South Coast Shorebird Recovery Program 2008/09 Breeding Season

Transcription

1 South Coast Shorebird Recovery Program 2008/09 Breeding Season Clockwise from top left: Sooty Oystercatcher chick after banding Lucy Aplin; Pied Oystercatcher eggs Robyn Kesby; Shorebird Recovery Coordinator monitoring the birds Jacob Lambert; Pied Oystercatcher Berringer Lake Jodie Dunn; The Great Hoodie Rescue Meroo Beach J.Dunn; Hooded Plover fledgling first flight J.Dunn; Little Tern nest Tuross Amy Harris; Little Tern Fledgling Tuross John Cornish. Jodie Dunn and Amy Harris Parks and Wildlife Group Department of Environment and Climate Change June 2009

2 2

3 Acknowledgements The Shorebird Recovery Program is a long term program that relies on the dedicated support of numerous organisations, environmental groups and volunteers. Without their participation, cooperation and involvement this conservation program would not be possible. Funding is essential for the employment of coordinators, fence and sign equipment and running costs associated with the protection and management of threatened shorebirds in the region. We gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (SRCMA) and the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) NSW Fox Threat Abatement Plan. Costs associated with vehicles and administrative duties were borne by the South Coast and Far South Coast Regions of the Parks and Wildlife Group (PWG). We would also like to thank all the NPWS staff who assisted us in the field, alerting us to threatened bird sightings and even taking over when we needed a few days rest. I would like to thank James Dawson from the Threatened Species Unit for overseeing the Windang Little Tern site this season. Many agencies were contributors to this conservation program, these include: Bega Valley Shire Council (John Flanagan, Peter Miles, Mick Franic, Bruce, Grenville, Danny Maddigan, Derek Van Bracht); Eurobodalla Shire Council (Paula Pollock, Bernadette Davis); Shoalhaven City Council (Greg Thompson, Ray Massie), Wollongong City Council (Paul Formosa, Jedda Lemmon), Lake Illawarra Authority (Garry Clarke, Claude Domio), Booderee National Parks (Tony Carter), Beecroft Department of Defence (Mark Armstrong, Holly Macken) and the Department of Lands (Grant Merinuk, Cindy Garner, Helen Wheeler). Thanks to the rangers of the Livestock Health and Pest Authority (Bryson Latimer, Andrew Miners, Steve Raczkowski, Ross Olsen) and Mark Sobierajski (Animal Damage Control) for all their assistance with fox control in the region. Additionally, thank you to Darryl McKay for travelling to the south coast to undertake Little Tern banding at a number of sites. We are greatly indebted to the numerous volunteers who spent many hours assisting the program through maintaining fencing and signage, monitoring nesting and educating the public on the plight of the shorebirds in the region. We extend the most sincere thanks to all of you. Thank you to the Tuross Lake Shorebird Volunteers (George Rayner, Bill Nelson, Peter and Trish Christie, Doug Lahn, Jennifer and John Liney, Bill and Barbara Barker, John Cornish), The Bega Rivermouth Shorebird Volunteers (Jim Kelly, Jill and Gary Whitley, Derek and Glenys Lambert, Norm and Lyn Austwick, Doug Reckord, Liz Allen, Sue Nelson, Peter and Beth Hill, Dan and Lois Katz, Mareta Collins, Peter Collins, David Gallan, Vivien Griff, Janet and Peter Howe, Peter and Libby Roberts, Alan and Lyn Scrymgeour, Therese and Dennis Wheatley, Rod and Libby Whiteway, Ron Mudie, Max Cook, Lois Hayward), and also to Mike Crowley, Patricia Latimer, Sue and Carl Swensson, Steve Burrows and Brooke Marshall in FSCR. In the SCR thanks to Ian Shaw, Chris Brandis, Rex Worrell, Frances Bray, Mike Abramowitz, Narelle and Alan Wright, Thomas Kaar, Leo Cimador, John Rooney, David Lemmon, John Buckley, Carol and Terry McBride, Col Ashford, Keith Chinnock, Eric Hardinge, Jack Robertson, Jill Keating and Mike Jarman, Marg Hamon, Maggie Mance, Don and Sybille Davidson, Steve and Robin Teding van Berkhout, John Perkins, Diane Lennon, Meryl Hannan and Jacob Lambert. 3

4 1 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION METHODS Surveys and monitoring Surveys Monitoring of nest sites Little Terns Hooded Plover and Pied Oystercatchers Sooty Oystercatchers Habitat Protection and Management Physical Protection of Nests Signage Fox Control Avian Predator Control Managing inundation Chick Protection Community Consultation and Awareness Publicity Community Volunteers SURVEYS AND MONITORING Little Terns South Coast Region Colonies Windang Lake Wollumboola Lake Conjola Far South Coast Region Colonies Tuross Lake Brou Lake Mogareka (Bega River Mouth) Wallagoot Lake Nadgee Nature Reserve Overall Breeding Success Banding Flagged Birds Fairy Terns Wallagoot Lake Tuross Lake Banding Hooded Plovers South Coast Region Nesting Sites Far South Coast Region Nesting Sites Overall Breeding Success Pied Oystercatchers South Coast Region Nesting Sites Far South Coast Region Nesting Sites Overall Breeding Success Sooty Oystercatchers South Coast Region Nesting Sites Far South Coast Region Nesting Sites Overall Breeding Success

