[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
                                                  l/I M&?-rk Ta 4   u- 7/-










                                          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                          COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                          2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                          CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413




       THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE
    MANAGEMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE'S COASTAL
                              REGION


                                          Property of csc Library


                           FINAL REPORT




            Submitted to the N.H. Office of State Planning

                           March 31, 1992
                               by the
                 Audubon Society of New Hampshire




QL
84.22
.N4
L83
1992
         J ~ ~ ~      ~      ~      ~     ~     ~     4



                                                                                                              ,4vf /V/// 7"-. ?a/,  _  /-7. 
    WHAT YOU'CAN DO TO HELP

   Contribute to our understanding of the              The Audubon Society
distribution of terns within New  Hamp-                  of New Hampshire                                       L RNS
shire by reporting any sightings of Com-         is an independent nonprofit organization
mon, Arctic or Roseate Terns to the Audu-        with programs in wildlife conservation,
bon Society of New Hampshire or the NH           environmental affairs, land protection, and
Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Pro-             environmental education.
gram, N.H. Fish & Game Department.

ï¿½  Shooting or harassing threatened or
endangered wildlife species is against the
law. Report any illegal activities to the N.H.
Fish & Game Department or your local
conservation officer.

ï¿½ Urge state and federal legislators to
protect sensitive coastal areas from de-                                                                   WHAT ARE TERNS?
velopment, pollution and exploitation.
                                                                                                 Among the most elegant of seabirds, terns
ï¿½  Stay away from areas where terns are                                                          are smaller and more slender in build than
known or thought to be nesting and keep                                                          the closely related gulls and are distin-
pets away from these place,  to avoid                                                            guished by long, narrow, pointed wings
disturbing the birds or leaving scent trails                                                     and deeply forked tails.  They all have
for predators.                                                                                   black caps during the breeding season,
                                                                                                 and long, tapering bills. The varying length
*  Discourage gulls in beach areas by                                                            of the tails and the colors of their bills can
properly disposing of garbage and trash.                                                         be used to tell the species apart.
Never dump wastes of any kind into the          Further information about ASNH can be
ocean.                                          requested from:                                  Terns flit gracefully over the water, bills
                                                 Audubon Society of New Hampshire               pointed downward, their long wings lifting
ï¿½  Learn more about the habits and needs                     PO Box 528-B                        them easily and swiftly 30-40 feet. When
of native wildlife so that you can help to              Concord, NH 03302-0516                   they spy food below, they plunge headfirst
educate others.                                              603-224-9909                        into the water, often disappearing com-
                                                                                                 pletely under the surface. These birds
*  Volunteerto assist with tern protection       * This report was funded in part by a grant from  pletely under the  surface. Th ese birds
at a nesting area near your home.                the New Hampshire Coastal Program, as autho-    sometimes gatherin huge numbers overa
                                                 rized by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-   school of fish, swirling in the air, scream-
                                                 ministration, (NOAA) Award Number NA            ing and diving again and again. Fisher-
 Support organizations workingdtopro-            170Z0311-01.                                    man can often locate schools of fish by
tect endangered species and other non-                                                           observing the tern's activities.
name wildlife.




                                                Terns can be aggressive when they are           the open dumping of garbage and an
                                                driving potential predators away from the       enormous growth in the fishing industry.
                            --~ A--EPICnesting colony, especially during the height            These larger, more aggressive birds com-
                                                of their breeding season when they are          pete with terns for nesting sites and prey
                                                defending their eggs and young. An indi-        directly on tern eggs and chicks. Terns
                                                vidual who wanders too close to an active       are subsequently forced into more mar-
            LIFE HISTORY                       breeding colony is likelyto be dive bombed       ginal areas for nesting and become more
                                                and "white-washed" by crying birds. Keep        vulnerable to predators and human distur-
                                                in mind that you have wandered into the         bance.
  corns arrive in New England during the        birds' nursery, and make acareful retreat.
  Atohalf of May, and usually breed in                                                          Terns have been greatly affected by
colonies on barrier beaches, offshore is-       By late summer, large groups of terns           coastal development and pollution. Shore-
lands and in the salt marshes. After a brief    begin to congregate on outer beaches and        front development has reduced available
courtship, which may include ritualized         islands.  Most depart for their southern        habitat and caused greater disturbance
flight displays and intricate caressing and
                     flight displays and intricate caressing and  wintering grounds in Central and South  by house pets, off-road vehicles and hu-
preening of each other's feathers, mating       Americain September. SomeArcticTerns            mans.  Human habitation has disturbed
ensues. Common and Arctic Terns build           make incredible oceanic journeys 25,000         the balance of predators as well, often
vulnerable nests on open shores, scoop-         miles, roundtrip between the Arctic and         exposing tern colonies to increased num-
ing out shallow scrapes in the sand, plac-      Antarctic via the coast of Africa and South     bers of raccoons, skunks and rats.
ing a few weeds on bare rock or nestling        America.
atop the salt marsh grasses.  Roseate
terns conceal their simple nests among
tall grasses or vegetation or in rock crev-             HISTORICAL REVIEW
ices.
                                                The numbers of terns breeding along the
Between late May and late July, terns lay       New Hampshire coast, as along the entire                CURRENT STATUS OF
                                                New Hampshire coast, as along the entire CURRENT STATUS OF
o2-3w oval eggs with variouns patterns of       Atlantic coast, has fluctuated greatly in the          NEW HAMPSHIRE TERNS
brown on a buff background; if one set of       last century. Once among the most abun-
eggs is destroyed, terns may lay several
eggs is destroyed, terns may lay several        dant nesting birds on the Atlantic and Gulf     New Hampshire currently supports only
ytimes. The chicks hatchn after about 21        coasts, they have since been plagued by         small numbers of the Common Tern. This
days of sIncubation and within a few days       a variety of threats. Tremendous num-           tern population includes scattered pairs
seek shelter in the grasses or other con-       bers of terns were killed in the late 1800's    nesting on rocky islands in the coastal
ealing dvegetation. Altheougha the young        forthe millinery trade. Although protective     bays and colonies in the Hampton Harbor
are well developed when they hatch, they        laws were eventually passed and terns           Estuary.
will stay near the nest, cared for by both      increased temporarily in the early 1900's,
adults and fed on small fish caught in the
coadults and fed on sallfish caught in the      theirpopulations have declined drastically      Field studies conducted annually since
coastal shallows.  Young terns are ca- .                      .                                                                . 
                            pable of short flights three to four weeks  since the 1950's.      1981 have documented serious instability
pable of short flights three to four weeks
                                                                                                in coastal colonies, where marginal nest-
after hatching and tend to gather in small
after hatching and tend to gather In small      Gull populations have increased dramati-        ing habitat and heavy predation have sig-
groups by the waters edge, waiting to be        cally in recent years due to the increase in    nificantly hampered productivity.
fed.






    WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP                            The Audubon Society
                                                         of New Hampshire
* Contribute to our understanding of the        is an  independent nonprofit organization               O S P R E Y
   Osprey'sdistribution within New Hamp-        with active programs in land preservation,
   shire by reporting any sightings to the      environmental education, legislative ac-
   Audubon Society of New Hampshire             tion, and non-game research and man-
   or the NH Nongame and Endangered             agement.
   Wildlife Program, N.H. Fish and Game
   Department.

*  Shooting or harassing threatened or
   endangered wildlife species is against
   the law. Report any illegal activities to
   the N.H. Fish and Game Department
   or your local conservation officer.

*  Learn more about the habits and needs
   of native wildlife so that you can help to
   educate others.
                                                                                                  HOW CAN I IDENTIFY AN OSPREY?
*  Share your knowledge and concern
   aboutbirdsof preyto help dispel myths
   about birds of prey to help dispel m yth s                        I_1The Osprey is a large, long-legged, fish-
   that lead others to harm them.                                G;4 s : eating raptor. It is comparable in size with
ï¿½  Urge state and federal legislators to                                                         the all black Turkey Vulture and is larger
   protect critical habitat for Ospreys and                                                      than any other native hawk, standing al-
   protect critical habitat for Ospreys and                                                      most two feet tall with a wingspan of up to
   other wildlife.                              Further information about ASNH can be            most two feet. Although often mistaken for t
                                                                                                 six feet. Although often mistaken for the
                                                requested from:                                  more massive Bald Eagle, it is consider-
*  Support organizations working to pro-         Audubon Society of New Hampshire                ably smaller. Seen in flight, the Osprey's
   tect endangered species and other                         P.O. Box 528-B                      ably smaller. Seen in f    light, the Osprey's
   non-game wildlife.                                                                          Concord, N . H .   0 3 302-0516  prominent features are its white or slightly
   non-game wildlife.                                 Concord, N.H. 03302-0516                   mottled underparts, dark brown back, the
                                                                                                 mottled underparts, dark brown back, the
                                                                                                 pronounced crook in its long wings high-
                                                                                                 lighted by distinctive black wrist patches.
                                                * This reportwasfunded in part byagrantfromthe   Seen from closer proximity, the Osprey's
                                                New Hampshire Coastal Program, as authorized     brghtyelloweyeandbroad,darkeyestrpe
                                                by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
                                                tion, (NOAA) Award Number NA 170Z0311-01.        help to distinguish it from other birds of
                                                                                                 prey.
                                                                                                                        . t    /     _~naJ;;t



           LIFE HISTORY                       The osprey is a truly cosmopolitan bird. It   nesting failure that ye-ar, they have suc-
                                              is able to take advantage of water bodies      cessfully raised young in subsequent
Ospreys arrive in New Hampshire during         suitable for its fishing way of life on every  years.  Each year brings more Osprey
April, returning year afteryearto the same     land mass on earth except New Zealand          sightings and nesting attempts to the sea-
breeding grounds. An osprey nest is gen-       and Antarctica. Populations here in the        coast region. You can observe Osprey in
erally placed in the flattened top of a live or  northeast generally migrate to the warmer    southeastern New Hampshire from late
dead tree, but may also be placed atop         climates of Central and South America.         March through mid-October. The Great
man-made structures such as powertrans-                                                       Bay estuary system is a prime area. The
mission poles, waterfront pylons, channel              HISTORICAL REVIEW                      marshes, harbors and beach areas along
markers and specially erected nesting plat-                                                   the seacoast can also be rewarding ob-
forms. The nest is up to five feet in diam-    In the two-decade period from 1950-70,         servation sites, especially during migra-
eter and is made with a large accumula-        the Osprey population was severely di-         tion.
tion of various sized dead branches up to      minished, especially in the eastern United
five feet long. Both sexes gather the nest-    States. Ospreys initiallydeclined because
ing material, but the female does most of      of pesticides such as DDT and other per-
the nest arrangement.  Nests are lined         sistentchemicalsin theirfoodchain, which
with sod, seaweed or marsh grass. Nests        caused infertility and thinned egg shells. 
are often used in successive years and the     Since the banning of DDT in 1972, the
annual increases in nesting materials,         Osprey has made a steady comeback
cause it to become very heavy and bulky.       although they may still be threatened by
                                              pesticide use in countries where Osprey
Male and female Ospreys court each other      winter as well as illegal shooting and the
with spectacular and vocal soaring, div-       decline of fish populations in lakes af-
ing, and swooping. This display serves to      fected by acid rain.
favorably influence his mate and discour-
age potential rivals. The female lays from          CURRENT STATUS OF NEW
2-4 blotched, oval eggs in two day inter-            HAMPSHIRE'S OSPREYS
vals.  Incubation by both the male and
female continues for about 38 days. The        Sincethe early 1980's, Ospreys have main-
chicks at hatch rely on the adults to feed     tained active nests in the Lake Umbagog
them, but in 4-5 weeks they can eat , by       region of northern New Hampshire. This
themselves, the prey that both parents         population has experienced steady growth
bring to the nest. Around 8 weeks, they       through the period, and now produces 15-
are capable of flight and begin to follow the  22 young each year from an average of 17
adults to their fishing grounds. After mi-     nests. Since 1989, a pair of Osprey calls
grating south theirfirstfall, young Ospreys    Great Bay their home.  After an early                              .!
spend the next year and a half on their
winter grounds. They do not return to the                                                       m 
breeding grounds until the spring of their
second year. 











