Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 Dredge Site Habitat Assessment 2016 Dredge Site Habitat Assessment Town of Southold – Beach-Dependent Species Management Program NYS DEC Piping Plover and Least Tern Site Monitoring __________________________________ Prepared By: Aaron Virgin and Christine Tylee September 2016 2 Background The following 16 sites were visited and evaluated during the 2016 breeding season (April 1 – August 15), as requested by the Town of Southold. Utilizing field observations and multiyear Google Earth® satellite images taken at 1,000 feet altitude on 6/19/14 and 5/11/16 each site is compared and contrasted over roughly a two-year period. This report has been generated to aid Southold Town in making future recommendations 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 indicate the areas needing 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 wintering 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 2016 Nesting PIPL 2009-‘16 Nesting LETE 2016 Nesting LETE 2009-‘16 NYS DEC Monitored Sites 1. Brushes Creek ü 2. Cedar Beach Creek ü ü ü ü ü ü ü * 3. Corey Creek ü ü ü ü ü 4. Deep Hole Creek ü ü 5. Goldsmith Inlet ü ü ü ü ü ü ** 6. Goose Creek ü ü ü ü ü 7. Halls Creek ü ü 8. James Creek ü ü 9. Little Creek ü ü ü ü ü ü ü 10. Mud Creek ü ü ü ü 11. Richmond Creek ü ü ü ü 12. School House Creek ü 13. Sterling Harbor ü 14. Town Creek ü 15. West Creek ü ü 16. Wickham Creek ü ü * Monitored by Suffolk County Parks ** A portion is monitored by Suffolk County Parks 3 4 High Priority Sites Cedar Beach Creek One of the most productive beach-nesting bird sites in Southold, Cedar Beach County Park once again hosted multiple pairs of PIPL and a small LETE colony. While this site is not monitored under the Town’s existing contract (monitored by Suffolk County Parks), three PIPL pairs used the site and all fledged young in 2016. Several pairs of LETE successfully bred as well. As previously reported, the orientation to prevailing winds and bay currents, as well as past dredging activities have created a breeding sanctuary to PIPL and LETE, as well as transient Red Knots and Roseate Terns, two species in peril, and more than a dozen other shorebird and tern species. For this report, June 2014 is compared with May 2016. Based on this two-year analysis, there was very little habitat altered and this was also observed in the field. Recommendation – if dredging occurs in early 2017, continue placing dredge material to the northeast of the inlet to continue providing excellent nesting habitat for PIPL and LETE. 6/14 5/16 Recommended placement of dredge material 5 Corey Creek Unlike prior years, this site was not active for breeding PIPL in 2016. In fact, there were occasional sightings of adult birds that chose to visit the preseason string fence, but none lingered to nest. The South Harbor section (west of the creek inlet) and Takaposha section (east of the creek inlet) were often visited by beach-goers, dog walkers, and fishermen during day, and a more rowdy alcohol-fueled crowd at night. This may have contributed to the lack of breeding interest at the site overall. As noted in the 2015 report and seen below, the eastern side has undergone a modest expansion of viable nesting area when compared over two years. Recommendation – continue placing dredge material east of the channel to increase beach- nesting habitat above high tide. Work with the DEC on allowing material to be placed on non-native vegetation in this area. 6/14 5/16 Eastern side less formed Expanding breeding area 6 Goldsmith Inlet While focus for this report is the immediate area around Goldsmith Inlet and Pond, the overall “mega site” continues east and includes Goldsmith Inlet County Park, Kenney’s Beach and McCabe’s Beach. The site also has the distinction of being the only dredge site on the north shore of Southold Town. While the area featured in the maps below did not have breeding PIPL and LETE in 2016, there were several areas of breeding activity to the east. Of note, a Killdeer pair was seen in the Inlet vicinity again this year, but it appeared the nest was predated and the pair may have nested elsewhere. Recommendation – continue placing dredge material east of the inlet as in previous years. Extensive dredging must occur to keep the Inlet open, especially since no dredging occurred in 2016 despite recommendations to do so in prior reports. 