5 5 HABITAT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT Physical protection of nest sites Fox control Avian Predator Control Signage Managing inundation Chick Protection Vandalism COMMUNITY EDUCATION, AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT Publicity Newsletters and Newsletter Articles Newspaper Articles Magazine Articles Radio Interviews Internet Information Talks and Field Trips Letterbox Drops Community Volunteers RECOMMENDATIONS Surveys, Monitoring and Research Habitat Protection and Management Community Education, Awareness and Involvement REFERENCES APPENDICES

6 1 SUMMARY The Parks and Wildlife Group (PWG) of the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) established the South Coast Shorebird Recovery Program in 1999 in an effort to assist the recovery of threatened shorebirds breeding along beaches and within estuaries of the NSW south coast. Four species of threatened shorebirds are the focus of the program, these being the Little Tern (endangered), Hooded Plover (endangered), Pied Oystercatcher (vulnerable) and the Sooty Oystercatcher (vulnerable). On the south coast both the Little Tern and Pied Oystercatcher breed predominately on sandspits and sand islands within or adjacent to estuaries, creeks and coastal lakes/lagoons. Whilst the Hooded Plover prefers broad, flat open sandy beaches and the Sooty Oystercatcher is found breeding on rocky offshore islands. The South Coast Shorebird Recovery Program was divided into two operational areas during the 2008/09 breeding season; the South Coast Region (SCR - Wollongong to Bateman s Bay) and the Far South Coast Region (FSCR - Bateman s Bay to the NSW/Victorian border). Two Shorebird Recovery Coordinators were employed by the DECC (one based in SCR Ulladulla and another in FSCR Narooma) to implement recovery actions. These included surveys to establish baseline data on the breeding activities and numbers of each species, and monitoring to determine the location of nesting sites and the level and types of threats posed at each site. Habitat protection and management actions, such as physical protection of nest sites, signage, fox control, inundation management and chick protection, were then implemented to alleviate these threats. This program also aimed to raise public awareness of the conservation status, recovery efforts, habitat importance and the biology of threatened shorebirds through publicity, media and active community involvement. During the 2008/09 breeding season Little Terns established breeding colonies at eight sites along the southern coastline of NSW, these being Windang, Lake Wollumboola, Lake Conjola, South Tuross Head, Brou Lake, Bega Rivermouth, Wallagoot Lake and a single pair at Newtons Beach within Nadgee Nature Reserve. The number of breeding adults present within each colony varied throughout the nesting season, however it is estimated that overall 177 pairs bred within the region. A total of 641 eggs were laid from which 273 hatched (hatching success 43%) and an estimated 143 successfully fledged (fledging success 52%; overall breeding success 22%). Productivity was an estimated 0.8 chicks fledged per breeding pair (F/BP), which is significantly higher than last season s 0.6 F/BP and well above the Little Tern Recovery Plan objective of 0.5 F/BP (NPWS 2003). In the two largest FSCR colonies Fairy Terns also nested amongst the Little Terns with 70 adults forming 28 breeding pairs. These pairs laid 36 nests containing 69 eggs, hatching 18 chicks and definitely fledging 7 of these chicks. Fairy Terns are endangered in Victoria but numbers appear to be increasing at southern NSW Little Tern colonies and will continue to be monitored. 6

7 Forty nine adult Hooded Plovers were recorded along the southern coastline during the season and from these 16 breeding pairs were formed. Twenty nine nests were incubated containing 76 eggs. From these nests 31 chicks hatched (hatching success 41%) and 14 chicks were fledged (fledging success 45%; overall breeding success 18%). This was one of the most successful seasons on record, equal to the 2004/05 season in fledgling numbers and with one of the highest recorded productivities of 0.9 F/BP, well above the average of 0.7 F/BP. Disappointingly Nadgee Nature Reserve was not surveyed for Hooded Plovers this season, resulting in a lower number of recorded adults and breeding pairs in southern NSW. This must be taken into account when comparing with past seasons. Pied Oystercatchers bred within numerous estuaries and on many beaches along the south coast during the 2008/09 season. Thirty eight breeding pairs were monitored and incubated 47 nests. A total of 92 eggs were laid, from which 48 chicks hatched (hatching success 52%) and of these, 22 chicks definitely fledged (fledging success 46%; overall breeding success 24%). Productivity was estimated at 0.6 F/BP which is below the 0.7 F/BP average for the program. This lowered productivity was attributed to the higher number of breeding pairs monitored in the SCR this season, which were only monitored sporadically and breeding was mostly unsuccessful. Monitoring and protection efforts will be increased in the SCR next season. Monitoring of the Sooty Oystercatcher population within the region was comprehensive this season with all offshore islands receiving at least one visit. A total of 57 breeding pairs were recorded with 49 nests containing eggs and a further chicks were present. Late season visits were not possible in the SCR therefore the success of the breeding season cannot be estimated. However the early visits again indicated poor breeding success on Brush Island despite the large size of the island, high numbers of breeding pairs present and successful rat eradication program. Further investigations are required. In the FSCR an ANU Honours Student, Lucy Aplin, monitored the Sooty Oystercatcher population on Montague Island over the entire breeding season. Approximately one third of eggs laid successfully hatched (29%) and of these chicks 2 fledged (40%). In the SCR three nests were again found on the mainland, however these were all unsuccessful. As with previous seasons, a suite of threats including inundation, abandonment, stormy weather, human disturbance, avian predators and foxes were encountered by these four species of threatened breeding shorebird. The principal threats varied for each species and each nesting site. This season a high number of Little Tern eggs were inundated (17%), abandoned (15%) or lost to unknown causes (11%). Silver Gull predation (8%), mainly at Tuross Lake colony, also accounted for a large proportion of egg losses. Fox (4%) and raven (1%) predation also contributed significantly. Chick losses were mostly due to unknown circumstances (22%) while a small number were definitely lost to fox predation (5%) or died of natural causes (5%). 7

