Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019 Dredge Site Habitat Assessment 2019 Dredge Site Habitat Assessment Town of Southold – Beach-Dependent Bird Species Management Program NYS DEC Piping Plover and Least Tern Site Monitoring __________________________________ Prepared By: Aaron Virgin and Christine Tylee September 2019 2 Background The following 16 sites were visited and evaluated during the Town of Southold’s 2019 Beach-dependent Bird Species Monitoring Program (April 1 – August 30). Utilizing field Google Earth® satellite map images taken at 1,000 feet altitude on 5/23/15 and 6/29/18 for site comparisons over a three-year period during the breeding season to make evaluations and recommendations for each location. This report has been generated to aid Southold Town in making future management decisions on the dredging priorities of the 16 sites, and how such activities can have beneficial results for improving beach-nesting bird habitat. Sites have been grouped by High Priority and Low Priority status to highlight the areas in need of urgent attention. In addition, the following factors were used to make recommendations: • Amount of sandy beach and suitable nesting habitat above the mean high tide mark; • Area of foraging habitat for breeding, transient and winter beach-dependent bird species; • Proximity to homes and/or recreational areas, e.g. heavy watercraft use, beach bathing, fishing, dog walking, etc.; • Presence or absence of nesting and/or foraging PIPL and LETE in past surveys. Dredge Site Suitable Nesting Habitat Suitable Foraging Habitat Nesting PIPL 2019 Nesting PIPL 2009-‘19 Nesting LETE 2019 Nesting LETE 2009-‘19 NYS DEC Monitored Sites 1. Brushes Creek ✓ 2. Cedar Beach Creek ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * 3. Corey Creek ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4. Deep Hole Creek ✓ ✓ 5. Goldsmith Inlet ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ** 6. Goose Creek ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7. Halls Creek ✓ ✓ 8. James Creek ✓ ✓ 9. Little Creek ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 10. Mud Creek ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 11. Richmond Creek ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 12. School House Creek ✓ 13. Sterling Harbor ✓ 14. Town Creek ✓ 15. West Creek ✓ ✓ 16. Wickham Creek ✓ ✓ * Monitored by Suffolk County Parks 3 ** A portion is monitored by Suffolk County Parks The above map was created in 2015 and is still relevant to the fieldwork conducted and subsequent site recommendations for 2019. 2019 Dredge Sites Habitat Suitability Town of Southold 4 High Priority Sites 1. Cedar Beach Creek Once again this site hosted multiple pairs of PIPL and LETE in 2019, however the latter’s colony was much smaller than previous years . While this site is not monitored under the Town’s existing contract, rather monitored by Suffolk County Parks, we were in contact with the personnel monitoring and include their findings in our determination for future dredge activities. As previously reported, the orientation to prevailing winds and bay currents, as well as past dredging activities have created a superb breeding site for PIPL and LETE, and is a popular stopover site for transient Black-bellied Plovers, Red Knots, Sanderlings, Common and Roseate Terns, and the occasional American Oystercatcher. Recommendation – dredging did not appear to be needed when field observations were made at mean low tide. Any future dredging should place material to the northeast of the inlet to expand the high-quality nesting habitat. 6/18 5/15 Recommended placement of future dredge material 5 2. Corey Creek Both portions of this site continue to face natural predations and unleashed dogs, despite the excellent breeding habitat. This year two PIPL nests were noted and neither were successful. Moreover, the excellent sandy beach that accreted over the winter was a favored destination for beach-goers, dog walkers, and fishermen. Fortunately, the eastern or Takaposha section of this site is less visited and is the area that has been naturally (and artificially thru dredge material placement) expanding. Recommendation – while this site features an active boat channel, it is of ou r opinion once again that recent dredge efforts have maintained a deep cut that does not require immediate action. However, if dredging does occur material should be directed to the east of the channel to increase beach -nesting habitat above high tide. 6/18 5/15 Area could benefit from additional dredge material to expand the popular breeding area 6 3. Goldsmith Inlet Lately a popular site for one pair of PIPL, this year the area west of the inlet featured a second breeding PIPL pair. Continuing the trend of the past few years, no LETE attempted to nest, which is most likely due to the limited nesting area due to habita t degradation and multitude of visitors. The site also has the distinction of being the only dredge site on the north shore of Southold Town. Recommendation – as noted previously, of the 16 sites monitored for this report, no site comes close to the immediate dredging need than Goldsmith Inlet. On several visits this summer, the inlet was nearly closed, thus preventing flow of water to and from the Long Island Sound. As advised previously, placing the dredge material east of the inlet as in will help create and improve nesting habitat. Extensive dredging must occur to keep the Inlet open, especially since no dredging has occurred in nearly five years despite recommendations to do so in prior reports. 