       This report was prepared by:

      Diane De Luca
*     ~Senior  Biologist/Ornithologist

      Richard Hughes
      Coastal Field Biologist



      PROJECT PERSONNEL:

*     ~Technical and supervisory support:

           Carol Foss
            Director of Wildlife Programs

            Diane De Luca
           Senior Biologist/Ornithologist

      Field Biologist:

            Richard Hughes






      This report was funded in part by a grant from the New
      Hampshire Coastal Program, as authorized by the National
*     ~Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA)  Award  Numb
      NA 170Z0311-01.









       *                               ~~~~~~~~~Table of Contents



           *                                                    P~~~~~~~~~~~~ae

       Background . ..................1

       Common Tern

          Introduction . ................2

          Study Areas . ................4

          Methods . ..................9

          Results...................1 9

0              Discussion..................33

          Monitoring and Management Recommendations . 36


       Ospreys

          Introduction.................37

  *         ~~~Study Areas.................39

          Methods...................42

  *    ~~~Results ...................45

          Discussion..................49

          Monitoring and Management Recommendations .               51










         *                                                     E~~~~~~~~~~~~age~

     Northern Harrier

*          ~~~~Introduction.                                             ................................52

        Methods ....................52

        Results.....................54

        Discussion ...................54

        Monitoring and Management Recommendations . ...    55


     Piping Plover

       Introduction ...................56

       Study Area....................56

       Methods .....................56

       Results......................59

       Discussion ....................59

*          ~~~Monitoring and Management Recommendations . . ...60

     References......................61





















                 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
                         IN NEW HAMPSHIRE'S COASTAL REGION





       Backg rou n-d

       The N. H. Fish and Game Department (NHF &G) recognizes as endangered or
       threatened six bird species whose documented or potential breeding
       ranges in New Hampshire occur exclusively or primarily in the coastal
*      ~region.  This project included field studies of the breeding season
       distribution, habitat use, status and nesting success of Common Terns
       (state endangered), Ospreys (state threatened), Northern Harriers (state
       threatened), and Piping Plovers (state endangered, federally threatened).
       Bald Eagles (state and federally endangered) winter at Great Bay, but do
*      ~not occur there during the breeding season at this time.

       Active management and habitat protection of these four species will be
       critical to their future survival in New Hampshire. The information
*     ~generated by this project can facilitate land use planning efforts to
       accomodate both human and wildlife needs in the coastal region.












                                     COMMON TERN


       INTRODUCTION

       Historically, Lunging Island at the Isles of Shoals supported New
       Hampshire's most significant documented tern colony, which peaked at
*     ~1500-2000 Common Tern pairs between 1928 and 1938, and also included
       50-60 pairs of Roseate Terns (Sterna douaallii) and 25-30 pairs of Arctic
       Terns (Sterna Daradisaea) (Jackson 1947). This colony's decline during the
       1940's followed a decrease in human activity on the island and subsequent
       increases in Herring Gull (Larus aroentatus) and Great Black-backed Gull
       (Lar.us~ marnnus) numbers.  Terns abandoned Lunging Island by 1955 (Taber
       1 955).

       Since that time, the state's Common Tern population has included two
*     ~mainland colonies and scattered pairs nesting on rocky islands in coastal
       bays or in salt marshes. Field studies conducted annually since 1981 have
       documented serious instability in coastal colonies, where marginal
       nesting habitat and heavy predation have significantly hampered
*     ~~productivity.

       Field work in 1991 documented attempted nesting and the eventual
       abandonment of the Back Channel colony, poor reproductive success at the
       Hampton colony, improved reproduction at two small colonies on islands in
*     ~Little Bay, and the abandonment of the Seabrook colony (Figure 1). Despite
       management efforts on its behalf, the New Hampshire tern population
       continues to suffer from severe problems associated with marginal
       nesting habitat.

       The goals of this project were to maintain the on-going data base on
       colony size and breeding status at existing colonies; surveys of potential
       nesting habitat; continuation of foraging studies; implementation of
       management techniques; and development of a visual presentation.

                                           2














     C                    /11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/OT BE~w3m
                                  / ï¿½'~~
                                             /~~~~
                           /               LA~ 


                                        IL
*                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~(ROCHtESTE  -
                              N                   /            'K
                                     N~~~~~~~
                               NI


                                    / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /w


   *~~~~~~~~~~~~~us~t //B~   0






                                                 /
                     /        1  jr       *eir  







                /                       5TRAThM" 
                /







                          /PR~~~~~~~~EACOAT  RRENGIO  (N
                  / ~   ~           oun~' \                 ~















                    I SM4OOW~~~~~~NEOWhfu  HAMPSHIRE - MAINEW   ~~P




        * ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2;>6  on6



                                                                X06 r 2 fail*&






 Figure 1. Location of Common Tern Colony Sites, 1989-92


                                          3









          STUDY AREAS
 

          HAMPTON HARBOR ESTUARY:

*         Hampton

         The Hampton colony nests on approximately 2 km. of salt marsh bounded by
         Winnicunet Road to the north, Rt. 1A to the east, and Rt. 51 to the
         southwest (Figure 2). Eel Ditch and Tide Mill Creek surround the primary
  ~*      nesting area (Figure 3).  The dominant marsh vegetation includes
         saltwater cordgrass (Soartina alterniflora) along the channels and ponds,
         salt hay grass (Spartina Datens) in the drier areas, and saltgrass
          (Distichlis spicata) where standing water occurs.  High tides ranged from
         2.5m. (8.0ft.) to 3.5m. (11.6 ft.) and low tides from -0.5m. (-1.5ft.) to
         0.5m. (1.6 ft.).

         Seabrook

  *Z      This site is located on the west side of the Blackwater River between
          Lower Gill Rocks and Mill Creek (Figure 4). The colony had previously
          nested in an area roughly 50 x 100 m. only 4-5 m. from the shoreline. The
          majority of the nests were found in areas of Juncus, where the tern
  ,    ~ activity bent the rush into soft mats.  A few nests were on mats of loose
         thatch that had been brought up with the tides. The 1992 field season did
         not document any attempted nesting at this site.


  ~*     LITTLE BAY:

         Hen Island

   >    ~ Hen Island lies approximately 70m. east of Fox Point on Little Bay in
         Newington (Figure 5). The colony site is a town-owned island less than
         0.8 ha. in area which supports small patches of sparse grasses,
         substantial shrub growth and several small trees.  Town residents launch
         and moor private boats in the small cove east of Fox Point and south of
  ~*     Hen Island.
                                              4











    g    2ate/ 3                                                KI



                            -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~IN







         - -J~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              ?~~~- to


    K             Lan~~~~~~~~rng~1~


             (N  -' (      \   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1-

                                            - - - f     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~
   /~~~~~~~








                                                    __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                         0

*  L~~~~~                                                                                 /~~





   -~~~~~~~~~~~~~:                                                                   i Beach-~





                                                   1  ~~~--









  Figure 2. Location of Hampton Marsh Common Tern Colony, 1992


                                                   5










             *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4







*                                                          5~~Z







*~~~Fe3 etn Loa                   t   in ofHmtnMrhTenCln,19
                                ~~~~~~










          0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





                                                                  ~~-fr'~ ~A          k~~L  ~ Hampton Beach




                         -:!7 ~ ~       ~       ~       7
                                                                            Vt
           'N ~~~~~~~       ~~~~d                                                      __~~~~4

    ~    '~~~> -               ~      Th   --N~=-I                                                            \ 2




                                                    R~~~~~ock ~ ~      ~        Lok

                                                        -H v 





Frm                                                    arbo


                          _  Ee~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ckrn    ~z 
    1-0 -5d







                                        anoiag  ~~~~~~~-nd




                                                         -.,\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!



              Figure-                 C4.         Loaion   f eabok                                      omn Ter Colk19

            *  ~~                                          -~~:-:'~~~K\                             /~







                                p'.  I s l a ~~~~~~~~~~(nd -4rrace ~ 


                                             A-en  I 14                                      ..  
                                       $7  . .~~~~~~~~                  72      ~     ~     ~    ~     ~    ~    \P~ARK


                            57 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~3 C__ciFD -PfB:; 
         ~~~~~~~





                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2.
                                                                               .0~~~~~~~ /
                                                  iG~~aveI
                              Lifg'~~~~~~TLE              /                          , /~~~~~~3
                                                                               \~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~G41Slia
                           Mud                                                   r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2





                   4                                                           i











                                  / ~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                           0~~~~~~