8 Hatching success was reduced this season for the Hooded Plover due to high levels of eggs loss due to abandonment (12%), inundation (12%) and human interference (11%), which all occurred in the SCR. A further 17% of eggs were lost to unknown causes mainly in the FSCR. Raven (5%) and fox (3%) predation also accounted for a small proportion of egg losses. Fox predation (19%) of chicks was high this season with raven predation (10%) also accounting for significant losses. The remainder of chicks lost were to an unknown fate (26%). The future use of remote infrared cameras will hopefully allow us to increase our knowledge of threats at a site, undertake relevant protective measures and therefore reduce this unknown fate category. Pied Oystercatchers eggs suffered predation by a host of identified predators including foxes (13%), ravens (4%), domestic dogs (3%) and Goannas (2%). A small proportion of eggs were abandoned (3%), lost to human intereference (2%) or inundated (1%). The majority of eggs however were lost to unknown causes (18%), as were the majority of chicks (42%) due to the sporadic visits. Closer monitoring will be undertaken next season particularly in the SCR. One chick died of natural causes (2%). Again the use of remote cameras will hopefully allow us to further our understanding of this unknown loss category. In addition, the Sooty Oystercatchers in the SCR and in particular on Brush Island may be experiencing high levels of avian predation, raptors or ravens. The use of cameras and raven control will assist in addressing this threat. The Recovery Program utilised many habitat protection and management actions in response to the range of identified threats to threatened nesting shorebirds. A multifaceted fox control program, incorporating baiting, electric fences, trapping and shooting aimed to reduce the threat of depredation at the majority of sites. Wire nest protectors (predator-exclusion cages) were used on a number of Hooded Plover and Little Tern nests. Nests in danger of inundation were raised on sandbags. Interpretive shorebird signs, used in conjunction with temporary protective fencing and dogs prohibited signs, were generally effective in minimising disturbance by both beach-users and domestic dogs. Additional shelter and protection, in the form of leafy branches, driftwood, empty pot-plants and sandbags was provided for newly hatched chicks at sparsely vegetated nesting sites. A primary objective of the Shorebird Recovery Program is to raise awareness of the conservation status of threatened shorebirds and to involve the local community in the recovery of these species. This season public interest was generated through brochures, posters, newsletters, magazine articles, internet information, public talks, radio, newspaper articles and television. Over 80 community volunteers played a vital and significant role in the monitoring and protection of numerous breeding sites. The endeavours of volunteers have been central to the protection of shorebird nesting colonies and have enabled the program to increase its coverage and the number of sites managed. The combined actions and recovery efforts of these volunteers, community based organisations and government agencies will help to ensure the continued survival of breeding shorebirds on the southern coastline of NSW. 8

9 2 INTRODUCTION Along the southern coastline of New South Wales a suite of resident and migratory shorebirds forage and roost within the extensive shoreline habitat. During the summer months, ten of these species favour this environment as a breeding ground. These species can be classified as either beach-nesting or offshore island-nesting birds (Table One) based on their general breeding biology. Table One: Classification of shorebirds breeding along the southern coastline of NSW Offshore Island nesting shorebirds Sooty Oystercatcher Haemotopus fuliginosus Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus Silver Gull L. novaehollandiae Crested Tern Sterna bergii Beach nesting shorebirds Red-capped Plover Charadrius ruficaillus Pied Oystercatcher H. longirostris Little Tern S. albifrons Caspian Tern S. caspia Fairy Tern S. nereis Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis Offshore-island- nesters, such as the Sooty Oystercatcher, Kelp Gull, Silver Gull and Crested Tern, lay their eggs either on the rocky shores or amongst vegetation on offshore islands dotted along the coastline. In contrast, on the mainland coast, beach-nesting Red-capped Plovers, Pied Oystercatchers, Little Terns, Fairy Terns and Caspian Terns generally breed on sandspits and sand islands within or adjacent to the estuaries of rivers, creeks and coastal lakes. The Hooded Plover prefers broad, flat, sandy ocean beaches with a wide wave-wash zone for feeding amongst beach wrack, fringed by sparsely vegetated sand dunes for shelter and nesting (Murlis 1989), but will also nest on sandspits. All six beach-nesting shorebirds create a simple scrape on the sand, which may be adorned with pebbles, shell fragments, small twigs and/or seaweed. Depending on the species, one to four eggs are then laid which are well camouflaged with their sandy surrounds. Two of these shorebirds, the Little Tern and the Hooded Plover, are listed as endangered species on Schedule 1 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) as they are: in a demonstrable state of decline which is likely to result in extinction; significantly prone to future threats which are likely to result in extinction; and very rare in terms of abundance and distribution. 9