6/14 5/16 Tip of alluvial delta has expanded, resulting additional buildup to the jetty 7 Goose Creek This is the only site to be upgraded from “Low Priority” to “High Priority”, which is largely due to two pair of LETE observed breeding in 2016. As noted previously, the site would likely be a favored destination for PIPL and LETE, were it not for the throngs of beach bathers, dog walkers, and boaters. Field observations from 2014 and 2015, as well as this year corroborate the overhead views that show the channel quite deep from previous dredging activities. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/14 5/16 Prior channel sedimentation Improved flow due to dredging in 2013 8 Little Creek As noted in 2015, this site is a one-of-a-kind “wild card” that continues to surprise monitors to the area. Once again, two LETE pairs bred successfully on the south side of the creek channel, and were joined by two PIPL pairs – a first in more than three years. Observations of PIPL were made on the north side of the creek channel but none stayed to nest. As noted in the 2014 and 2015 reports, the northern side of the inlet continues to lose lower beach habitat, despite the areas indicated in the two maps below that show increased upper dune beach habitat due to Superstorm Sandy in late 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, and work with the DEC to place some material on areas of non-native vegetation. 6/14 5/16 Areas that benefited from placement of dredge material in ’12 and ‘13 A shelf is beginning to form and could be dissuading nesting PIPL and LETE 9 Mud Creek This narrow channel, which a pair of nesting PIPL occupied nearby in 2014, showed little change in potential breeding habitat for shorebirds. The area is popular with both beachgoers and boaters, and it should be noted that there is a large group of school-aged children that spend summers along this stretch of coastline. Of note, no PIPL were observed nesting at nearby Meadow Beach this year as well, however there were two active and successful pairs less than a mile to the northeast at Little Creek (see previous site report). Recommendation – the channel was observed to be quite deep on field visits throughout the summer and it does not appear that dredging is needed in 2017. 6/14 5/16 Suitable habitat diminishing Very little change in potential nesting habitat 10 Richmond Creek Unlike 2015, there were no PIPL observed for prolonged periods of time this year, nor were LETE observed on more than a handful of occasions. This is unsettling for a few reasons. First, the beaches on both sides of the creek channel continue to slowly expand and appear to be leveling out. That is, the slope is more conducive for nesting shorebirds. Second, the western beach was observed to be less popular with beachgoers, boaters and fishermen this year, which could be related to access and parking. Third, very few potential predators (crow, fox, raccoon, etc.) were noted on the western beach. However, all of these were present on the South Harbor or Town Beach section of the site. Recommendation – field observations noted a very deep channel and it is unlikely that the channel will need to be dredged in 2017. 6/14 5/16 Point building but not creating sufficient nesting habitat Deep channel noted in the field and in overhead view; peninsula forming, expanding the beach 11 Low Priority Sites Brushes Creek As noted in prior reports, multiple groins and bulkheads are extensive at this site. On multiple visits, PIPL and LETE were not observed, which is consistent with prior years. While the shoal that formed in the channel was removed in 2013, the material did not result in improved nesting habitat. However, within two years it has already reappeared and will need to be removed to help increase flow. Also of note, an extensive bulkhead exists northeast of the channel, which diminishes beach-nesting habitat while likely increasing erosion rates down drift. Recommendation – the channel should be dredged to increase flow of water and keep it navigable. Dredge material should be placed to the north as in previous years. 6/14 5/16 Shoal removed in 2013 helped improve flow of channel The channel is in need of dredging, as within three years has constricted. 12 Deep Hole Creek This site has been heavily impacted by shore-hardening (bulkheads), docks, and features a heavily used boat channel. Therefore, very limited beach-nesting habitat permeates at this 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 Creek 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. 