HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 Dredge Site Habitat Assessment
2017 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 2017
2
Background
The following 16 sites were visited and evaluated during the Town of Southold’s 2017
Beach-dependent Bird Species Monitoring Program (April 1 – August 15). Utilizing field
observations and digital images taken at or about (+/- one hour) known low tide, as well
as Google Earth® satellite map images taken at 1,000 feet altitude on 5/11/16,
evaluations and recommendations are given for each site. 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 nee 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
2017
Nesting
PIPL
2009-‘17
Nesting
LETE
2017
Nesting
LETE
2009-‘17
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 ü
4. Deep Hole Creek ü ü
5. Goldsmith Inlet ü ü ü ü ü ü **
6. Goose Creek ü ü 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
The above map was created in 2015 and is still relevant to the fieldwork conducted and
subsequent site recommendations for 2017.
4
High Priority Sites
Cedar Beach Creek
This site continues to be one of the most productive beach-nesting bird sites in Southold
Town. Once again the site hosted multiple pairs of PIPL and LETE in 2017. While this site
is not monitored under the Town’s existing contract, rather monitored by Suffolk County
Parks, it is known that at least four PIPL pairs used the site and all successfully fledged
young in 2017 (John Sepenoski pers. comm.). The LETE colony nearly doubled in size from
the previous year and successfully fledged roughly 40 young. As previously reported, the
orientation to prevailing winds and bay currents, as well as past dredging activities have
created a breeding mecca for PIPL and LETE, as well as favored stopping point for transient
Red Knots, Sanderlings, Common and Roseate Terns, and the occasional American
Oystercatcher. Two observations – one early June, one early August – noted that the
channel is very shallow and at low tide were difficult to make a kayak pass.
Recommendation – dredging should occur in early 2018 and placing dredge material to the
northeast of the inlet will continue to provide high quality nesting habitat.
5/16
(l. to r.) – PIPL exclosure in high beach habitat; shallow channel in need of dredging; mix of native and
invasive grasses within area where dredge material placed.
Recommended
placement of
dredge material
5
Corey Creek
Unlike 2016, this site was once again active for breeding PIPL this year. In fact, both LETE
and PIPL took advantage of the excellent breeding habitat. Of course, 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 our opinion 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.
5/16
A boat easily navigates through the wide and deep channel, where shorebirds
are often seen foraging and at times nesting.
Expanding breeding area due
to past dredge material
placement
6
Goldsmith Inlet
As noted previously, 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. After nearly a four-year absence, PIPL
nested successfully in 2017. Of note, a Killdeer pair was seen in the Inlet vicinity for the
third consecutive year but no confirmed nesting was observed this year.
Recommendation – of the 16 sites visited for this project, no site comes close to the
immediate dredging need than Goldsmith Inlet. On at least three occasions this summer,
the Inlet nearly or completely 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 occurred in 2016 and 2017 despite recommendations to
do so in prior reports.
5/16
(l. to r.) – all three images show a very narrow channel that is severely limited in exchanging water
from the Long Island Sound to the Inlet pond.
The inlet opening (mouth) is
sorely in need of dredging
with placement to the east
7
Goose Creek
This site continues to impress and in 2017 played host to both breeding LETE and PIPL. In
2016, the site was upgraded from “Low Priority” to “High Priority” due to the presence of
two pair of LETE that year. 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 -2017 show the channel quite deep from
previous dredging activities and a robust beach featuring suitable nesting habitat.
Recommendation – none at this time.
5/16
(l. to r.) – While both sides have expansive sections of beach habitat, PIPL and LETE (and humans) prefer the
eastern side.
Improved flow due to
past dredging efforts
8
Little Creek
As noted in 2015 and 2016, this site is unique in that productivity for PIPL and LETE
improves each year. In 2017, the LETE colony greatly expanded with nearly two-dozen
birds south of the parking area and south of the creek channel. Once again two PIPL pairs
nested – one among the LETE, another near the playground on a large section of dredge
material placed in 2013. No observations of 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, and work
with the DEC to place some material on areas of non-native vegetation.
5/16
(l. to r.) – A deep and broad cut is visible at the site, which has become a popular breeding area for PIPL and
LETE, as well as a foraging area for transient shorebirds.
An expansive cut
remains from the 2013
dredge project,
however sand was
placed to the south of
the channel
9
Mud Creek
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 this year and following an ominous trend of late, however there was
a modest LETE colony and two active PIPL pairs less than a mile at Little Creek (see
previous site report).
Recommendation – the channel was once again observed to be deep and navigable on field
visits throughout the summer, and it does not appear that dredging is needed in 2018.
5/16
Both images show a broad channel with limited nesting opportunities for PIPL and LETE due to step slopes
and encroaching beach grass.
Very little change
in potential nesting
habitat
10
Richmond Creek
For the second consecutive year there were no PIPL observed attempting to breed, and
only the occasional loafing LETE was noted, as were Common Tern, Ruddy Turnstone, and
Sanderling. We are pleased to see a continued flattening of the beach at this site. This
leveling out is occurring on the east side of the channel (South Harbor Beach) as well, and
seems to be contributing to the attraction of 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 consistent disturbance to potential
breeding birds.