10 The Hooded Plover is currently being considered for listing as Critically Endangered in NSW. In the opinion of the Scientific Committee, it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in NSW as the estimated total number of mature individuals of the species is very low and a projected or continuing decline is observed, estimated or inferred. Similarly, the Pied and Sooty Oystercatchers are classified as vulnerable species under the TSC Act as they are likely to become endangered unless the circumstances and factors threatening their survival or evolutionary development cease to operate. The Pied Oystercatcher is currently being considered for listing as endangered in NSW. Major declines in both the population numbers and distribution of all four species are attributed to a combination of natural and human induced threats. The greatest threats to nesting shorebirds include habitat loss through coastal development, loss of food resources, flooding of nests (by king tides, sea swells and rising river and lake levels), accidental trampling by humans and off-road vehicles and their susceptibility to depredation by both native (e.g. Australian Raven Corvus coronoides, Silver Gull Larus novachollandiae) and introduced (e.g. Red Fox Vulpes vulpes, domestic dog Canis familiaris) species (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2003). The South Coast Shorebird Recovery Program was established in 1999 to reduce the rate of decline of threatened shorebirds and recover populations by enhancing breeding success. Key recovery actions have included surveys to establish baseline data on the breeding activities and numbers of each species and monitoring to determine the location of nesting sites and the types and levels of threats posed at each site. Habitat protection and management actions, such as fox control and physical protection of nest sites, are then implemented to alleviate these threats. This program also aims to raise public awareness of the conservation status, recovery efforts, habitat importance and the biology of shorebirds through publicity, media and active community involvement. Since its establishment, this program has developed strong partnerships between the DECC, other state and government agencies (e.g. Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority, Department of Lands, Livestock Health and Pest Authority formerly Rural Lands Protection Board, local councils), local environment groups (e.g. Eurobodalla Natural History Society, Far South Coast Birdwatchers, Eurobodalla Landcare, Illawarra Bird Observers Club, Lake Wollumboola Protection Association, Friends of Durras) and individual members of the community, including over 80 dedicated volunteers. The major directions of the program are guided by the South Coast Shorebird Recovery Team, which includes representation of the key land owners, land managers, and beach user groups. The decisions of the Recovery Team are informed by the actions outlined in approved and draft recovery plans for the target species, and through discussion with relevant experts. To ensure that this important program is implemented effectively and efficiently two Shorebird Recovery Coordinators are employed by the DECC on a full-time basis from August to April. Their role is to coordinate the 10

11 implementation of recovery actions during the breeding season and to report on the results. The South Coast Shorebird Recovery Program is operationally divided into two main areas; the South Coast Region (SCR - Wollongong to Bateman s Bay) and the Far South Coast Region (FSCR - Bateman s Bay to the NSW/Victorian border). 11

12 3 METHODS 3.1 Surveys and monitoring Surveys Commencing in August (FSCR) and September (SCR), extensive surveys were undertaken of known and potential shorebird nesting areas along the coast between Wollongong and the NSW/Victorian border (Figure One). Important areas were identified from historic records and sightings by members of both ornithological and naturalist societies and local volunteers. These areas included beaches, sandspits and sand islands within or adjacent to the estuaries of rivers, creeks and coastal lakes and offshore islands. Site visits consisted of surveying the area with binoculars and/or a spotting scope for threatened shorebirds (i.e. Little Terns, Hooded Plovers, Pied and Sooty Oystercatchers). Both the number of each species and any observation of breeding behaviour of the birds were noted. For Little Terns, adults in breeding plumage were distinguished from those in non-breeding plumage. The presence of metal and/or colour-banded birds was recorded Monitoring of nest sites Nesting sites of all threatened shorebirds were identified by the presence of sitting birds or by brooding birds returning to the nest. Upon establishing the start distance (the distance a bird will allow an observer to approach before taking evasive action such as walking or flying away), observations were made from at least this distance to minimise disturbance. Once located by the relevant Shorebird Recovery Coordinator or a trained volunteer, the content of each nest was recorded and the progress of the nest site was monitored for the duration of the breeding event, usually every 2 to 7 days. Both direct observations (e.g. volunteer-site-wardens documenting predator presence and behaviour, nesting biology, bird behaviour) and indirect evidence (e.g. predator tracks at empty nests) of shorebird biology and possible threats to the nesting site were recorded where possible. Upon identifying threats, actions were taken where possible to manage these. This may include the installation of a people fence, nest cages, electric fences, signage, dog patrols, fox control and avian predator control. In addition, various potential nesting sites were visited opportunistically and in response to reported sightings Little Terns Monitoring of Little Tern breeding colonies primarily involved site inspections, which were conducted at least once per week. Inspections involved the Shorebird Recovery Coordinator and/or one or more trained volunteer site wardens walking through the site in transects, recording details of each nest and general activity within the site. Egg numbers in each nest, chicks, runners and fledglings were counted and new nests marked and recorded. 12