6/18 5/15 The inlet opening (mouth) is still sorely in need of dredging with placement to the east to expand nesting habitat 7 4. Goose Creek For the third consecutive year , PIPL and LETE nested at this site. In 2016, the site was upgraded from “Low Priority” to “High Priority” due to the presence of two pair of LETE that year, and in the three subsequent years a pair of PIPL nested as well. The main reason for this change was the use of preseason symbolic string fence that kept b each bathers, dog walkers and boaters away from the prime nesting areas. Field observations this year continue to show the channel quite deep from previous dredging activities and a robust beach featuring suitable nesting habitat. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/18 5/15 Slight erosion that could benefit from additional dredge material in the future 8 5. Little Creek Continuing the trend of recent years, all nesting by PIPL (one pair) and LETE (11 pair) occurred on the south side of the Little Creek channel. No observations of nesting PIPL were made on the north side of the creek channel as in prior years. This is likely due a slight loss in lower beach habitat, despite a massive buildup from Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Recommendation – As noted in prior reports, and due to the extensive work conducted in 2013 to address erosion issues south of the creek channel, it is highly recommended to place dredge material north of the channel, where PIPL nested in 2012 and 2013 . 6/18 5/15 Any future dredging should place material to the north of the channel 9 6. Mud Creek For a fifth year, no PIPL or LETE were noted nesting at this site. In fact, only a few LETE and COTE were seen on random visits. This broad channel, where a pair of PIPL nested in 2014, showed minor changes in breeding and foraging habitat for shorebirds. As noted in prior reports, the area is a popular site with beachgoers, boaters, and fisherman. Of note, no PIPL or LETE nested at nearby Meadow Beach again this year. Recommendation – if dredged, there is a spur that could be removed along with the channel sediment that would be beneficial for nesting habitat. 6/18 5/15 By removing the spur on the southwestern portion of the channel and placing to the east will increase nesting habitat 10 7. Richmond Creek Progress occurred this season with a single PIPL pair nesting at this location. Unfortunately it was predated, however each year we are noting more PIPL and at times LETE, COTE and AMOY visiting this site. We are now placing pre -season string fence in th e potentially favorable areas and this year it made a big difference. We continue to see the mid to upper sections of beach flattening, which compared to a few years ago is more favorable to nesting shorebirds. This leveling out is occurring on the east side of the channel (South Harbor Beach), and is also attracting beach-nesting birds at the Corey Creek site. However, this flat naturally attracts beachgoers, boaters (some landing on the beach) and fishermen (surfcasting from the beach), which is a cons istent disturbance to potential breeding birds. Recommendation – the two spurs at the mouth of the creek will eventually cause problems for navigation if not removed. Once the spurs (one to the south, one to the north) are removed the placement of dredge material should be to the north/northeast to improve the area of South Harbor Beach, which has been eroded over the past three years . 6/18 5/15 Removing the spurs along the Richmond Creek channel and placing to the north/northeast will greatly improve beach-nesting habitat 11 Low Priority Sites 1. Brushes Creek As noted in prior reports, multiple groins and bulkheads are extensive at this site. Due to their dominant presence and destructive nature on PIPL and LETE breeding habitat, neither species should be expected to nest or frequent this site on a regular basis. The 2016, 2017 and 2018 reports noted the presence of a shoal, which were also confirmed by field observations. Fortunately, the shoal was removed in late 2018 and has helped increase the flow through the channel. Placement of dredge material, as recommended, was to the north of the channel between the groins. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/18 5/15 The outdated 2018 image shows the shoal on the northern end of the channel, prior to dredging 12 2. Deep Hole Creek As previously reported, this site features several formidable structures, such as bulkheads, docks, and is a heavily used boat channel. Therefore, very limited beach-nesting habitat exists at the site. Severe erosion and scouring, noted in prior reports , has occurred from storm events and wave movement coming off the adjacent bulkhead. As previously recommended, adding dredge material to the east of the Deep Hole channel opening has resulted a more expansive beach. Only time will tell if the shoreline will remain stable and shorebirds return to nest. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/18 5/15 The channel is in need of regular dredging to improve the passage of boats and help increase water flow. Placement of dredge material should be to the east of the channel opening. 13 3. Halls Creek In the spring of 2018, only a few days prior to the Google image as show below, the channel was dredged by “emergency permit”. While the site has not recently had nesting PIPL, LETE or any other shorebirds, dredging during the breeding season when equipme nt and money are available set a poor precedent, particularly when only few property owners are the beneficiaries of such invasive procedures. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/18 5/15 The dredging in the spring of 2018 (just prior to this image) shows quite the contrast from three years prior. 14 4. James Creek This site maintains a very active waterway due to an established marina and it seems to have regular dredging performed for this purpose. As noted in previous reports, the presence of multiple groins and bulkheads at this site do not provide adequate nesting habitat for PIPL and LETE. Once again, LETE were seen foraging on site visits, but PIPL and any other shorebirds were not. Recommendation – none at this time 6/18 5/15 Minor shoaling in the most recent image 15 5. School House Creek This is a very active channel for the size of the marina. The presence of bulkheads, permanent and temporary docks, rock revetments and groins all contribute to very little foraging and nesting habitat for PIPL, LETE and transient shorebirds . Better foraging and nesting habitat exists in the larger context of Cutchogue Harbor, some sites (Mud Creek, Meadow Preserve) are discussed in this report and the sister Town/DEC report. debris that would provide a negative experience for a visiting shorebird. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/18 5/15 A very deep channel exists as noted in the field and in the overhead view 16 6. Sterling Harbor While this site appears to be the largest and most active marina in Southold Town, our shorebird stewards noted PIPL (two occasions), LETE (three occasions), COTE (flying overhead regularly), and a lone AMOY (one occasion) on site visits this year. All sightings were brief and entailed foraging or loafing birds along the southwestern and more exposed side of the peninsula. As previously noted, boat traffic (wave action in particular) and people exploring the peninsula – the only potential nesting and foraging area – are major limiting factors in allowing this site to be a potential breeding area. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/18 5/15 The shoal formation around the peninsula seems to be stable, if not receding a bit 17 7. Town Creek As noted in prior reports, this site is comprised of open water habitat than a creek or riverine ecosystem, like the other 15 sites discussed. It lacks viable nesting habitat due to multiple docks, bulkheads, and in some areas invasive species on uninhabited (by humans) areas. Town Creek is at the confluence of several active waterways (Jockey Creek, Goose Creek) that meet and enter Southold Bay. The presence of some “soft”, natural shoreline is present along the southern side of Jockey Creek on what is known as Jockey Island or “Spoil Island”, no doubt referring to an area where dredge material (spoil) was previously deposited. Recommendation – additional monitoring should be conducted by boat vessel to determine the actual depth of the channel at extreme low tide. 6/18 5/15 Comparisons over the three-year period seem to show the channel filling in 18 8. West Creek It needs to be repeated, any management decisions for this site must take into account activities at the three creeks (Deep Hole, Halls, Downs) to the immediate west. It remains unclear if this has been the case, as in 2018 only Halls Creek was dredged, while West Creek and Downs Creek were not. As in previous years, LETE were noted foraging in the bay and roosting along the shoreline on some visits, as were COTW and Forster’s Tern (FOTE) on one visit. Sightings of PIPL were not noted this year. Recommendation – only to coordinate future dredging operations with the three creeks to the west for time efficiency and cost savings. 6/18 5/15 The peninsula, not present in 2015 after dredging, has reformed and decreasing water flow and impedes boat traffic 19 9. Wickham Creek Consistent with other North Fork channels that feature small to modest marinas, very little suitable habitat exists for PIPL and LETE. Furthermore, due to the shore hardening (bulkheads, groins) in the immediate vicinity, erosion continues to erode flat sections of beach in late winter through early spring. An emergency dredge was conducted in the late spring 2018, which resulted in not only a deepening of the channel but removal of the potentially problematic sand spur that was noted in prior reports. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/18 5/15 An emergency dredge was conducted in the spring of 2018, a few days before the image to the left was taken