            U  ~~~~45I      4

        Ad~n~.Pt 

......... .. . 














~~~~~30









        Lanalev Rocks

        This site is a l1in. x 15m. pile of rocks just east of Mathes Cove and south
       of the mouth of the Oyster River on the Durham shore of Little Bay. The
       terns coexisted here with a breeding pair of Great Black-backed Gulls and
*      ~~their chicks (Figure 6).


        LITTLE HARBOR:

*      ~Back Channel

       This colony includes a series of three privately owned unnamed islands
       just south of Goat Island in New Castle (Figure 7). Island A, less than
*      ~~0.08 ha. in area, lies less than 100 meters from Goat Island and is
       characterized by rock ledge crowned with grass. Island B, measuring
       0.08 ha., is more extensively vegetated and is ringed by rock ledge.
        Island C, 0.04 ha. in size, has more extensive grassy areas, rock
       outcropping and the remains of a small cottage. Terns nested only on
*      ~~Island C in the 1992 breeding season.


       METHODS

       NESTING OBSERVATIONS

        Project biologists monitored the Little Bay, Back Channel and Hampton
       estuary colonies a minimum of once per week from mid-May through early
       September.   Data collected at each visit included date, time, weather,
       number of terns and nests and other species observed. Data collected on
       active nests included time, status, presence of adult, number of eggs
       and/or young and their condition. Documentation of breeding chronology
*      ~~and reproductive success included dates and numbers of eggs laid, chicks
       hatched and fledgings; or date of failure.










                          \Z)  45 ~~~~~~~'~~~~'Goat   94~                                ~ ~ LULI "
     J~~~te~~~-z~~~~fr~~~.84                                                                 WY 26  L W~~i  V1'61*.N1rac


~~ ~   30                                                                   L     ~     J Q T/
                                            1-enI "                 7.2 O.1                              ARK

                                   II                          ~~~~~~                      ~~~~~65  2 



                                                                                                ~   3~  ~en~6aiSullivan .










                        TLE--


                           N     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                              45I
                         V
                                              N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

D~ ~..               .  . .  .....
                                3d  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e



















          Figure 6:  Location of Langley Island Common  Tern Colony, 1992


                                                             1 0







                    0                         - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-  *  ~~~~~~~~~~I  MU      U~1C LIA  Y   *



                                          -~~~~~        im'a                     .                    Wh rf   3)IsI

                                                          IL-"                                e~~~~~~pperrell

   "W'VAL SHIPYARD H-~1i
                                      4,
                                  ~~~  ~~~   ~~~~ ~~~..k  /    67                 45                        Island~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~il
                  ~~K~~~o                                1)1 n~~~~~~d              7~1Flhn
                           PooI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;. Fi sin


              igh1ro                       70    .~iC A TAQ5
    ~Lit~.~LIan' 's        Gotaï¿½~ir  on                              Ft~~      lamander                  6



                                  Rivers    ;-I*:~:C   TITTO


                                                               ~~  Cern   *          20~~~~~~~e
                                 Pes                   74            Lq' *


          Isl~ ~ ~~~~~~~I~n

                            Leach                   .It
              p              ~~~~Islaid                          'R-          k         2



                                                                 *    3~~~~~~~54 6




?ORTSM                                                mn                                                         Wha
              0 ~ ~ ~~l5n                                                                                         alebj4
                         "   6?    ~~~~~~~~44    ~~~~~~                                   AV~~~AL RES


                                             .                                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~38



                ~re~j  *.r~   ~    7;   ~.Sheafes  HA~i                                           3744


             Quarry                                                                53
                                                U,)S MIL   E



 ~ubstati    ,~                                                                                      349







           Figure 7. Location of Back Channel Common Tern Colony, 1992


                                                      1 1








       Hamnoton Marsh

       Project biologists visited the Hampton Marsh once or twice weekly from
       18 May through I September. Surveys by foot and canoe were conducted
       to determine the number of birds present, to locate nests and to follow
       nesting progress.

       The nests were recorded on a map, and each subgroup of nests were
       identified as to location.



       The Seabrook colony was monitored from 18 May through mid-June,
       when it was determined that this site had been abandoned.

*     ~Hen Island

       The Hen Island colony was monitored once or twice weekly from 18 May
       through 20 August.  Periodic canoe visits to the island facilitated nest
       checking. The small size of the colony made nest marking unnecessary.

       Lanalev Rocks

       This pair of terns was monitored from shore and by boat on a periodic
*     ~basis from 18 May through 1 September.

       Back Channel

       Back Channel islands were monitored once or twice weekly beginning 18
       May and continuing through 31 August. Surveys by foot and canoe were
       conducted to determine the number of birds present, to locate nests and to
      follow nesting progress. Site summary and individual nest data were
      collected as at Hampton. The small size of the colony made nest marking
*     ~unnecessary.






                                          12









       HISTORICAL AND POTENTIAL SITES

       On 10 June, a survey of all historical and potential tern nesting sites was
       undertaken in Great and Little Bays. The following sites were included:
       the unnamed island in the Oyster River, Langley Islands in Mathes Cove,
*      ~~Hen Island, Nannie Island and Swan Island.  The survey also included the
       Piscataqua River, Back Channel, Little Harbor, Portsmouth Harbor and out
       into the open ocean. The survey also covered the shoreline and potential
       foraging areas.

*      ~~On 11 June, a survey of all historical and potential tern nesting sites in
       the Hampton Harbor Estuary was completed. The survey route included all
       navigable tidal channels between Rtes. 286, 51 and 1 (Figure 9). The route
       continued through the channel under Rt. 51 and north into Tide Mill Creek
       and Eel Ditch.

       Location, behavior and flight direction were noted for all terns observed.
       All tern activity was followed up by observations from accessible
       mainland and canoe launch sites.


       FORAGING STUDIES

*      ~Biologists and volunteers conducted observations throughout the coastal
       area to identify important foraging areas and the frequency of their use.
       Observations occurred along the ocean shoreline from Odiorne Point to
       Seabrook beach; in Hampton Harbor and its associated marshes; in Great
       and Little bays, on the Piscataqua River, Portsmouth Harbor, Little
0      ~~Harbors and on the open ocean out to the Isles of Shoals (Figure 10).

       Data collected during foraging observations included location, date, time,
       weather conditions, tide levels, foraging behavior and direction of travel.







                                           1 3






       A, ~ ~  ~    ~ ~ IC


  '-S.'











          Adams              A~Blm B>ASE,
         P9,t  0ï¿½-R                                   C

   a. g













                          *A
r,~~~~~~V
     -i                                            a









     Ad mk Pt    Lit








9a~ ~~j~yie    Plre P   t    N\.$                %ob 



                         /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r
      A
                                         ï¿½rrï¿½~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, -ï¿½

                 [4c, - 







                              1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1



                     Fabyan PAR                                       K







                                    J:  ~~~~1 
_____                                   i/           '-                           -X   -  - 

a'  -om Pt                                                                               >-/. '  c ï¿½     l RE lE.(~'.:


                             a              ï¿½              't                           i

       aï¿½        ~~    -       I       :eean'                            ~Tmr-.--
       /           ~~~~~Jo/ i      Bi 'A                                 / '

 Dene


     Fiur  8.          ï¿½ Suve   RouteUH'-- fo   itrcladPoeta    omnTr
                                    Brein   its  Get/itl   ayOt  oOpnOca,   1992P


              1)                                                                  -ï¿½~~~~~~~1


     0~~                          ,     -ï¿½iiiOr






                           0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P




                           41    2                -            _           -~ai



                                                          Z-VZ~~~~~~~~~~                              74



0~~~~~~~f














                                              \-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~





*                  -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-










                                         -           c ~~~~~~~~,j~~Is








                 Figue 9 Surey out f      o    H~"isical an Poeta omnTr

                    ~~~redn Sies H                  a      po and   Steabrook Mrsesk 199 2

               -  i'**~~~~~~~~  ~~~                                                             SB1 








 GRATZ       'Q:          -                      -1-
              A?           .*n~rn                      I~. 


                                                         Pn.                                                 tub         /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

                         r~~  ~~tt44















             4r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4














1992

          A.  C~~~~~fl)  /~1 







                                '.-~~~~~~~~~~~ ..                          1i                    I






                    "-                                                                         A,~~~~      NflA
                                       Dur~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ram   'si 



  *                                                                                                              K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K

                                  "~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~-    -                       Mfl'Iff-\F-S

                                            -                       ~8rnv At 





               S- ~     ~        





                                                              4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
* ~  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Z



                               * 64~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6

      r~~~~e










                 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ o Rcknm. ....--N , *.                                -




                                                                       weC .m                relnt 
                                        *1~~~~~~~~ 4


                                          Stae~r>         ~G               '     1     L    f      




                 *  BM4& ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~                        ~~~~~  Greeni~~~~~~~~~~~and -   ~





    Figure 1 1  Common Tern Foraging Survey Coverage Great and Little Bays,
                       1 992


                                                             1 7








       TERN COLONY MANAGEMENT

*     ~Hamoton Marsh

       In an attempt to alleviate the problem of flooding, extra thatch was
       placed under 24 nests in which eggs had already been laid in areas D and E..
*     ~The thatch was comprised mainly of dried Soartina alterniflora  that had
       washed up along the salt marsh, similar in composition to the substrate
       that the terns were nesting on. Each nest with its accompanying
       materials was lifted off the ground, the thatch was placed underneath to a
       depth of 10 cm., and the nest was set on top. Data collected for each nest
*     ~included number of eggs and/or young and their condition, chicks hatched
       and fledgings; or record of failure. Additional data included the tide
       levels and the condition of nests without the "thatch treatment".

*     ~Jet skiis were observed in the tidal channels in both June and July.  They
       traveled at a high rate of speed, throwing a large wake that swept up onto
       the salt marsh. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, the Port
       Authority and the Hampton Police Department were all informed of this
       problem. Signs should be placed at the entrance to this section of the
*     ~marsh in 1993.

       Hen and Lanalev Islands. Little Bay

*     ~Hen Island lost all nests to rats in the 1991 season.  Trapping was carried
       out in the fall of 1991 in an attempt to eliminate the problem. On 23
       April, 1992 rat traps were once again set out in anticipation of the arrival
       of terns. No rats were trapped from 23 April through 28 April, and it was
       assumed that no rats were present on the island.

       This site is located in close proximity to the mainland and surrounded by
       boat moorings that serve residents of Newington.  Contact with the
       selectmen in Newington has facilitated protection at this site, as town
*     ~residents are well aware of the tern's vulnerability, and are careful about
       staying off the island during the breeding season.

       Langley Island is also located close to the mainland. We have enlisted the
       help of the neighbor in closest proximity to this site, and he monitors the
       colony for both breeding success and disturbance.
                                           1 8








       Back Channel

*     ~"No Trespassing" signs were placed on all sides of Island C as soon as it
       was determined that the birds had begun to lay eggs at this site. This
       island is located in an area of high human and boat traffic, and the signs
       were an attempt to alleviate any human traffic on this nesting island. In
*     ~addition, the Newcastle Police Department and nearby residents were
       informed of the tern activity at this location

       Eight wooden shelters were placed at the nests for chicks to use as
       protection. Six of the shelters were 60cm.x 60cm.x 10cm., two shelters
0     ~were 30cm.x 30cm.x 10cm. They had entrances on all sides, a solid roof,
       and open bottom. The shelters were placed approximately 1 m. from the
       nest just before the eggs hatched.




       NESTING OBSERVATIONS

*     ~HAMPTON HARBOR ESTUARY:

       Hampton

*     ~The highest count of adult terns at this site was 90, on 16 July.  Surveys
       documented 80 nesting attempts. A nest count conducted by
       project personnel and volunteers during the week of 12 June documented
       40 nests. In subsequent visits, 40 additional nests were documented and
       were thought to be both renests and late nestings. Fifty-eight nests (73%)
       contained three eggs, 16 nests (20%) contained two eggs and 6 (8%)
       contained one egg (Table 1).

       First hatch occurred during the week of 21 June and hatching continued
*     ~through approximately 15 August.  A high tide of 3.5 mn. (11.5 ft.) on 1 July
       coincided with a partial hatch of the first nesting. In the areas where
       extra thatch had been placed under 24 nests (D and E), 20 nests were still
       intact after the highest tides in early July. However, visits during the
       week of 8 July documented that all the remaining nests in area D (8 nests)
       had been wiped out. Evidence at the nests indicated that hatch had
                                           1 9















Table 1. Number and percentage of Common Tern clutch sizes of
           New Hampshire nesting colonies, 1992




     CLUTCH    HAMPTON           BACK CHANNEL  HEN    LANGLEY
      SIZE



     4 EGGS                                                  1(100%)


     3EGGS      58 (73%)         14 (67%)          4 (67%)


     2EGGS      16 (20%)           5 (24%)         2 (33%)


     1 EGGS       6 (8%)           3 (14%)












                                  20








         occurred, but no chicks could be located and the adults were not
         aggressive at this location. It was difficult to pinpoint reasons for
  *     ~failure, but a combination of high tides at hatch and predation were likely.

         Renesting took place in areas A, C and F. All areas of renest were in
         sections of the marsh where dried thatch had collected in the high tides.
  *     ~These mats varied in size from 1im. x 1m. to greater than 12 m. x 12 m.
         The nests were placed from the center to the edge of these thatch mats.
         In addition, nests in the second round of nesting were built taller and
         more substantially than those in the initial round of nesting.
         Measurements of these renests showed the height to be as great as 15 cm.
*         off the surface of the marsh.

         Once tern chicks are 2-3 days old they can hide adeptly in the grasses
         surrounding the nests. However, chicks which reached fledging age were
*         readily observed as they practiced flight patterns and actively begged
         from adults. Project biologists observed 12 airborne fledglings. The first
         chicks were observed in flight over area A on 20 July, and were survivors
         of the first round of nesting. The last chicks seen flying at the Hampton
  0  ~ marsh were observed on 25 August.  Although the Gulf of Maine Tern
  *     ~Working Group defines a fledged tern chick as one that reaches the age of
         14 days (Gulf of Maine Tern Working Group, pers. comm.), this statistic
         was very difficult to obtain in the Hampton marsh colony, as the nests
         were widely scattered and the chicks very difficult to locate even with
*         nest markers.

         Nest failures often were difficult to document. During the first round of
         nesting, a minimum of 20 nests were destroyed by tidal flooding. Project
  0  ~ biologists observed 26 of the renesting attempts with eggs but  not with
         chicks; presumably these nests failed. Predation was determined to bethe
         cause of failure in 1 1 nests. The egg or chick remains in these nests
         pointed to either gull or Black-crowned Night-heron predation (Nycticorax
         nycticorax). Both black-crowned night-heron and gulls were frequently
*         observed in the Hampton marsh colony.   Many of the other nest failures
         were probably due to tidal flooding, weather conditions or abandonment
         (common for late nesting attempts) (Table 2). Calculated from 12
         airborne chicks; productivity of the Hampton Marsh colony was .25
  0  ~ fledglings/nest (Table 3).

                                             2 1

















Table 2. Known causes of failure at New Hampshire Tern Colonies, 1992



      CAUSES                 EGGS             CHICKS           TOTAL
                                                               NESTS
                           Hampton: 21
*                         ~~~~~~~~~Hen Island: 1
      Failure            Back Channel: 4                         25
      to hatch

                           Hampton: 4         Hampton: 7
      Predation                              Hen Island: 1       21+
                          Back Channel: 7    Back Chan.: 2