13 Figure One: Map detailing the location of the South Coast and Far South Coast regions 13

14 Fairy Terns breeding within these colonies were also monitored where possible. Colony inspections were restricted to minimise disturbance to sitting birds, especially during adverse (hot, windy, rainy) weather conditions. The location of each Little Tern colony was plotted using a global positioning system (GPS). The precise location of each nest within the colony was recorded on site maps and marked in the field with either cattle tags on metal stakes or a numbered section of wooden garden stake (~400mm in length). Marker pegs were placed approximately one meter to the north of each nest and faced towards a scoping position. On subsequent visits, the contents of each nest were noted. Chick numbers were also determined during site inspections, although these were often underestimates as chicks leave the nest after one or two days and hide amongst vegetation and debris. Due to their small size and camouflage colourings these chicks are difficult to locate, but usually do not move very far from the nest in the first week. Chicks were considered runners once they were more mobile and began moving around the site, usually between one and two weeks of age. The runners then gather on the shoreline at the fledging stage and were thus counted with a scope and/or binoculars. Chicks were identified as fledglings when they were able to fly, usually at around three weeks from hatching. Mean weekly adult, egg, chick and fledgling numbers were calculated by averaging any counts recorded for that week. Weeks were numbered beginning with week 1: Jan 1-7, week 2: Jan 8-14, week 3: Jan 15-21, and so on. The final estimate of fledgling numbers was based on a combination of factors: 1. calculations of expected fledging date for each clutch compared with observations of chicks taking their first flights 2. summing the highest fledgling counts at least three weeks apart for the duration of the season to get the maximum total fledgling count (based on assumption that after 3 weeks the fledglings have moved away from the colony) 3. overall observations of numbers of adults, eggs, chicks and fledglings and knowledge of threats present Hooded Plover and Pied Oystercatchers Once located, the Shorebird Recovery Coordinators and/or trained volunteers regularly assessed the progress of Hooded Plover and Pied Oystercatcher nests. The status of a nest site was classified as containing eggs, chicks, fledglings or absent of breeding activity and the numbers of each were recorded. The exact locality of nests on a beach or sandspit was plotted by GPS and, in most cases, marked by interpretative signage (to warn beach visitors) and temporary fencing. During the breeding season each nest site was visited at least weekly to monitor the progress of these breeding attempts. The fate of each egg and chick was recorded based on observations, tracks of predatory animals present at the site and knowledge of known threats. During the breeding season, Hooded Plover and Pied Oystercatcher pairs were sometimes discovered already with chicks or fledglings. The exact 14

15 details of their nesting attempts therefore remain unknown. In these cases, if less than three offspring were observed; it was presumed that two chicks had hatched from two egg nests, based on the average clutch size for these species. Any data that is assumed and has not been sighted is marked in the data tables with an asterisk (*). Additional fledglings sighted in the region but already independent of parents and consequently from an unknown site were noted, but no assumptions were made about nest location, egg or chick numbers. These extra fledglings were not included in any statistics or data analysis for the season. Furthermore if it is unknown whether a chick actually fledged they were categorized as possible fledglings but again were not included in any statistics or data analysis. Only definite fledglings with known nesting history were used in breeding success statistics. Breeding pairs were identified as pairs of adult birds that actually had nests with eggs or chicks. If nest scrapes were present, but no eggs or chicks ever sighted, the location of the pair was recorded and classified as nesting suspected. In this instance the pair was not classified as a breeding pair and consequently not included in any breeding statistics. Alternatively, if a pair was sighted at a location but no nesting activity at all was recorded (i.e. no scrapes, eggs, chicks or fledglings) the pair was classified as no nesting recorded Sooty Oystercatchers DECC (PWG) staff, Department of Environment and Heritage staff, Catchment Management Authority staff, Shorebird Recovery Coordinators, University researchers and volunteers visited eight offshore islands (Brush, Belowla, Grasshopper, Wasp, the Tollgates, Snapper and Montague Island) early in the breeding season. The number of adult birds, nests, eggs and chicks was recorded on each island. Breeding pairs were defined as birds with eggs, chicks or fledglings. Nonbreeding pairs were defined as birds with nest scrapes and/or holding a territory and individual birds were defined as those apparently unattached (to either territory or a partner bird) birds sighted. The precise location and contents of all nests were noted on maps and/or by GPS. If a breeding pair was particularly vocal and defensive of their territory, but no nest could be found it was assumed there were one or two chicks present. The presence of fresh limpet and chiton shells (indicative of a chick feeding area) gives further support to this assumption. Due to the dense nesting (sometimes only 2 metres apart) and open habitat, giving early warning to breeding pairs of approaching researchers, chicks often had ample time to hide within rock crevices and under boulder piles, making it difficult for us to actually find them and very stressful to the parents. Subsequent visits were attempted to determine the number of chicks and fledglings on each island and overall breeding success, however this was often not possible as island accessibility was highly dependent on weather conditions and logistical problems were experienced during the breeding season. Furthermore during the late stage of the breeding season (January/February) Little Terns and Hooded Plovers often take priority due to a peak in their breeding activity and the danger of high disturbance levels from increased tourist numbers on the mainland. 15