6/14 5/16 Heavily eroded shoreline Beach nourishment has greatly improved potential breeding grounds 13 Halls Creek As noted in the 2014 and 2015 reports, the dredging in 2013 has left the navigational channel into Halls Creek open and clear. Occasional sightings of LETE occurred during weekly visits but no PIPL were observed. Recommendation – As noted in the 2015 report, “any future dredging activities must take into account the eventual buildup of dredge material along Downs Creek to the immediate east. Even though Downs is not a navigational creek, the ecological impacts from limiting or all together preventing the flow into Peconic Bay would greatly harm this highly functioning saltmarsh ecosystem.” 6/14 5/16 Improved flow due to previous dredging activities Sand spur has flatten and spread between groins 14 James Creek Unlike Halls Creek, this site has undergone very little change over the past decade. James Creek is a very active waterway due to an established marina further inland. 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 were not. Recommendation – none at this time 6/14 5/16 Very active waterway due to marina and consistent dredging 15 School House Creek Similar to other active channels, this site features an equally impressive and modest-sized marina. Likewise, bulkheads, docks and rock revetments exist adjacent to the channel opening and limit the areas where dredge material can be placed, this reducing the likelihood that improved beach-nesting habitat can therefore be created. Not surprisingly, neither PIPL nor LETE was observed during site visits in 2016. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/14 5/16 Very active waterway due to marina and consistent dredging Large amount of accumulated sediment due to groins on north 16 Sterling Harbor This site contains the largest and most active in Southold Town. Similar to the channels of James Creek and Schoolhouse Creek, where smaller marinas exist, the high activity of boat activity within a confined area does not present desirable habitat for PIPL and LETE. Combined with a more attractive site (Gull Pond West) less than 500 feet to the east, Sterling Harbor is a very low priority site. As noted previously, boat traffic (wave action in particular) and people exploring the peninsula are two major limiting factors in allowing this site to be a potential breeding area. Recommendation – none at this time. 6/14 5/16 Peninsula more defined and beach leveling, however waves (from boats) create large slope Very open, navigable channel was also confirmed from field observations at low tide 17 Town Creek This site is more emblematic of open water habitat than a creek ecosystem. It lacks viable nesting habitat due to multiple docks, bulkheads, and invasive species on uninhabited (by humans) areas, many of which feature some recreational pursuits, such as fishing, boating, swimming. It is at this confluence of several active waterways that severely impacts the promise of shorebird nesting within the area. That said, it has not been surprising that no PIPL or LETE have been seen over the five years GFEE has been monitoring the site. Recommendation – none at this time 6/14 5/16 Founder’s Landing – the only potentially viable area at the site for breeding PIPL and LETE A clear channel exists, which links Jockey Creek and eventually Goose Creek before emptying into Southold Harbor 18 West Creek As noted in past reports, any management decisions for this site should take into account activities at the three creeks (Downs, Hall, Deep Hole) to the immediate west. In 2016, as in previous years, LETE were noted foraging in the bay on many visits, as were Common Terns and the occasional Ruddy Turnstone. Recommendation – continue placing dredge material on the beach to the east of the Kimogener Point bulkhead to improve potential beach-nesting bird habitat 6/14 5/16 Sand spur is no longer present, thus increasing flow with West Creek and Peconic Bay 19 Wickham Creek Due to modest activity from the nearby marina, the area immediately around the channel presents very little nesting habitat for PIPL and LETE. In fact, this is consistent to with nearby Schoolhouse and West creeks to the southwest. Wickham Creek appears to be the same width when compared with 2014 images. The main difference is that the sand spur formed at the southern terminus has expanded with the assistance of the rock jetty. Recommendation – as noted in 2015, future dredge material (channel sedimentation and sand spur) should be placed to the south of the creek to help improve shorebird-nesting habitat. 6/14 5/16 Sand spur forming and appears to be slowly closing the channel Previously noted sand spur accreting behind rock jetty