      Tidal flooding     Hampton: 20           Hampton: 4+
*                         ~~~~~~~~Back Channel: 7  Back Chan.: 1  32+
















                                    22

















Table 3. Productivity of Common Tern Colonies at Hampton, Hen,
          Langley and Back Channel, 1992







                      Nests            Airborne         Productivity
                                       Chicks           Fledgl./Nest

Hampton               80               12                0.25 F/N


Hen                    6               9                 1.9 F/N


Langley               1                4                4.0 F/N


 Backchannel           21               0                0.0 F/N











                                   23










*      ~LITTLE BAY:

       Hen Island

*      ~Terns were first observed foraging in Little Bay on 18 May.  A survey on
       10 June documented 5 nests being incubated on Hen Island (Table 1). Three
       nests were located on the eastern shorea with two along the rocks on the
       west and southwest sides. A sixth nest was observed on 21 July and was
       thought to be a renest. On a nest check on 24 July feathers from a fledged
       chick were found on the west side of the island and was presumed to have
       been taken by a predator.

       A maximum of 10 adult terns were observed at Hen Island. The first hatch
*      ~~at this site was observed on 25 June.  This first hatch, coupled with the
       subsequent hatching of the remaining 4 nests, was evidence that all
       initial nesting was successful. The sixth nest was presumed to have
       failed when no chicks could be located at this site in August (Table 2). A
       total of 9 chicks were seen flying at Hen Island, although the predated
0      ~~chick had also reached fledging age (Table 3). Calculated from 9 airborne
       chicks; the productivity rate at Hen Island was 1 .8 fledglings/nest (Table
       3). The high success rate at Hen Island in 1992 was also documentation
       that the rats of the 1991 season had been eradicated.

       Lanalev Rocks

       On 10 June, a boat reconnaissance of this area revealed a pair of terns had
       established a nest at this site. Three eggs were observed in the nest.
       On 15 July, four chicks were observed on Langley Island and all chicks had
       fledged (Table 3). Terns were observed at this site through I September.
       A great black-backed gull nest on the island fledged two chicks.








                                           24








       LITTLE HARBOR:

       Back Channel:

       Terns were first observed at the Back Channel islands during a check on
       18 May. Possible nesting was observed within the grassy area on the east
*     ~side of Island C on 25 May.  A nest survey on 10 June documented 21 nests
       (Table 1).   This was the first time since 1989 that terns had initiated
       nesting at this location during the initial nesting period.  A total of 14
       nests were congregated around one large rock in the center of island C,
       including one nest with 5 eggs. High activity continued on the island until
       7 July when a nest count found only 7 nests remained active. Total
       abandonment of this site took place by 7 August.

       Evidence of predation of eggs, chicks and adults was found on the island.
*     ~The outer primaries of an adult tern was found near the 5-egg nest and
       may have been the result of predation by a Great-horned Owl (Bu~bo
       virQainanaus.).  Project biologists spent several evenings at the island in an
       attempt to determine if nocturnal abandonment And/or predation were a
       problem at this site, but no documentation could be made of this
       phenomenon. A minimum of 7 nests had been flooded during the high
       spring tides in early July. On 16 July, the remains of 3 additional nests
       were found. Red ants were evident at one nest, two dead chicks were
       found at the second, and an egg that had been penetrated was found at the
*     ~~third (Table 2).

       A maximum of 40 adult terns were seen flying over the Back Channel
       Islands on 10 June. No chicks fledged from the Back Channel Islands in
       1992 (Table 3).


       HISTORICAL AND POTENTIAL SITES

*     ~Surveys of potential breeding habitat documented tern activity at a
       number of locations.

       The survey of Great and Little bays on 10 June confirmed incubation by a
       pair of terns at Langley Rocks. Tern activity was also noted at Hen Island
       and the Back Channel Islands on this date. Terns were also engaged in
                                           25




















            c ï¿½!:                     .5




















                                      26
                                                          !,





Figue 12 bCommon           T    e   r F o ainLoa i osaHmpnMrh,19











                                                                                  0-                                                : C>






              4~~~~~1 /  ~                                                                                         ,ta oaxs Hea









 L                                          et-    77~~--47~ia  $ .






                                                                                                  amnon~~Z
                                      _a-                                                                                        .16f  2
                                -'-~s~ ~5L'AL~t~   ~, -~    _







30/The Racxs                      ee,                                                          .7                   i




     ISta-nld                                                     a262
                       __   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~M   Ea rbo-                             4''1  


                    -                                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Beckmans



                                              ~~~~~~           3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~26







                                            N~~~~~~ ~Rock                                                                    .   '




                                                                                                                25






     Figure 13. Common Tern Foraging Locations at Seabrook, 1992



                                                                  27







       active foraging at the mouth of the Piscataqua River, similar to the 1991
       field season. A check of the shoreline in this area confirmed a small tern
*     ~colony of 12+ pairs on Horn island off Kittery Point, Maine.  Terns had
       unsuccessfully nested at this location in 1991.


*     ~FORAGING STUDIES

       Project personnel documented foraging activity that was consistent with
       the patterns observed during the 1990 and 1991 breeding seasons. As in
       1990 and 1991, nesting terns were foraging in close proximity to the
0     ~breeding colonies.

       Terns from the Hampton colony foraged along the tidal channels that flow
       through the colony area (Figure 12). Foraging along Tide Mill Creek and Eel
*     ~Ditch was most evident at high tide and as chicks began to fledge and the
       birds gathered in "loafing" areas along the channel. In addition to foraging
       in the channels, many birds were observed flying to and from Hampton
       Harbor. Return trips brought prey items back into the colony.
       As in the two previous seasons, visual observations revealed an abundance
       of prey. The most active foraging took place in the final two hours of a
       rising tide.


*     ~The Hen Island and Langley Rocks terns also foraged in close proximity to
       the breeding areas. The most active foraging took place in Broad Cove, an
       area of protected waters less than 0.5 km. from the Hen Island colony
       (Figure 14). Foraging was also observed along the shores of Little Bay,
       the mouth of the Oyster River, Royall's Cove, and the waters immediately
       around Hen and Goat Islands. In addition, terns were seen foraging off
       Thomas Point on 6 August and off Moody Point during three observation
       periods during the breeding season. A single tern was also seen foraging
      just off the Stratham railroad bridge on 20 July.

       The Back Channel terns foraged in the waters immediately adjacent to the
       breeding islands. The waters off Leach's, Pest, Shapleigh, Goat and
       Pierces Islands as well as off Lady Isle were also used for foraging. In
       late July, terns were observed foraging over the South Mill Pond near
      downtown Portsmouth (Figure 15).
                                          28


















                                      SAY 


                   Wilcox 't/ // )
                   PointNeigo
          Durham           \/9                                      en
                                 Adam

  Newmarket




                    GREAT BAY









               Stratham              ?

                                v  if         Greenland




Figure 14.  Common Tern Foraging Locations at Little Bay, 1992

                                 29





                J..~~~~'  ~~~  o~~~e~~~j<5  c~~~~~  ~~ (Q13' 






  24~~  0
                                r~~~~~~~~




                        '      -< xflliva   /    ~~~~~67         4

      "~~~-'1'ooi~~~~~~ Si  CA T                              UA 
               +Tedeo             7a      -   ISU
        I   0un      ~      Y~-on                                                    69
*   C    ~~~Piercj                        de* 
                              HI-    False

          SrL~~ ~                        .-                       s'-.t    OTTUTION




                                                                                        Towerl-NAVA

                                                                   -'  9-I                  -5~~~~~~M049 (F





           -C~~~~~~~~~~~



                                   SwimmigL~59
PORTSM6aTJI                                                                  AVARE              Pol 7 




                                                                         RK)~~~~~~~~~~~




                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~44 
                  ft  v~~~~~~tch~~~~~c  (FORT DRARHO~~~~~~~~~37F"
    / Subsation             r   ~    \7







                                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 







     Fiue1.CommnTern 2oagn   Loaton  atBc                                    hne,19


                                                 30









          ~~~~~~~~~30











                          27                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Island
             F ORT&4Inr,-                        








~~aWS                                             O~.TC A4TT




                                                                      ~~~~~~Z~~~ ~ ~  -                             Poin

                       -cae  ---                                                                            




                                             t) ~ ~ ~ ~    ~      ~     ~     ~     ~     ~     ~    (?~~               Ni

          4s~~~~~~~~~~~afl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~6                   -'ro~-    :!-'Zj-
                                   ~~~~~datS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ain ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~     ~      tt



            .nd~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~








                                          Frost ~-                     7-              -














                                         ~~~~~~~~- ~ ~ ~ ~   ~    4






                                      4               1                     29     cN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~22              '   5






          ,-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4




Fiur 16          omnTr    oaigLctosa  onIln,19


                                            -   ~~~~~3








         The majority of the foraging activity off the Maine coast occurred in the
         area between Wood and White Islands, and Whaleback Rock. Populations
  0     ~from the Back Channel and Horn Island may intermix in the outer
         Portsmouth Harbor, Little Harbor and the coastal areas off New Castle and
         Kittery.

0        TERN COLONY MANAGEMENT

         Hamr~ton Marsh

  0    ~ Placement of additional thatch under 24 nests in the Hampton marshes
         yielded positive results. Immediately following a round of high spring
         tides in early July, 20 nests remained intact (83%). Of the remaining 16
         known nests, a minimum of 10 had been destroyed by flooding (60%).
         However, a check of this same area 8 days later revealed that 8 additional
*         nests had been destroyed.  It was not clear if the cause was flooding or
         predation.

         Jet skiis are a problem for the marsh nesting terns. Contact with the New
  0    ~ Hampshire Fish and Game Department, the Port Authority, and the Hampton
         Police Department was made in the 1992 season.    Project staff will
         pursue the elimination of the skiis in the tidal channels in 1993.

         LITTLE BAY

         Hen Island

         It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of NO TRESPASSING signs
         unless the islands are under constant surveillance. It was evident that
        the nearby neighbors were vigilant in their efforts to keep people off the
         islands. On 7 July, project staff were confronted by the New Castle Police
         upon return from a nest check. A neighbor had seen people on the island,
        did not recognize them as staff, and had notified police.

        The chick shelters were not effective on Hen Island, primarily because any
        chicks that hatched did not reach the age at which they could utilize the
        protection of the shelters.


                                            32








         LITTLE HARBOR

  *     ~H.enJ Isand

         Trapping was successful in eliminating rats at this location. Trapping in
         the spring of 1992 helped to ensure that no rats were present at this site.

         Contact with the Town of Newington and the local residents is the most
         effective technique for eliminating human disturbance at this site.  The
         presence of terns is well known by those who utilize this site, and they
         are careful not to land on or venture too close to the island during the
  *     ~breeding season.

         Lanalev Island

0         Local knowledge of nesting at this location is the best protection for this
         pair of terns.


         DISCUSSION

         Results of the nesting observations further confirm the low reproductive
         success and general difficulties experienced by terns nesting in mainland
         situations. A high rate of failure was documented in all colonies except
  *     ~Little Bay.  The abandonment of the Seabrook site was probably the result
         of the poor reproductive success at this location during the 1990 and
         1991 breeding seasons.               4

         The Hampton marsh colony size and productivity has remained relatively
         consistent over the last few years. Although a few chicks achieved
         fledging in this location, the colony's productivity remains extremely low.
         Flooding and predation continue to account for the highest percentage of
         failed nests. This is consistent with the findings of most researchers
  *     ~who believe flooding to be the main disadvantage to marsh nesting (Burger
         and Lesser 1978, 1979; Burger 1982; Buckley and Buckley 1982; Erwin and
         Smith 1985).

         As in past years, observations documented a widening dispersal of nests
         as the season progressed. In the past this was thought to be due, at least
                                             33







         in part, to continued low productivity combined with the pressures of
         predation. Studies have shown that nests placed on floating mats of
*         vegetation are more resilient to high tides (Burger and Gochfeld 1990).
         Safina et.al (1989) found that the number of pairs of nesting birds was
         related to the area of vegetation mats present. Nest surveys at Hampton
         in early June found terns scattered through 6 sections of the marsh,
  *      ~primarily along areas of loose thatch.  As the season progressed, flooding
         caused considerable nest failure and the consolidated tracts of thatch
         were broken up, dispersed and reconsolidated over larger regions of the
         marsh. Although the terns stayed in the general areas in which they had
         initiated nesting, the movement of thatch coincides with the dispersion of
0         terns through these sections of the Hampton marsh by the end of the
         season.

         The placement of extra thatch under nests in which eggs already had been
0         laid led to an 83% survival rate of these nests through the period of high
         tides in early July. These results are in contrast to a 40% survival rate in
         the nests without "thatch treatment" and support the claim that adequate
         substrate in a marsh nesting situation can lead to higher productivity.
  0  ~ The resulting fledging rate for chicks was not as positive at these same
         nests, and may indicate more intensive management is still needed. The
         flotation techniques utilized in 1991 were more effective in protecting
         hatched chicks. The placement of floats is, however, a very energy
         intensive management technique.  Other options for improving nesting
0         substrate should continue to be explored.

         The success in eliminating rats from Hen Island in 1992 was evident in
         the productivity rate of 1 .8 fledglings/nest after the failure of this
         colony to produce any chicks in 1991. Rat predation is a serious problem
  0    ~ and aggressive control measures will need to continue in future years.
         Hen Island continues to be suitable for nesting terns with the availability
         of nest sites well above the high tide line, the protective attitudes of
         people using the Fox Point mooring area, and the apparently adequate food
0         supply found in nearby waters.

         The successful fledging of 4 chicks at Langley Island also speaks to the
         suitability of Little Bay for tern nesting, especially as evidence of an
  0  ~ adequate food supply in the vicinity of these colonies.  Although clutches
         of 4 eggs are unusual, they have been documented in terns and other
                                             34








       members of the Larid family (Conover 1984). A pair of Great Black-backed
       Gulls also raised young at this site with no apparent negative interaction
0      ~with the nesting terns.

       Terns initiated nesting in May at the Back Channel Islands for the first
       time since 1989. In 1990 and 1991, small numbers of terns had moved
*      ~~into this location after presumed failure at another site.  Egg predation
       had been the direct cause of zero productivity at this site during 1985-
       1989 and the terns had abandoned the site in 1990. The success of a pair
       at this site in 1991 may have been due to a number of factors including
       their late start and the added protection of the other adults at this site as
       the chicks reached fledging age.  Unfortunately, the failure of terns to
       produce chicks at this site in 1992 was probably due to many of the same
       factors that caused the abandonment of this colony in 1989. The
       proximity of the Back Channel Islands to sources of predation make this a
*      ~~particularly difficult site to protect.

       Continued nesting attempts on Horn Island off Kittery Point is of great
       interest. The decline in the numbers of terns nesting at the colony on Horn
       Island from 50+ pairs in 1991 to 12+ pairs in 1992 was coupled with the
       initiation of 21 nests at the Back Channel Islands. This makes the
       possibility of movement of the Back Channel population to the mouth of
       the Piscataqua River likely.

*      ~The formation of the colony at Horn Island, and the probable movement
       between Back Channel and Horn, is evidence that significant numbers of
       terns are searching for suitable nesting habitat in this immediate region.
       It also supports the potential for preliminary efforts to relocate terns to
       more viable breeding habitat such as the Isles Of Shoals (Gulf of Maine
0      ~~Tern Working Group, 1990).  Horn Island is in direct line of sight and
       within 4 miles of the Isles of Shoals. All nests failed on Horn due to lack
       of cover and predation by both gulls and black-crowned night-herons.
       Complete failure at both Horn and Back Channel will likely cause continued
*      ~movement of this population.

       The foraging observations underscore the importance of maintaining water
       quality in the vicinity of tern colonies.  As in 1990 and 1991, terns were
       documented foraging in close proximity to colony sites; providing an
0      ~~important indicator of local environmental quality.   As development
                                           35











       pressures continue to grow in this region and plans to expand the port of
       Portsmouth are initiated, it will be critical to monitor the water quality
       along our immediate coast. Contamination of the water in the Great Bay
*     ~watershed, the Piscataqua River or along the Hampton Harbor estuary
       could be devastating to this endangered population of terns. Further
       studies of common tern foraging habits on the New Hampshire coast will
       contribute to an important baseline against which changes can be
       assessed.
















        0~~~~~~~~~6










*     ~MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS


            - continue to monitor all colonies during mid-May through August to
  *             ~~~~assess their status, document productivity, and determine
                 reason9 for failure