16 3.2 Habitat Protection and Management Potential threats were identified at each nesting site by the Shorebird Recovery Coordinator and/or the shorebird volunteers and these threats were managed through a range of actions. Habitat protection and management actions were tailored to each site and depending on the threats could include people fencing, signage, electric fences, nest cages, sandbagging nests, fox control, avian predator control and dog patrols Physical Protection of Nests Temporary fences were erected around both active nesting sites and those areas strongly suspected as being potential breeding sites (i.e. presence of threatened shorebirds and nesting scrapes) to control the impact of human induced threats. Such threats include accidental trampling of nests, damage to habitat by vehicles and motorbikes, domestic dog disturbance, fox predation and nest abandonment due to human disturbance or deliberate interference. People fences were constructed from wooden garden stakes and/or fibreglass poles connected by at least one strand of nylon twine. Flagging tape was tied to the twine to increase visibility of the fence. Electric fences were erected at sites where cattle, foxes and/or domestic dogs were considered to pose a significant threat based on historical records and/or their immediate presence within the area. These consisted of a minimum of four strands of electric tape, wire or rope joining fibreglass, insulated metal and/or plastic posts and were charged by a 6 or 12-volt battery connected to a pulse charger set at maximum capacity. Wiring was set up as a series circuit (alternate earth/live) or parallel system (all wires live) depending on the site. Series circuit was favourable at exposed sites where high sand movement often buried the bottom wire resulting in shorting out the fence and draining the battery in a parallel system. Consequently the series circuit was used and this bottom wire was set as an earth. The electric fences were erected inside the people fence to avoid members of the public coming into contact with the electric fence. All fences were positioned at a minimum distance of 1 metre, and preferably up to 10 metres, from the nearest nest to further reduce disturbance. Electric fences were high maintenance and require checking regularly for voltage, sand movement, salt build up and fence integrity. The bottom strand often required digging out or clearing of vegetation beneath, electric tape strands were tightened to maintain tension, posts moved or hammered in when required and salt build up wiped from insulators. If the voltage had dropped significantly the battery was changed. Fences were dismantled at the end of the breeding season. During the 2003/04 breeding season, a trial of the effectiveness of wire nest protectors (predator-exclusion cages) was undertaken. This trial was continued during the 2004/05 and 2005/06 seasons. The design of predatorexclusion cages varied according to species, as has been suggested by other 16

17 researchers (Johnson and Oring 2002). Hooded Plover cages were cube shaped (1 metre dimensions constructed from 100mm x 100mm galvanized mesh) with an open base and wire mesh skirt on all sides to prevent predators from digging under the cage. Cages were placed directly over the nests, held down with wire pegs if necessary and the mesh skirts buried under sand to ensure the birds were unimpeded when returning to the nest. The time taken to resume incubation was recorded from when the birds were first disturbed from their nests. Cages were also placed on potentially vulnerable Little Tern nests at sites where threats arose, such as eggs being preyed upon by Silver Gulls or where other protective measures were ineffective. Little Tern nests were enclosed by a standing cylinder cage (1 metre in diameter) designed to allow Little Terns to both walk-in from all sides (100mm x 100mm galvanized mesh) and fly-off the nest (through the open top), yet not so large as to allow predatory birds to enter. Furthermore the top horizontal row of wire was cut away so as wire ends projected upwards and inwards to discourage the entry of larger birds. With both cage types the bottom row of wire mesh was carefully buried just under sand level to allow a clear path for the birds to access the nest (i.e. they did not need to step over wire or duck underneath) Signage Numerous signs were used to inform beach-users of threatened shorebird breeding activities. These included two types of temporary interpretative signs printed on coreflute, one of which was generic for shorebird breeding areas and another specific to Hooded Plover nesting sites (400mm x 600mm). These signs were attached to wooden garden stakes and erected around the outside of people fences and positioned at major beach access points. Smaller coreflute signs (200mm x 200mm) with stylised pictures of the relevant species (created last season) were used again and attached to the same stake to increase public awareness. Shorebird breeding grounds and Little Tern breeding grounds coreflute signs (100mm x 200mm) were attached to the fencing tomato stakes, joined up with string and used to construct the people fences to deter people from entering nesting areas. Large permanent shorebird interpretative signs were additionally installed at key nesting locations and interpretative panels were displayed in some DECC (PWG) offices. Dogs Prohibited (Wildlife Protection Zone) signs created by Bega Valley Shire Council (BVSC) rangers were erected at shorebird nesting sites within Bega Valley Shire. At Shoalhaven breeding sites, Dogs Prohibited within 200m of Shorebird Breeding Sites coreflute signs were erected at nesting sites during the season. For the Windang site, Wollongong City Council manufactured Endangered Species Protection Area coreflute signs which were erected around the Little Tern breeding area and specified Dogs Prohibited. Another coreflute sign which is used at sites popular with dog walkers shows a dog on a leash with an arrow directing them away from the nesting birds. A few new coreflute signs (400mm x 400m) were used this season in the SCR. The first type was designed to update the locals and general public on 17

