Loading...
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