            - conduct complete survey of known colonies and potential habitat
                during the target period established by the Gulf of Maine Tern
  *             ~~~~Working Group to correlate data with Maine and Massachusetts

            - maintain contact with regional efforts, through working groups
                 or committees, to facilitate information exchange regarding
  *             ~~~~concerns and strategies

            - contact landowners of nesting areas to advise of nesting
                activity and request permission to land on property; encourage
                  posting where already established and request permission to
                   continue and/or initiate posting at appropriate sites; post
                for jet skiis in the Hampton Marsh

            - continue rat control at Hen Island

            - pursue reintroduction project at the Isles of Shoals, including
                   finalizing logistics for gull control and subsequent tern
                relocation

 0          ~~~- continue to explore options for improving the nesting substrate in
                the Hampton marshes

            - begin a more thorough natural resource inventory of the Hampton
  *             ~~~~estuary

              -continue feeding and foraging studies to determine the
                 consistency of observed patterns


                                          36B









                                       OSPREYS

       INTRODUCTION

       During most of this century, the only known nesting osprey populations in
*     ~New Hampshire occurred north of the White Mountains, primarily in the
       Androscoggin River drainage.

       In the spring of 1989, an osprey pair enlarged a great blue heron nest in an
       abandoned rookery in a 3-hectare beaver pond in Durham within 3 km. of
*     ~Great Say., As is often the case with first year pairs, the nest was
       unsuccessful. The pair remained in the vicinity throughout the breeding
       season, and a third adult also was present in the area. Biologists
       installed a predator guard on the nest tree during the winter to prevent
*     ~mammalian predation of future eggs and young.

       During the 1990 season the pair returned to the same nest tree and
      fledged three young. This marked the first-Atime in the present century
      that a successful breeding by ospreys was documented in New Hampshire's
      coastal region. The 1991 breeding season also fledged three young, and
      this continued success indicates an adequate food supply and good
       parenting abilities. However, the hurricane loss of 90% of the nest cup in
       August 1991 allowed us to examine nest site tenacity in 1992.

       The continued observations of additional adult ospreys in 1991 may
       indicate an undetected nest or the potential of a nonbreeding pair. The
       success of the Durham breeding pair may well forecast the addition of
      other pairs in this region. Recruitment of the young from this nest is a
0     ~possibility in 1992 as osprey are known to migrate back to their breeding
      grounds in their second year; and, if conditions are suitable to breed in
      their third summer (Henny & Van Velzen, 1972).

*     ~The goals of this project were to monitor the Durham osprey nest, survey
      potential nesting habitat in the coastal region for additional nests, survey
      for foraging activity, installation of predator guards at newly discovered
       nest sites, implementation of other nest protection strategies, and the
      development and distribution of public information.

                                          37
















                               _jj~~~~~~~~~~~A    NN




                                                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~n rrO


                                                           (Q.~ ~~~u/( STLITARY    Es~R '"A T          

iYNewmarket~                                      









          .... ........  .~dy                                                     -    Pannaway'.



             :~~~$~~~~~'  ~ ~ ~   Tx4O      B~~~~~~racketts  P t ~ ~  


   *    :7( ,~~j'     ~                    ~                       -- 7-\ A
                    ~~   /  Stratham'    .1            *          ~~                             BMB Y
                            ~~.  g'.~~~~~S~~a 
     ROciA4/                             Byie                                                   2     




                                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (b


                                  Strat~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~('' Q













                                                              3D 8








         STUDY AREA
         WILLEY POND:
  *     ~The pioneering osprey nest is situated in Durham, near the west shore of
         Great Bay, 1 km. southwest of the Bay Road bridge over Grommet Creek and
         1 km. north-northwest of the intersection of Bay and Bay View Roads. The
         nest is in a flooded beaver pond of approximately 3 hectares which is one
*         of a series of wetlands that characterize the area of Durham and
         Newmarket (Figure 17).

         The nest is an enlarged, abandoned great blue heron nest approximately 13
  0    ~ meters above the surface of the pond.  The nest tree is a dead black gum
  *     ~(Nyssa svlvatica) and is the most substantial tree in the pond.  On 19
         August 1991, the winds of Hurricane Bob blew off the top 90% of the nest,
         but left the tree and the base of the nest intact. Both adults and their
         young continued to use the remaining portion of the nest for both perching
*        and feeding through the early part of September.

         PEARSON POND:
         This nest site was located in another flooded beaver pond, approximately
  0    ~ 1.3 km. southwest of Willey Pond, and 1.2 km. from the east side of Dame
         Road (Figure 17). The nest is in a flooded area approximately 10 hectares
         in size.

         The nest tree is a slender eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) snag, 16-17
*         meters high.  Its base is in the water and is surrounded by several other
         snags, several of which lean against the nest tree. An additional tree at
         this same location was also used for the transfer of prey.

         SOUAMSCOTT RIVER:
  0    ~ This Strathamn site lies along the marsh on the south shore of the
         Squamscott River, approximately 0.8 km. northeast of the Route 108 grid
         bridge adjacent to Chapman's landing, and 1 .6 km. southwest of the
         railroad bridge across the mouth of the Squamscott River. It is
*        surrounded by land protected by a conservation easement held by the Great
         Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Figure 17).

         The nest is 24 meters off the ground, located on the crossbars of a power
         pole belonging to the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (#51 319
         68).
                                             39












                                                          A./,



                                               /  ~        ~~~~~ma /EWK









                                             /LEE~








                                                               A~~~'cm







                                         ,..AOBU              I          UO








                                            //~~~~~                              ~E H MSIR  -MAINE-








~~~~~~~~~40













                               - .~ ~         -                ---    -   ~ k       y     \    %(,         ~      4        


                                                    W  .'%"'  -  ~~~~~              \SC\   [-<'               hO-            j~~~~;an.- 
                                       -  -I-0~~~~~ ~~    tXN~~~ P                    -        swoon;  ~~~~~~~~    p4  .          S.nst\N

       ~~~~~~2               cl"                                       A.C                                       \L. rne  agts .. ..,-oCr



                                                       0//'                                        ï¿½QY'"i~~i]7~.           "Nwe.*Z.
                                                             wI          m           Hi                    ~                  llin
       71~~~~~~-                                                 ~     a     '~t~l~./"
                                                        .~~.   ~~ *-   ~      ' :2t~ La  A
      ,J''.r .. ..... Al                                                                                                                f T o 4  Fa
                                                                                      \"'W  ~~~   '34I0"%(  ~~        ~         P 1
                                                                   Aq     ~~,                                               
                           Q~~~~~~~~e)                              -~   <1/gi~winCilu
                                                                   C   ('10 ~C           ietgWJ.'  ''.                                         Ga'.,l

                                   JN~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'WI, G-  VOO'





          N',Vlt~~~~ew )u                                                                        U/& (S MLITARY RESE,1ATO

                                       IBMa                ~        0-EA5olE    AIR(FORCE BASE                                                 N
                0  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'" PgoC\ /  Hil lIoms



                                                                                   g\, Woodina  'JH~~~dS.  owr   ~   '~                 PORTSMQIUT

                                                                                                                   lit          Pannaway.-          Mt
               *                                                                      -p         Swan I            -A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  -'~~~4



                    C'~~~~~~~~                                                                        ~      ~~                 ~~~~~a Pie-caP$4--

        trial~~~~ ~ ~ H.1                /                                            C'Greenland                   UP




                                      3~~~~~~~~~ L Ay




Hitt                                         l                                                                                              1



                         7'  y StradhaM Ciii11

                                -   I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;<i







                                   ~~~. ~~~41








       GREAT BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (transferred mid-August):
       On 3 June, an osprey was observed taking marsh grass from the shoreline
       of Great Bay and flying north into the refuge area. On 12 June, a small
       bundle of sticks, attended by an osprey was found on top of one of the
       power poles just inside the gates of the abandoned weapons storage area.
       By 16 July, a second partial nest was erected on an additional power pole
*      ~~in close proximity to the original (Figure 17).

       CROMMET CREEK:
       In January of 1993 an additional nest site was discovered in the Crommet
       Creek area of Durham. This site is in a pond formed by Crommet Creek, 0.4
0     ~meters south of Longmarsh Road.

       The nest is located in a deciduous snag, approximately 20 inches in
       diameter, and surrounded by relatively deep water. The nest is
*     ~approximately 40 feet off the surface of the pond, and is estimated to be
       four feet in diameter.

       METiHODS
       Project biologists monitored known nest sites throughout the breeding
       season to determine breeding status and success; conducted an aerial
       survey of potential nesting habitat, and surveyed potential foraging
       habitat for the presence of ospreys.

*     ~Project personnel monitored known nest sites once or twice weekly
       between 17 March and 7 September. Field data forms for nest activity and
       feeding habits included date, time, weather and identity of birds present.
       Documented observations included osprey presence, courtship displays and
       behavior, prey deliveries and transfers, and any additional osprey activity
       in the area.