18 the progress of the Little Tern colonies and the Hooded Plover breeding pairs at each beach. Fields such as egg, chick and fledgling numbers were provided to fill in and there was a blank area for any notes. The data on the signs needs to be updates regularly throughout the season. The second type of sign was to let beach goers know that there were Chicks on the Beach and ideally was put in place when the chicks hatch. All temporary signs were removed at the completion of the breeding season Fox Control A number of fox control measures were implemented at threatened shorebird nesting sites. Fox control techniques included regular and reactive 1080 poison baiting, reactive soft-jaw trapping and shooting, erecting electric fences around nesting sites and installing individual nest cages. Existing pest management programs funded fox control at some of these sites, while additional funding under the NSW Fox Threat Abatement Plan (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001) provided for extra bait stations to be placed closer to shorebird nesting sites on public land. Stations positioned on adjacent private properties further augmented this fox control campaign. This year significant NHT funding provided by the Southern River CMA allowed for additional collaborative baiting and shooting programs to be extended onto private lands in the surrounding area. In the SCR Crown Lands and local Councils also funded reactive fox control such as trapping and shooting when foxes were threatening the shorebirds nesting on their lands. A combination of 1080 Fox-Off and raw meat baits were delivered using the mound method (i.e. buried within mounds at least 15cm high) to reduce bait takes by non- target species. In some cases free baiting (non-toxic baits) was initially used to attract foxes to a station. Baiting in most areas commenced in September (SCR) and August (FSCR) prior to the main shorebird breeding season, although some Hooded Plover pairs had commenced breeding by this time in the SCR. Additional sites were baited as necessary following reassessment of priority areas throughout the season. Bait programs ran until late December (SCR) and late February (FSCR). Electric fences were erected using the aforementioned procedure in areas where foxes posed a significant threat to nesting shorebirds and were either not responding to baiting or occurred in areas where 1080 baiting was not allowed (i.e. within 500m of a dwelling). Nest cages were also installed to discourage foxes. Soft-jaw traps and shooting were other reactive techniques used in these areas Avian Predator Control In response to incidents involving significant levels of egg and chick predation by Silver Gulls and Australian Ravens, shooting was used as a method of avian predator control. At these sites, individual predatory birds were identified before shooting was undertaken in accordance with the Avian Predator Control Shooting Plan. Statewide approval for the use of 18

19 alphachlorolase poison as an alternative method of eradicating avian predators was obtained this season. In the SCR region a Conservation Risk Assessment was written and a small trial was undertaken in Murramarang Aboriginal Area at Bullpup Beach. An extension of the statewide approval will allow further use of this poison at more sites next season Managing inundation In an effort to avoid the flooding of nests by king tides, sea swells and rising lake and river levels, a number of management techniques were used. These included: moving nests, elevating nests on sandbags and constructing dykes around vulnerable nests. In cases where higher ground was adjacent to a vulnerable nest, eggs were moved at a rate of one to two metres per day (NPWS 2003). Nests were elevated by picking up the eggs and replacing them on top of a mound constructed of sandbags covered in loose sand. The most effective nest mounds were two sandbags wide and at least three high with a dip in the centre to protect the eggs from sand coverage during high winds and from rolling off. Sandbag ramps were also created on the edges of mounds to allow the movement of chicks on and off in response to the tides. If the danger of inundation was minor then a lower sandbag configuration was used with 3 sandbags overlapping in a triangle tightly so as there was no gap in the middle. The sandbags were then covered in sand and a shallow depression created in the centre for the eggs. Alternatively or in addition, dykes were created around individual nests. Nest elevations were limited to 20-minute sessions to avoid disturbing the birds for extended periods. Nests were prioritised for elevation according to their vulnerability to tidal inundation and scheduled hatching date. Care should be taken when raising new nests as abandonment is more likely. An additional technique, which was prepared for but ultimately not needed was the actual removal of eggs from the nest and replacement once the water has subsided. At large colonies where rasing all nests is not feasible it may be possible to remove eggs as nests become inundated and keep them for a short period of time in numbered egg cartons. Eggs would then be returned to nests as soon as possible after the water subsided Chick Protection At shorebird breeding sites largely devoid of vegetative cover, additional protection from predators, adverse weather conditions and human disturbance was provided for chicks in the form of added shelter. This consisted of transferring sandbags, empty plant pots, leafy branches, seaweed piles and beach washed debris to areas within close proximity of nest sites to give the chicks protection from the weather and encourage them to stay within the fenced areas. Empty plant pots were laid on their side, half buried in the sand with the base facing into the prevailing wind direction. 19

20 3.3 Community Consultation and Awareness Publicity Awareness of the conservation status, requirements and management of threatened shorebirds was promoted through a number of mediums. Written information for the 2008/09 breeding season included brochures, posters, Shorebird Recovery Program newsletters and articles in newsletters of ornithological and natural history societies and community groups. Brochures were distributed via letterbox drops, caravan parks and provided to site visitors, whilst posters were placed in the windows of local south coast businesses, on DECC (PWG) information boards and at local caravan parks. Talks on the aims and progress of the Shorebird Recovery Program were also delivered by the Shorebird Coordinators to key organisations including ornithological and natural history societies, as well as school groups and community groups. Furthermore, television, radio and newspaper articles were utilised to increase awareness of threatened shorebirds to the broader community. Shorebird Recovery Coordinators and volunteer site wardens also provided on-site information to beach users Community Volunteers At the commencement of each breeding season, members of the local community were contacted from lists developed during previous years, to determine numbers of active participants in the Program. New volunteers were recruited via radio, newspapers and brochures and by word of mouth. Community volunteers were briefed at the beginning of the season, outlining the appropriate protocol when wardening shorebird nesting areas. Job safety briefs were also conducted for all volunteers. Volunteers were clearly identifiable by a Sharing the Shoreline t-shirt and Shorebird Volunteer badge identification tag. Volunteers were also provided with a wide brim hat, sunglasses, sunscreen and gloves. Volunteers participated in the surveying and monitoring of breeding shorebirds. This included egg, chick, adult and fledgling counts, nest inspections and identification of other birds utilising the sites. They also played a key role in on-site protection of nesting sites by helping to fence breeding areas, maintain signage, install nest and chick protection and monitor predator activity. One of the most important roles of community volunteers was educating members of the general public on shorebird conservation and management. The efforts of volunteers have been paramount in the protection of nesting shorebirds on the south coast of NSW. 20

