs. 31 – lack of suitable habitat due to proximity to parking lot, gulls, beach development, and boat ramp. 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) nest at this site (Fig. 32). 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. 32 – bulkheads and groins allow almost unsuitable habitat for foraging or nesting. Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring due to lack of PIPL and LETE nesting activity. 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. 33) and the otherwise available small section of exposed beach is regularly flooded at high tide. This section is also being overtaken by Phragmites and thus further reducing this marginal breeding habitat. Likewise, the northern peninsula is overgrown with woody vegetation, mainly black locust and tree-of-heaven 16 (Fig. 34). As noted in prior reports, without invasive species control birds should not be expected to nest here. Figs. 33-34 (l. to r.) lack of upper beach and human encroachment; woody vegetation and phragmites at peninsula 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 in the past, LETE, COTE, and various migrant shorebirds were observed foraging at this site, but no breeding or nesting activity occurred. No PIPL were observed either foraging or nesting. 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 prohibits the mobility of PIPL and LETE chicks (Fig. 35-37). Figs. 35-37 (l. to r.) – steeply sloped shore; groins; scalloping Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring due to lack of PIPL and LETE nesting activity. 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. 38). Despite this, a large section of upper beach habitat persists next to the inlet, which over time could allure potential nesters. Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring due to lack of PIPL and LETE nesting activity. 17 Fig. 38 – open exposure to the bay Marratooka Point (Deep Hole Creek) This site has not been occupied by nesting PIPL or LETE in over a decade due to lack of suitable habitat. 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. 39-40). Residents are very friendly, and also report a lack of shorebirds in recent years due to habitat loss. Figs. 39-40 (l. to r.) – housing & groins; potential nesting habitat Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring due to lack of PIPL and LETE nesting activity. Paradise Beach Point This small peninsula provides adequate nesting and foraging habitat for PIPL and LETE, but no birds were seen foraging or nesting this season. Exposed habitat, human disturbance by beachgoers, and heavy foliage surrounding the point encouraging predators may discourage use of this site. It is worth noting a pair of AMOY attempted to nest, but were unsuccessful either due to high tide flooding the nest or predators in the vicinity (Fig. 41-43). Figs. 41-43 (l. to r.) – open beach; rocky substrate at site; potential nesting habitat in distance Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring as in the past, due to low nesting activity. 18 Pipes Cove The northern end of this site is heavily developed, and offers little usable nesting habitat for PIPL or LETE. The southern end offers excellent foraging across the creek, and LETE were seen foraging but not nesting. No PIPL were observed. Some suitable habitat for nesting exists at the southern entrance, but is a popular walking beach and is prone to flooding (Fig. 44-46). Figs. 44-46 (l. to r.) – development at n. portion reduces habitat; suitable habitat at s. portion; excellent foraging Recommendation – maintain low-level monitoring as in the past due to low nesting activity. Port of Egypt This site continues to host several species of gulls and terns, as well as AMOY, and it remains the largest known Great Black-backed Gull (GBBG) colony in the Town (Fig. 47). For the second year in a row, no LETE or PIPL attempted to nest here, which is likely due to the large gull colony. Of note were two pairs of AMOY that nested and fledged five young (Fig. 48). This is one of only three beaches to host AMOY this year, and the only beach that hosted a successful pair. A pair of Common Tern (COTE) nested but did not fledge young. Figs. 47-48 (l. to r.) – GBBG colony; AMOY nesting area Recommendation –maintain low-level monitoring as in the past due to low nesting activity.