       Biologists surveyed potential foraging habitat by observing from selected
       fixed point locations in one to four-hour time periods. In addition, a
*     ~coordinated osprey foraging survey took place on 3 August.   Fixed point
       surveys covered the nest site at Willey Pond, Pearson Pond, Chapman's
       Landing, the Stratham railroad bridge over the Squamnscott River, Moody
       Point and the former weapons storage area on the Great Bay National
       Wildlife Refuge ( Figure 19). Data recorded included date, time, weather,
       raptor presence, location and activity observed.
                                          42












         Table 4: Chronology of major breeding events, 1992.







*                    EVENT                                   DATE

                    Male first at Willey nest               4/07

            , Start of courtship - Willey                   4/07

                    Willey nest abandoned                   4/24

                    Pearson Pond nest found                 5/05

                    Pearson Pond abandoned                  5/07

                    Nest found at Weapons Storage Area    6/12

                    Nest found on Squamscott River          7/20

                    Coordinated Survey                      8/03

                    End of monitoring                       9/07










                                            43














*        Table 5.  Osprey foraging activity, 1992



              LOCATION                   OBS. PERIODS           % OF OBS.

              Moody Point                      1 7                   38%

              Squamscott River                 1 2                   27%

              Moat Island                       6                    13%

              Great Bay NWR                     3                     7%

              Fox Point                         3                     7%

              Exeter River                      1                     2%

*         I    Wagon Hill                        1                     2%

              Seabrook                          1                     2%

              Odiorne                           1                     2%











                                           44








       Project personnel conducted an aerial survey of potential osprey nesting
       habitat in the coastal region 5 May. The survey route concentrated heavily
       on the Durham-Newmarket wetlands on the west side of Great Day, but
       also included the drainages and reservoirs along the Lamprey, Oyster,
       Bellamy and Squamscott rivers. Reduced altitude and space restrictions
       due to the closure of Pease Air Force Base allowed good access to the
*     ~wetlands around Great Say.  This area continues to have excellent
       potential for new nest sites (Figure 20).

       RESULTS

       NEST OBSERVATIONS

       WILLEY AND PEARSON PONDS:
       The first sighting of an osprey at the Willey Pond nest site occurred on 7
*     ~April, with both adults present.  Courtship activity was first observed on
       7 April with copulations witnessed on 7, 12 and 18 April. The nest site
       was defended from a young red-tailed hawk (Buteo iam-aicensis) on 7 April
       and from turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) on 14 April. However, no
       improvements were made to the existing nest, which had been heavily
       damaged during Hurricane Bob of August 1991.

       The only fish brought to the nest site was consumed by the male. On 24
       April, all signs of osprey occupancy at this site were gone, including the
*     ~remnants of the original nest.  The nest material may have been
       appropriated by a great blue heron that was actively building a nest in an
       adjacent site.

       Numerous explorations on foot and the aerial survey of 5 May, located an
0     ~incubating osprey on 9 May at a new nest in Pearson Pond.  On 13 May, with
      the female incubating, the male brought a small fish to the nest which
       resulted in a food and incubation exchange. On 17 May, an additional
       incubation exchange was observed. On 22 May, no incubation was observed
*     ~at this site, but the male performed a "sky-dance" while carrying a fish
      above the nest site. The female landed on the nest, a fish exchange took
       place, and the female headed south. The male remained perched at the side
      of the nest, then flew off and neither returned.


                                          45






















       ,  "        ï¿½..Durham 

           ~~~~~~~~~~''.t                 ~           'jNewington





                                                          Pease

                                           id mas Pt

                                              ï¿½.
                   '.;ji
























                                4 6
. Figure 20.  Osprey Foraging Locations, 1992
                                ~//~ 4'masP




0


         This was the last time that actual breeding activity was recorded for the
  0    ~ season.  On 3 and 10 August, one or more ospreys were seen flying around
         or perched at Willey Pond. On 19 and 24 August, a single osprey (appeared
         to be a male) spent several hours eating a fish while perched near the old
         nest at Willey Pond. The chronology of breeding observations is
         summarized in Table 4.

         ADDITIONAL NEST OBSERVATIONS

         GREAT BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE:
         On 3 June, an osprey was observed taking marsh grass from the shoreline
         of Great Bay and flying north into the refuge area. On 12 June, a small
         bundle of sticks, attended by an osprey, was found on top of one of the
         power poles just inside the gates of the abandoned weapons storage area.
         By 16 July, a second partial nest was erected on an additional power pole
  *     ~in close proximity to the original.  No additional building took place at
         this site.

         During the 3 August coordinated survey, up to four individual osprey were
  0    ~ seen at the weapons storage at one time.  A brief copulation took place on
         one of the partially constructed nests.

         SQUAMSCOTT RIVER:
         On 20 July, another new nest was discovered along the south shore of the
6         Squamnscott River just south of the Stratham railroad bridge.  It was built
         on the crossbars at the top of a power pole belonging to the Public Service
         Company of New Hampshire.

  0    ~ Activity at this nest for the next month included copulation, nest building,
         feeding, perching, loafing and fishing nearby. The occupants at this site
         were confirmed to be a second pair during the 3 August coordinated
         survey. A nearby resident reported that the nest was started in June by a
         pair of red-tailed hawks, and was taken over by osprey in mid-July.

         This nest was inspected by PSNH employees to determine its safety in
         October of 1992. We accompanied PSNH staff on two field excursions to
         the osprey nest to come up with a strategy for improving the safety at
         this site. In January of 1993, PSNH employees lowered the powerlines
         underneath the nest by five feet and erected perches at the nest level. In
                                            47




0


         addition, if needed, they will cover the wires with a safety material that
  6    ~ will help eliminate the danger of electrocution, as well as reduce the
  *     ~chance that the birds and/or nest material will cause shortout problems.

         PEARSON POND:
         On 27 July, a pair of osprey were perched in another nest just south of the
  *     ~original nest at Pearson Pond.  A prey transfer was observed at this time.

         COORDINATED SURVEY
         Results of the coordinated eight hour survey on 3 August indicate that a
  0    ~ minimum of five osprey were using the south and west sides of the bay
         area on that date. Multiple osprey sightings occurred at all sites except
         Pearson Pond where no osprey were observed. A count of five osprey
         would be consistent with earlier observations of a breeding attempt in the
         wetlands of Durham and Newmarket, a pre-breeding pair establishing a
*         nest along the Squamscott River, and the solitary osprey found early in the
         season along the Lamprey River at Moat Island.

         FORAGING OBSERVATIONS
  0  ~ Osprey were observed foraging during 45 of 63 separate observation
         periods. Moody Point, just north of the mouth of the Lamprey River on
         Great Bay, was the site of 38% of the foraging observations. The
         Squamnscott River area accounted for 27% of the sightings, while the Great
         Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the Newington shoreline had 13% of the
0         total sightings (Table 5).

         This year, as in 1990 and 1991, early season foraging activity was
         observed in the vicinity of Moat Island on the Lamprey River adjacent to
         Route 108 in Durham. Foraging ceased in this location as the river became
  0    ~ more heavily used by fishermen.  Four birds were observed foraging at this
         site on 28 April.

         Osprey foraging flights were seen over a good portion of Great Bay through
  *     ~the season (Figure 20).  From late July through early September frequent
         foraging activity, involving one to three osprey, occurred near the mouthes
         of the Lamprey and Squamnscott Rivers. Some activity continued along the
         Squamnscott River as far upriver as the "Ox-bow", just north of the Route
         101 bridge in Exeter.

                                             48









         AERIAL SURVEY

         The aerial survey on 5 May allowed us to locate the Pearson Pond nest
         site. Numerous loops around the swamps in this vicinity finally revealed a
          large stick nest. A ground survey on 9 May confirmed that this nest was
  *      ~being incubated.  No additional nests were discovered, but aerial
         observation confirms that many potential nesting sites exist throughout
         the Great Bay Estuarine System.

          PREDATOR GUARD INSTALLATION

         Predator guards were installed on all known potential nest sites in early
         March of 1993. Aluminum flashing, a minimum of 44 inches in height, was
         placed around the circumference of each nest tree at a height of between
  *      ~~five and ten feet.  Predator guards were placed at the following locations:
         Pearson Pond (two trees), Crornmet Creek and the Squamscott River (two
         power poles).


0         DISCUSSION

         The inability of the Durham osprey pair to successfully raise young in
         1992 raises some questions.  Although the pair returned to the original
0         nest site, they never did any of the rebuilding that was necessary in light
         of the losses to Hurricane Bob. The pair found incubating at Pearson Pond
         were assumed to be the birds from the Willey Pond nest. The failure at
         Pearson Pond was possibly related to predators, as no predator guard
         could be placed on this nest tree once incubation had begun. It should be
         noted that we were informed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Special Agent
         that an osprey was shot and killed in Lee during the first part of April.
         Although this osprey was more than likely a migrant, it cannot be ruled
         out that one of the breeding pair was affected.

         The construction of additional nests in the Great Bay Estuary and the
         observation of a minimum of five osprey in the bay on 3 August, gives
         strong support for the potential growth of this coastal osprey population
         in 1993. The success of the Durham breeding pair in 1990 and 1991 may
  0      ~~well forecast the addition of other pairs in this region.  Recruitment of
                                             49








       the young from this nest remains a possibility for 1993 as osprey are
       known to migrate back to the breeding grounds in their second year; and, if
0      ~conditions are suitable to breed in their third summer.

       The similarity of the nests in the weapons storage area and along the
       Squamscott River could indicate they were built by the same pair of
*      ~osprey.  The nests at the Willey and Pearson Pond sites also appeared to be
       occupied by the same birds. The Willey and Pearson Pond osprey preferred
       a remote, wooded area while the Great Say Refuge and Squamscott River
       sites have open, manmade structures.

0      ~This year's foraging observations helped to build on previous year's data
       but we still need to strengthen our knowledge of foraging habitat use
       patterns. The data from 1990 through 1992 suggests that the mouth of
       the Lamprey River provides important foraging habitat for osprey in Great
*      ~Bay.  Further coordinated simultaneous observations over several days are
       needed to identify consistent patterns. Coordination of osprey foraging
       observations with New Hampshire Fish and Game's fishing surveys may be
       possible.

       Detection of osprey nests in remote sections of the coastal region is a
       continued challenge. The aerial survey, especially in light of reduced
       flight restrictions, remains the most effective means of searching a large
       area for new nests. The development and distribution of public
*      ~~information on osprey in this region could help locate activity.

       Continued productivity of the currently known breeding pair, the activity
       of the additional pair and possible further recruitment from an unknown
       source population will likely produce new nests in the coming years.
0      ~~Identification and protection of nest sites, preferred perch trees and
       foraging habitat is critical to the successful expansion of this fledgling
       osprey population.