21 4 SURVEYS AND MONITORING 4.1 Little Terns This season Little Terns established breeding colonies at eight locations along the southern coastline of NSW (Figure Two; Table Two). Three of these colonies were located in the SCR (Windang, Lake Wollumboola and Lake Conjola) and five colonies were within the FSCR (Tuross Lake, Brou Lake, Mogareka/Bega River Mouth, Wallagoot Lake and on Newtons Beach in Nadgee Nature Reserve). The largest colonies were located at Lake Conjola and Tuross Lake with over 100 adult Little Terns each, while Lake Wollumboola colony was slightly smaller with around 80 birds and even smaller colonies of less than forty individuals were established at the remaining sites. In total approximately 177 Little Tern pairs nested along the southern NSW coast this season. For the first time a single pair were found breeding on Newtons Beach in Nadgee Nature Reserve. It has been suspected that Little Terns may breed along this remote section of coastline, however the timing of surveying and anecdotal reports from bushwalkers have not previously identified any definite nesting sites. Many Fairy Terns nested amongst the Little Tern colonies this season, particularly at Tuross Lake and Wallagoot. This species has suffered considerable declines in the southern states of Australia and is listed as endangered within Victoria. The details of the Fairy Tern nesting attempts are presented in section South Coast Region Colonies The Little Terns were first sighted in the SCR in late October at Shoalhaven Heads as they flew overhead migrating southward along the coast. During early November the birds settled at three sites in the SCR Windang, Lake Wollumboola and Lake Conjola and by mid November 89 breeding pairs were busily nesting Windang After a 40 year absence the Little Terns returned to nest at Windang in 2003/04. However due to the high levels of disturbance and threats at this urban nesting site, initial attempts were unsuccessful. In 2007 the LIA constructed the northern breakwall and dredged the entrance channel to Lake Illawarra. To compensate for disturbing the nesting area, an exclusive Bird Island was created using the dredge spoil. The 2007/08 season was the Little Tern s first breeding season on this Bird Island and 14 chicks were successfully fledged. 21

22 South Coast Region Windang Far South Coast Region Wallagoot Tuross Lake Brou Lake Narooma Eden Nowra Lake Wollumboola Jervis Bay Newtons Beach Lake Conjola Ulladulla Little Tern Breeding Colonies Coastline NPWS Estate Bega Mogareka Kilometers NSW/Vic Border Figure Two: Location of Little Tern Breeding Colonies on the south coast of NSW during the 2008/09 breeding season 22

23 Table Two: Summary of Little Tern breeding activity in the NSW South Coast and Far South Coast Region during the 2008/09 breeding season. Windang Lake Lake Tuross Brou Mogareka Wallagoot Newtons TOTALS Wollumboola Conjola Lake Lake Lake Beach Nesting Commenced Mid November Mid November Early November Late November Late November Mid December Late November Late November Early November Nesting Concluded Mid January Early March Mid February Early March Early March Late February Mid February? Early March Maximum adult number Estimated breeding pairs Number of nests Average Clutch size Fate of Lost to foxes Eggs Lost to ravens Lost to goanna Lost to Silver Gulls Lost to dogs Abandoned Inundated Unknown loss HATCHED (Presumed) ? 46 HATCHED (Definitely) Fate of Lost to foxes Chicks Lost to ravens Unknown loss Natural cause of death Possibly fledged DEFINITELY ? 143 FLEDGED Total number of eggs laid Number of Fledglings per breeding pair ? 0.8 Note: Newtons Beach only monitored once therefore fate unknown 23

24 In preparation for the return of the Little Terns NPWS staff and local volunteers erected a fence and signs around the nesting area in early November. Due to natural sand accretion the Bird Island had joined to the mainland over the winter and was easily accessible. After the fence was erected the LIA dredged a channel to entirely separate the Bird Island from the mainland, thus giving the nesting Little Terns protection from fox predation and also people and their dogs. This season the Little Terns returned to the Bird Island in late October (Figure Three). Numbers slowly built up to around adults and the first nests were laid in mid November, with two 2-egg nests and one single egg nest. Further terns were paired up and making nest scrapes. Disappointingly on returning to the island two days later, there was only one nest remaining, which now contained 3 eggs. A week later all nests and Little Terns were gone from the Windang site. These nests were presumed to have been predated upon by the Silver Gulls, resulting in the Little Terns deserting the site. There were particularly high numbers of gulls on the Bird Island along with their newly fledged chicks. These birds breed on the nearby Five Islands off Port Kembla. The young Silver Gulls were witnessed picking around on the ground and undoubtedly stumbled on a Little Tern nest here and there. With more than a hundred Silver Gulls on the small Bird Island, the Little Terns didn t have much of a chance. Throughout December and January Little Terns continued to come and go, sometimes settling on the island, with numbers ranging between 2 and 25 adults. Further nests were laid but quickly disappeared, with two 1-egg nests in late December and another nest in mid January. These nests were also predated on by the Silver Gulls. By late January Little Tern numbers dwindled again as all the adults departed EGGS CHICKS FLEDGLINGS ADULTS 20 Number Week Figure Three: Weekly mean egg, chick, fledgling and adult Little Tern numbers at the Windang colony during the 2008/09 breeding season 24