Recommendation – field observations once again noted a very deep channel that will
unlikely not need to be dredged in 2018.
5/16
(l. to r.) – The flat nature of the beach habitat features encroaching beach grasses that stabilize the beach, but
also limit the amount of open nesting habitat for PIPL and LETE; the deep channel and expanding peninsula
where several species of shorebirds were noted in 2017.
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. 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 report noted the presence of a shoal, which was confirmed by field observations this
year. Removing the shoal will help increase flow in the channel and help the upstream
saltmarsh remain tidal with the Peconic Bay.
Recommendation – the channel should be dredged to increase flow of water and keep it
navigable. Dredge material should be placed to the north, within the various groins, as in
previous years.
5/16
The shoal that began forming in 2014 is still present and is inhibiting flow of water from the upstream
saltmarsh to the Peconic Bay.
The channel is in
need of dredging, as
within four years has
constricted and a
shoal has formed.
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 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 – this creek channel needs to be dredged for the purpose of navigation.
5/16
This site features a very active boat channel that is in need of dredging so as not to impede water flow from
Peconic Bay.
The channel is in need of
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
Halls Creek
Unlike prior reports, we are now pointing out an urgent need to dredge the channel at this
site. While an extensive dredging occurred in 2013, the channel is no longer navigational
(except the highest of high tides) and is no longer open and clear. Occasional sightings of
LETE occurred during weekly visits but no PIPL were observed, as is the norm.
Recommendation – As noted in prior reports, “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.” The same can be said of Halls Creek, as the ecological implications
of not dredging could be very detrimental to the saltmarsh upstream.
5/16
Both images show a massive buildup of sand that prohibits boat traffic at most times. It is also restricting the flow
of water with an extensive saltmarsh.
When the map is
compared with the
field images, it is
clear that most of this
sand buildup
occurred within the
last year.
14
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
were not.
Recommendation – none at this time
5/16
The site features a deep and fairly broad channel that is ideal for boat traffic. The shoreline, as noted in prior
reports, is armored with bulkheads and poorly constructed (and conceived) groins that greatly reduce
natural beach habitat.
Deep channel noted
in the field and in
overhead view
15
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 and LETE. To the south of the channel is a small
beach (35-40 yards) that has potential for attracting birds, however a closer look found
broken glass, fire pit remnants, fishing line, and miscellaneous debris that would provide a
negative experience for a visiting shorebird.
Recommendation – none at this time.
5/16
(l. to r.) – An active boat channel along with very little suitable shorebird habitat for foraging and feeding
exist at the site, therefore making it inconsequential to nesting PIPL and LETE.
A very deep
channel noted in
the field and in the
overhead view
16
Sterling Harbor
Considered the largest and most active marina in Southold Town, this site as could be
expected has high boat activity/traffic, heavily hardened shorelines (bulkheads mainly),
and very little suitable habitat for PIPL and LETE for foraging and breeding. It’s close
proximity – less than 500 feet to the east – to Gull Pond West, which is one of the most
productive PIPL and LETE nesting sites on the North Fork, solidifies this area as low
priority site. As noted previously, 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.
5/16
Both images show the high amount of activity the one section of suitable PIPL and LETE foraging and
potential nesting habitat this site contains.
The only area where
the shoreline does
not feature bulkhead
or docks
17
Town Creek
As noted in prior report, this site is more emblematic of open water habitat than a creek
ecosystem. 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 – none at this time
5/16
(l. to r.) – Town Creek as viewed the western groin at Founder’s Landing, which shows a shallow to
deepening channel; the southern portion of Jockey Creek where some marginal shorebird habitat exists.
Town Creek and
Jockey Creek
confluence
18
West Creek
As noted in past reports, any management decisions for this site should 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 all three to the west are in need of dredging this year,
while West Creek does not. In 2017, as in previous years, LETE were noted foraging in the
bay on many visits, as were Common Terns and various gull species. Single PIPL were
noted on two occasions and did not attempt to breed as reported by property owners.
Recommendation – none at this time.
5/16
(l. to r.) – The sand spit that was removed a few years back has not returned; a deep boat channel currently
can be observed; a bulkhead breaks up the boar channel from the beach proper at Kimogener Point.
A healthy deep and
wide channel was
also observed in
2017.
19
Wickham Creek
Consistent with other North Fork channels that feature small to modest marinas, very little
suitable habitat exists for PIPL and LETE. In addition, the saltmarsh contiguous with the
beach shoreline has featured a family of Red Fox in past years and it’s unknown if they
were present in 2017. This would further dissuade PIPL and LETE to nest at the site. A
sand spur that was noted in prior reports seems to be slowly expanding into the boat
channel and could be problematic in the near term.
Recommendation – none at this time.
5/16
The sand spur noted
in the 2015 and 2016
reports seems to be
expanding into the
boat channel