        0~~~~~~~~~5









     Monitorino and manacement recommendations

           - Conduct annual aerial surveys of the Great Say estuary system and
               nearby wetlands to detect new nests

*          ~~~- Monitor annually all known coastal osprey nests to document
               breeding success of this new population

           - Install predator guards on all newly discovered nests during the
                first winter after discovery

           - Negotiate for protection of nest sites and adjacent perch trees

           - Conduct coordinated surveys of potential foraging areas

           - Negotiate for protection of important perch trees in area of
                foraging activity

           - Develop and distribute public information on coastal ospreys





















                                          51











                                  NORTHERN HARRIER


*     ~INTRODUCTION

       Documented nest sites of northern harriers (Circus cvaneus) in New
       Hampshire have occurred primarily north of the White Mountains during
      the past decade. Earlier in the century, harriers were uncommon summer
0     ~residents in the vicinity of Durham (Dearborn, 1903).  Reported sightings
      since 1963 suggest possible nesting in the vicinity of Great Bay and
       Hampton Harbor.

*     ~The goals of this project were to survey potential nesting habitat,
      document any occupied breeding habitat, and implement nesting area
      protection techniques where necessary.

      METHODS

      Project staff and volunteers conducted field surveys for northern harrier
      activity from 17 May through 11 September. The survey effort focused an
      areas which provide suitable nesting habitat most likely to be occupied
*     ~and/or from which harrier activity has been reported in recent years.

      Project field staff and volunteers conducted fixed point northern harrier
      surveys from the following locations: The Blackwater River area in
      Seabrook, Farm Lane in Seabrook, Walton Road in Seabrook, Depot Road in
0     ~Hampton, Landing Road in Hampton, the marshes west of Wallis Sands
      State Beach, and the marshes opposite Odiorne State Park. In addition,
      observations were conducted from the following locations in conjunction
      with monitoring of other coastal endangered species: The Great Bay
      Estuary, the Hampton Harbor saltmarshes, Pease International Tradeport,
      and the coastal marshes in Rye (Figure  ). Data recorded included date,
      time, weather and raptor presence, location and activity observed.



                                          52









0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EAO
















                                         /,                  t"\.;~* ~sw




                                        (Roa4~STE             -             \ OVER
                                                              See~                  ~
                                                N          I                                N~~~~~~~a
                                           N              /E, 

                                                      N   /                                     N~~~~WE


                                                    N  ~        ~        ~       SOUTN          7-~~p
                                                          N  ~~~.  k    ~ ~ ~~BE~~~w~~c     NE
                                                     N  ~    ~     ~       ,-~~













                                      (kwm-               A I WMARKE





                                                        I        T~~~~~EACOS R-GC)

                                       ~~~~~~~~WHMSIR -MIN






                                                         -~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~MI  EA                    - 7 miws



   Figure~~ 21                        INSNo r hr are S Furve Loaton,199

                                I               II~~~5







       RESULTS

*      ~A female northern harrier was observed on 4 days in May from the airfield
       at the Pease International Tradeport, but breeding could not be confirmed.
       No other harrier sightings were made until 20 August when a female
       harrier was seen flying low over Awcomnin Marsh in Rye Harbor State Park.
*      ~A female harrier was observed on three separate days between 21 and 28
       August from Walton Road in Seabrook. Field staff witnessed a female
       harrier in the same area on I September. The only other harrier sighting
       occurred on 4 September, when a female harrier was observed perched and
       preening on the branch of a downed snag in the saltmarsh northeast of
       Chapman's Landing off Route 108 in Strathamn.

       Northern harrier sightings during the 1992 field season document harrier
       use of coastal habitat. However, unlike 1990 and 1991, no adult northern
*      ~harriers were observed in any of the salt marsh areas during the breeding
       season and no juvenile birds were seen at any time during the survey
       period. The presence of female harriers foraging over the Awcornin and
       Seabrook marshes near the beginning of the hawk migration period does
       not support nesting in the area.

       DISCUSSION

       The results are inconclusive as to whether harriers nested somewhere in
*     ~the Hampton marsh area during the 1992 breeding season.  Observations of
       female harriers at the Pease International Tradeport during May was
       evidence for the possibility of breeding activity at this location.
       However, no breeding could be confirmed and no juveniles were sighted.

0      ~Preliminary investigations indicate that suitable harrier nesting  habitat
       does occur in the immediate vicinity of the Hampton/Seabrook marshes.
       Human activity levels and predation vulnerability at these sites needs to
       be assessed. The powerline corridor on the island in Seabrook may provide
*      ~the most attractive nesting habitat, given its immediate access to
       extensive foraging habitat and isolation from human activity.

       The nature of the salt marsh precludes significant human recreation use,
       thus minimizing human disturbance within the marsh itself. The
       marsh/upland interface, however, is highly vulnerable to disturbance and
                                          54







       development. Encroachment of development and increased predation
       pressure from dogs and cats along the marsh edge provide increasing
*      ~threats to harriers and other ground nesting birds.  Remaining natural
       habitat along this interface needs protection. Protection of the upland
       buffers wherever opportunities exist around the edge of the marsh will be
       critical to the future of harrier breeding success in the Hampton and Rye
*      ~marshes.

       Both foraging and nesting habitat are less extensive and more fragmented
       in the vicinity of Great Say. However, potential breeding areas do still
       exist and deserve continued monitoring.

       MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

             - conduct surveys in early May to detect courtship and pre-nesting
  *              ~~~~~activity

             - conduct a coordinated survey during the first two weeks of
                 August to detect immature harriers

 *          ~~~- conduct an aerial photograph inspection and field survey of
                 the Rye saltmarshes to identify potential nesting areas.

             - field check sites identified in aerial photograph inspection of
  *              ~~~~Rye and Hampton marshes to assess current habitat suitability

             - conduct breeding season observations to determine use of the
                 Hampton saltmarsh island by nesting harriers. If harrier use is
                 detected, contact utility to discuss corridor maintenance
                 practices and recommend habitat management strategies to avoid
                 adverse impacts to nesting harriers

             - negotiate protection of any documented nesting areas







                                           55










       S                              ~~~~~~~~PIPING PLOVER


       INTRODUCTION

       The piping plover is a federally listed threatened species along the
       Atlantic Coast and is listed as endangered by the N.H. Fish & Game
       Department (NHF&G). Shoreline development and heavy recreational use of
       sandy beaches have contributed to the decline of this species from Maine
       to North Carolina.

       The piping plover nested historically on sandy beaches along the New
       Hampshire coast. The only remaining available habitat consists of a sand
*      ~spit on the southeast shore of Hampton Harbor, adjacent to Route lA just
       south of the Hampton Harbor bridge. Plovers nested consistently at this
       site from 1951 or before through the early 1970's. A pair was present in
       the spring of 1984, and observed behavior indicated a nesting attempt
       which presumably failed during an extremely high tide. An annual
S      ~monitoring effort has been underway since 1987.  Observers documented a
       single bird present on 16 and 20 May 1988, but found no signs of a nesting
       attempt. A single bird was foraging at the site on 23 July 1989, but was
       presumably an early migrant from further north.

       The focus of this project was to monitor the existing breeding habitat for
       piping plover activity and implement management techniques to promote
       nesting.

5      ~STUDY AREA AND METHODS

       The remaining breeding habitat is state-owned and managed by NHF&G as
       the Hampton Harbor Wildlife Management Area (Figure 22). A guard rail
*      ~~installed in 1987 prevents vehicular entry, but the area is easily
       accessible on foot and is often used for swimming, sunbathing, windsurfer
       access and shoreline fishing during the summer months. The site includes
       sandy beach, an overwash area, and a small area of dunes which support
       beach grass (Ammoohila brevilioulata), dusty miller (Arternisia
5      ~~stelleriana), and other dune vegetation (Figure 23).
                                           56





0


                         ~Ha~ipton )
 /IZN-                 K~~h~  ~
                             -- Lmg\













                                                        -'-  _"-'                /                        ~~~~~~~~~~20


                       r-..        =Fre





 OF-                                              arS-
                         /     4czN    \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4




         PM~~~ Ms r il......
  Ws~ /a n ci~*.


                     Figure~ 22                                                         Loato ofPtnlPpn-loe aia,1999
             *  ~~~    K                                              01.11~~5














                                                                                N
                              Aar,





   i~ ..,


                               asa ura ns
     i3 _    2:-"r ï¿½I,.ï¿½ï¿½/                    K:. crIi



                                            26
         __gure23Potentia    PipingPoverHabitatHamptonHarbor,19899



              Figure~~~ 23 Poeta PiigPoerHbtt HmtnHrbr  999


       0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


      0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ï¿½- -



             0~~~~~~~~,  ~Ia~pr 


0~'   ----~    l 






0~~iue2.PtnilPpn lvrHbtt apo  abr  999










*     ~Project personnel surveyed the area from 1 April through 15 July, and
      volunteers conducted additional surveys. Each visit included a walking
      survey of the beach and dunes recording the date, time, weather and
      species observed.

      RESULTS

      A single piping plover was observed on 16 May and 23 May. No other piping
      plovers were observed at this location and there was no evidence of
*     ~breeding at this site.  Thus, nest protection measures and a strong public
      relations effort were unnecessary this year.

      DISCUSSION

      The 1992 breeding season again brought continued improvement in piping
      plover productivity at sites along the Atlantic coast. The closure of the
      Parker River Wildlife Refuge piping plover habitat during the breeding
      season, along with other intensive management efforts, succeeded in
*     ~increasing productivity in neighboring Massachusetts.   The final tally for
      Massachusetts showed 213 plover pairs, up 33 percent from the prior
      summer's count of 160 pairs. Of equally good news was the 1992
      estimate for fledgling productivity at 2.02 per pair, which was the
*     ~highest level since the species was listed as endangered and protection
      was increased in 1986 (Hecker, 1992). Piping plovers experienced
      increased nesting success in Maine as well. As the regional population
      continues to grow with the support of intensive protection and
      management efforts, colonizing pairs can be expected to reoccupy former
*     ~breeding habitat that remains suitable for nesting.

      Although New Hampshire's breeding habitat experiences moderate
      recreational use in the warmer months, human activity is low in March and
*     ~April and should not present a deterrent to prospecting plovers when they
      first return to set up territories. Visits by migrants in 1988,1989 and
      1992 indicate that the area may still be attractive to plovers. In addition,
      successful nesting of killdeer at this site in 1991 may speak to the
      suitability of the habitat.

                                          59









         The Hampton Harbor Wildlife Management Area continues to provide viable
*        piping plover nesting habitat and has high potential for eventual
         reoccupation. Although intensive management will be necessary to
         support successful nesting here, as at most breeding sites, proven
         techniques are available to promote nesting success.




         Monitorina and management recommendations

              - Continue to monitor the site annually during April and May

              - When the site becomes occupied

                    - close area to public access until chicks fledge

                    - protect nest site(s) with predator exclosures)

     *              ~~~~- conduct public relations campaign, including local
                       presentations and media coverage

                    - provide site warden for at least the first several
     *                ~~~~~nesting seasons

              - Investigate the feasibility of creating additional nesting
                    habitat with dredge spoils from periodic dredging projects
                 in Hampton Harbor








           ~~~~~~~~~60










                               REFERENCES


Bent, Arthur Cleveland. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of
Prey.  Part One.  Dover Publications, Inc. New York, N.Y.

Bird, D.M. 1983. Bioloav and Manaaement of Bald Eaales and Osorevs.
Harpell Press. Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec.

Buckley, F.G. and P.A. Buckley. 1982.  Microenvironmental determinants of
success in saltmarsh nesting Common Terns. Colonial Waterbirds 5: 39-
48.

Buckley, P.A. and F.G. Buckley. 1982.  Population success and site tenacity
in saltmarsh Common and Roseate terns. Colonial Waterbirds 5: 57.

Burger, J. and F. Lesser. 1979. Breeding behavior and success in salt
marsh Common Tern colonies. Bird Banding 44: 27-55.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1988. Nest-site selection and temporal
patterns in habitat use of roseate and common terns. Auk 105: 433-438.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1990.  Early experience and vegetation
preferences in common tern chicks. Wilson Bulletin 102: 328-333.

Conover, M.R. 1984. Occurrence of supernormal clutches in the Laridae.
wilson Bulletin 96: 249-267.

Courtney, P.A. and H. Blokpoel. 1980. Food indicators of food availablitiy
for common terns on the lower Great Lakes. Can. J. of Zoology 58: 1318-
1323.

Dearborn, N. 1903. The birds of Durham and vicinity. Contrib. Zool. Lab.
New Hampshire College of Agr. and Arts #6. Durham, New Hampshire.

Dicostanzo, J. 1980. Population dynamics of a common tern colony. J. of
Field Ornithology 51: 229-243.
                                   61









Ehrlich, Paul R., David S. Dobkin and Darryl Wheye. 1988. The Birder's
Handbook, Simon & Schuster Inc. New York, N.Y.

Erwin, R.M., J. Galli and J. Burger. 1981. Colony site dynamics and habitat
use in Atlantic coast seabirds. Auk 948: 550-556.

Eriksson, M.O.G. 1986. Fish delivery, production of young and nest density
of Osprey in southwest Sweden. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64: 1961-5.

Jackson, C.F. 1947. Notes on the bird population at the Isles of Shoals.
Bull. Maine Audubon Society 11: 58-66.

Jamieson, I.G. and N.R. Seymour. 1983. Inter- and intra-specific agonistic
behavior of Ospreys near their nest sites. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:
21 99-202.

Nisbet, I.C.T. 1975. Several effects of predation on a tern colony. Condor
77: 221-26.

Nisbet, I.C.T. 1984.  Seasonal variations in breeding success of common
terns: Consequences of predation. Condor 86:53-60.

Poole, A.F. 1985.  Courtship feeding and Osprey reproduction.  Auk 102: 47'
92.

Poole, A.F. 1989. Osorevs: A Natural and Unnatural Historv. Cambridge
University Press. New York, N.Y.

Robins, C. Richard, G. C. Ray and J. Douglas. 1986. A Field Guide To the
Atlantic Coast Fishes of North America.

Safina, C., D. Witting and K. Smith. 1989. Viability of salt marshes as
nesting habitat for Common Terns in New York.  Condor 91:571-84.

Shealer, D.A. and S.W. Kress. 1991. Nocturnal abandonment response to
Black-crowned Night-Heron disturbance in a Common Tern colony.
Colonial Waterbirds 14: 51-56.

                                   62









Shields, W.M. and J.R. Crook. 1987. Barn swallow coloniality: a net cost for
group breeding in the Adirondacks? Ecology 68:1373-1386.

Taber, W. 1955. The Isles of Shoals. Bull. Maine Audubon Society 11: 58-
66.





































                                   63









                   COMMON TERN SLIDE PRESENTATION

SLIDE#1: COMMON TERN
The Common Tern is an endangered species in New Hampshire. It is the
only breeding tern that we have in N.H. at present.

SLIDE#2: FLYING TERN
Terns are closely related to gulls, but are very agile in flight with long
pointed wings and forked tails.

SLIDE #3: LUNGING ISLAND
Historically, terns bred out at the Isles of Shoals.  There were 1500-2000
pairs nesting on these islands through the 1940's.

SLIDE #4: MAP OF PRESENT TERN COLONIES
With changes in land uses of the outer islands, an increase in the number
of gulls breeding on these same islands, terns were forced off the islands.
They were pushed in towards the mainland and more marginal nesting
sites.

SLIDE #5: NEWCASTLE ISLANDS
These new sites included small, rocky islands just off the mainland - such
as these islands off Newcastle.

SLIDE#6: HAMPTON SALT MARSH
They also moved into the salt marshes along our coast. You can see the
major development that rings this area, making the terns vulnerable to a
variety of pressures.

SLIDE#7: SCOPE AT HAMPTON MARSH
Field studies conducted annually since 1981 have documented a recent
population decline on the mainland where colonies have suffered from
marginal nesting habitat and heavy predation.  In addition, field studies
have been able to document any changes in colony sites through this time
period.


                                   1







SLIDE#8:   HAMPTON SALT MARSH
The present sites for tern colonies include the Hampton Salt Marsh, just
north of Route 51, bordered by 1A on the east.

SLIDE#9: SEABROOK SALT MARSH
This colony site was occupied by terns in 1989 - 1991. It is located along
the Blackwater River in Hampton Harbor, the backdrop being the Seabrook
Nuclear Power Plant. Terns did not nest here in 1992.

SLIDE#10: FOX POINT
Small colonies exist on islands just off the mainland in Little Bay.

SLIDE#11: NEWCASTLE ISLANDS
Small colony exists on a series of small islands in the Piscataqua River.

SLIDE#12: CANOEON MARSH
In order to monitor colonies, project staff will often canoe out.  This
allows for monitoring nests; documenting breeding success and failures;
determining reasons for failure.

SLIDE#13: WALKING ON MARSH
Careful maneuvering through the tern nests, both on the marsh and the
islands, can help o facilitate nest checks.  It is critical to get in and out
of the colonies in brief time periods, be especially cognizant of the
weather, take great care in how you move through the colonies and limit
the number of times you move through in a season.

SLIDE#14: NESTON MARSH
Nests are placed directly on the substrate.  In the salt marsh, terns place
their nests directly on the thatch and areas of Juncus.

SLIDE#1 5: CLOSEUP OF NEST WITH 3 EGGS
A full clutch for Common Terns is 3 eggs. They will incubate these eggs
for approximately 21 days.

SLIDE#16: CHICK HATCHING
When the chicks hatch out, they are cryptic in coloration, yet still very
vulnerable to dangers in their colony. They will need to be fed by the
adults for approximately 28 days before they are ready to fly.
                                   2







SLIDE#17: CHICK AT FLEDGING
During the four weeks until they fledge, they will hide in the grasses in
the marsh, or under the rocks and vegetation in the small island nesting
colonies. The parents will feed them in these areas, typically in fairly
close proximity to the actual nest cup.

SLIDE#18: GREATHORNEDOWL
During this time they are very vulnerable. Predators like the Great Horned
Owl can decimate a colony, taking both chicks and adults.

SLIDE#19: MINK
Mammalian predators can also create serious problems for tern colonies.
Mammals such as mink, raccoon, skunks can all decimate a colony as well.

SLIDE#20: RATS
Especially in areas where terns nest in close proximity to humans, rats
can wipe out these ground nesting birds as well. In 1991, a small colony
in Little Bay was wiped out by rats as they ate all the eggs that were laid.
Project staff were successful in eradicating the rats through an extensive
trapping program in both the fall of 1991 and the spring of 1992.

SLIDE#21: JET SKIIS
Jet skiis have been observed moving through the tidal channels during the
tern nesting season. These machines throw a significant wake, which
washes up onto the marsh and can flood vulnerable nests.

SLIDE#22: FLOODED MARSH
Natural flooding occurs in the marshes, as high spring tides may cover the
entire marsh with water. When coupled with heavy rains, this can spell
disaster for terns as their eggs may be washed out of the nests and terns
die from exposure.

SLIDE#23: THATCH ON MARSH
The terns often choose to nest in the areas of the marsh where pockets of
thatch have washed up with the tides and dried. These thatched areas
create a substrate that often allows the terns to survive some of the more
natural fluctuations in the water level.


                                    3







         SLIDE#24 BUILT UP TERN NEST
         Terns that have lost a nest to flooding will often build a nest that is much
*         more substantial and higher off the marsh grasses.  This may also help
         them to persevere during flood periods. These higher nests are much more
         evident on a second round of nesting.

         SLIDE#25: PLATFORM
         Another method that project personnel have utilized to try to deal with
         flooding are artificial platforms.   These platforms are plywood squares
         that are placed atop a foam core and anchored in the marsh by a line and
         spike. The problem has been that the terns do not often choose to nest on
*         the platforms themselves.

         SLIDE#26: PLATFORM UNDER THATCH
         In an attempt to use the platforms to the terns' advantage, we
*         experimented with lifting the already established nests, slipping the float
         underneath and placing the nest back on the float.

         SLIDE#27: PLATFORM UNDER THATCH- AT FLOOD TIDE
         Once the nest is placed back on the float, the float is barely detectable.
*         The terns showed no hesitancy to return to their nests and the success
         rate on these platforms was upwards of 80%. Phenomenal in relation to
         those nests without the advantage of the platforms.

         SLIDE#28: TERN IN FLIGHT OVER WATER
         Another aspect of tern breeding behavior that project staff has looked at
         in the last couple of years has been their feeding and foraging behavior.
         Biologists monitored where terns were foraging as well as what they
         were feeding on.  Data documents that terns forage in relatively close
*         proximity to their breeding colonies.

         SLIDE#29: VIEW OF HAMPTON HARBOR
         Hampton Harbor is a key feeding area for the marsh nesting terns, as well
*         as for migrants later in the season.

         SLIDE#30: A view of the water column in Hampton Harbor at a peak
         feeding time during the breeding season helps to explain this. The area is
         loaded with sand lance, a preferred food for terns.

                                             4







SLIDE#31: RESULTS OF FEEDING STUDY
Results of the feeding studies show that sand lance (Ammodvtes
americanus) was brought into the nests in greater than 50% of the
feedings. The fish that was brought to nests most frequently after the
sand lance was striped killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus).

SLIDE#32: ISLES OF SHOALS
The islands out at the Isles of Shoals still has suitable habitat for terns.
There has been some preliminary work done to evaluate the suitability of
White and Seavey Islands.

SLIDE#33: TERN DECOYS
In recent years, there has been a considerable amount of work done to
recolonize terns to former colonies in both Maine and Massachusetts. The
techniques used in these areas included placing tern decoys out in suitable
habitat to visually attempt to attract terns.

SLIDE#34: TERN SPEAKER
In addition to placing decoys out in this habitat, speakers are also placed
out to simulate the sound of a real tern colony. These speakers can be
hooked up to a battery and timer, to turn on and off during the daylight
hours.

SLIDE#35: SEAVEY ISLAND
Seavey Island still has some beautiful tern habitat.  This is an island that
is part of the White-Seavey complex that was recently returned to the
state after the lighthouse was automated on White Island. The state has
now instituted an island caretaker program at this site.

SLIDE #36: ADULT COMMON TERN
The hope is that we may soon be able to attempt these recolonization
techniques. They have been extremely successfully in many locations
where they have been instituted. With all the pressures on the mainland
colonies in N.H., this may be one way to help insure that terns will
continue to nest along New Hampshire's coast.

SLIDE#37: TERN CHICK
Continue to see tern productivity in this state.

                                    5











                OSPREY PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION


SLIDE#1:  ADULT OSPREY
Osprey are a threatened species in New Hampshire. During most of this
century, the only known osprey populations in N.H. occurred north of the
White Mountains, primarily in the Androscoggin River Basin.

SLIDE#2:   OSPREY IN FLIGHT
In the spring of 1989, osprey were observed engaged in breeding activity.

SLIDE#3: MARSHES IN DURHAM
They were observed in an abandoned heron rookery in a 7-8 acre beaver
pond in Durham within a mile of Great Bay.

SLIDE#4: AERIAL OF WILLEY POND SITE
This osprey pair enlarged a great blue heron nest at this site.

SLIDE#5:   PREDATOR GUARD EXPEDITION
Although they were not successful in their first attempt, a predator guard
was placed at this site during the winter of 1990.

SLIDE#6: WILLEY POND NEST AT ITS PEAK SIZE
In 1990 and 1991, this pair of osprey successfully raised 3 chicks in each
year. This marked the first time in the present century that breeding by
ospreys was documented in the coastal region.

SLIDE#7: NEST AFTER HURRICANE
Unfortunately, in August of 1991, 90% of the nest cup was blown out of
the tree by Hurricane Bob.

SLIDE#8: OSPREY AT NEST AFTER HURRICANE
Although a good portion of the osprey nest was gone, the adults and young
of 1991 continued to use the remaining nest for feeding and loafing. The
pair returned to this site in 1992, courtship ensued, but they never rebuilt
the nest and soon abandoned this site.
                                   1








SLIDE#9: PEARSON POND NEST
After an extensive but unsuccessful search by foot, an aerial survey
revealed that the pair had moved to another beaver swamp approximately
1.5 km. from the Willey Pond site.

SLIDE#10: PEARSON POND NESTTREE
The nest tree at this location is a slender white pine snag, approx. 17
meters (55ft.) in height. Its base is surrounded by water and it is in close
proximity to several other snags.

SLIDE#11 : SQUAMSCOTT RIVER SITE
Foraging observations through the season revealed osprey activity at other
locations in the bay. On 20 July, a pair of osprey were observed in
courtship activity on a substantial nest placed on the crossbars of the
PSNH powerlines that cross the Squamscott River above Route 108.

SLIDE#12: SQUAMSCOTT NEST
This pair of osprey were believed to have taken over at this site after a
pair of red-tails had already started a nest. They did not appear to make
any nesting attempt in 1992, but project staff are hopeful that they will
return in 1993 and attempt to raise young.

SLIDE#13: SQUAMSCOTT NEST
PSNH employees spent a considerable amount of time this winter making
this nest site safer for the birds. The powerlines were lowered away from
the nest cup, and perches were constructed at the level of the nest. Both
of these measures are an attempt to keep the birds from electrocuting
themselves on the wires, and have been used successfully in other states.

SLIDE#14: BASS PONDS, GREAT BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Foraging expeditions also revealed considerable osprey activity in the
freshwater ponds that border Great Bay at the National Wildlife Refuge.
Considerable feeding was taking place at this location.

SLIDE #15: BASS PONDS, WITH WATER TOWER
Ospery were observed flying into the interior of the ponds and refuge
through the early part of the season. You can see the distant water tower
that is located in the former weapons storage area.
                                   2








SLIDE#16: WEAPONS STORAGE AREA NEST
Investigations revealed that a partial nest was being constructed on the
crossbars of the powerline that ran through the former weapons storage
area. Although this nest was never completed, osprey were observed at
this location through the season.

SLIDE#17: SUNSET OVER BAY
Foraging observations revealed that Great Bay was used extensively for
foraging during the 1992 field season, especially at Moody Point and along
the Squamscott River.

SLIDE#18: BAYSUNSET
Project staff are very hopeful that we will see an increased number of
osprey breeding in the 1993 field season.