HomeMy WebLinkAbout117 Eel River Road, Randon, Shellfish Survey 1
TO: Conservation Commission
FROM: Natural Resources, Town of Barnstable
DATE: April 24, 2026
RE: APPLICATION: Replacement, reconstruction and
lengthening of pier with ramp and float (+/- 114
ft. pier)
APPLICANT: Pamela Randon
38 Main Street
New Canaan, CT 06840
LOCATION: 117 Eel River Road
Osterville, MA 02655
REPRESENTATIVE: Arlene M. Wilson
A.M Wilson Associates, Inc.
20 Rascally Rabbit, Unit 3
Marstons Mills, MA 02648
SHELLFISH SURVEY RESULTS: A shellfish survey was conducted on April 21, 2026 from
10:00AM-11:10AM by Shellfish Biologist Elizabeth Lewis and Shellfish Technicians Cecelia
Dunham and Jessica Ciarcia of Natural Resources. Low tide occurred at 9:57AM. (height
-1.0ft.). Harvest was done with a lined basket rake for all plots underwater and by hand for dry
plots. 42 sample plots (1 sq. ft.) were examined for substrate type and shellfish. The plots were
located at transect intervals of ten feet along the centerline of the proposed pier footprint
(Transect B) and out 115 feet from the marked piling on the pier indicating where the relocation
would begin (end stake at 114 ft.). Two more transects were drawn with plots again at intervals
of ten feet, each plot 5 feet on either side of the center line as depicted below (Transects A and
C).
Town of Barnstable
Marine and Environmental Affairs Department
1189 Phinney’s Lane, Centerville, MA 02632
Derek Lawson, Director
508-790-6273 / Fax 508-790-6275
www.townofbarnstable.us
Animal Control 508-790-6274 Natural Resources 5 08-790-6272
Harbormaster 508-790-6273 Sandy Neck 508-790-6272
Marinas 508-790-6273 Sandy Neck Gatehouse 508 -362-8300
Moorings 508-790-6273
2
Shore
Bow on pier piling (B), beginning of proposed changes
Transect: C B A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
65
70
80
90
100
110
115
5ft 5ft
Plots from 0-30 feet were dry until about a half hour after low tide with plot 0 remaining
dry throughout the duration of the survey. These plots consisted of coarse sand with rock
mixed throughout and a few large rocks in the survey plots. From around 30 feet to 60
feet the sediment remained firm and healthy with sand and organics mixed throughout. At
65feet (in 14 inches of water) the bottom started to get tacky, but still firm enough and
had silt and mud mixed in. At 110 feet we started to see more mud consisting of about a 6
inch layer of silt, mud, and shack and this ran out to the end of the proposed pier at
roughly 115 feet from the bow on the pier where the proposed changes begin. This
marker means the actual pier and boardwalk are longer than 115 feet – this is just the
proposed changes to the existing structure. At 115 feet there is 28.5 inches of water at
low tide.
The intertidal area showed a significant population of softshell clams, Mya arenaria, and
presence of stout razors, Stout tagelus, extending out into the subtidal area (pictures
attached). These were not able to be confirmed due to the difficulty digging underwater
for steamers at depth. Commercial harvesters would use a pump to reach these animals.
Steamers were found in 6 of 9 plots that were intertidal. This showed a healthy
population with sizes ranging from less than ½ inch up to over 2 inches indicating
multiple year classes. At 30 feet, we also began finding quahogs, Mercenaria
10ft.
South North
3
mercenaria, mixed in with the softshells in a healthy substrate. Most of the quahogs
found (of various sizes and year classes) were found up to 80 feet. As the sediment
deteriorated after 80 feet, there was less variation in the size of the quahogs; most were
larger than 2 inches which is to be expected since it is most likely the quahogs were
present and the habitat deteriorated around them. Please see attached data sheet for
specifics.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Town of Barnstable Conservation Regulations: §703-1-I
“Docks and piers when placed in land containing shellfish or shellfish habitat have an
adverse impact on the resource area value of recreation. The placement, length and size
of docks and appurtenant floats can interfere with the harvesting of quahogs, soft shell
clams, and scallops. Docks and piers can have an unacceptable significant or cumulative
effect on habitat and recreation as defined in Section 14 of Chapter 237, Wetlands
Protection, of the General Ordinances of the Code of the Town of Barnstable.”
117 Eel River Road has a functional permanent pier that adheres to current conservation
regulations that balance homeowners’ rights and the rights of the general public and
consideration to the environment. If this pier were proposed as entirely new and not already in
place, it would be up for consideration as a seasonal pier since this is valuable shoreline. The
change in the footprint and not just an extension further disrupts habitat that has attempted to
recover from the initial pier installation. This area is situated in West Bay, DMF/SC22.0,
approved, and is rated a 10/10 by the Natural Resources sub-committee. All ten members
deemed this habitat as significant. Remember, this does not mean the area is without flaws, it
simply means that it is an important area both biologically and important to recreational and
commercial shellfishers. This is important to note since the shellfish survey done by Paul Caruso
stated that the rating should be lower; it is not given a value out of 10 based on the quality of the
area. It means all 10 people stated this area is significant for shellfish. The surveys done by
Megladon are only usable for 3 years and therefore cannot be considered valid. Additionally,
there was no attempt to look at the softshell clam population in these surveys. Since these piers
are separate, they should also be looked at separately and putting these surveys together to look
at the whole picture is actually doing a disservice to both the applicant and the environment.
Even with the piers spaced this closely together, the pier at 95 Eel River is significantly different
than the pier at 117 Eel River and they should be looked at separately. We cannot take hundreds
of samples into account and say there is limited shellfish in the area, when the actual footprint of
where the pier will be shows a significant population. Because there are samples outside of the
zone of the 117 Eel River proposal and the 95 Eel River pier was combined (which does not have
the same habitat), it makes it seem statistically that there is not a population. It is important to
note that statistics can be manipulated as was done combining these two sites.
Classes are regularly held along this shoreline and directly between these piers due to the great
softshell clam population and the short walk from a sizable parking area. It is regularly stocked
throughout the summer both for recreational and commercial shellfishers. A survey this time of
year reflects intense fishing pressure at the end of a winter when we cannot stock the area and the
4 classes that were held at this location over the summer. This area is regularly harvested both
4
recreationally and commercially so when the survey by Paul Caruso was done, it is just one
snapshot in time. Instead of presence of shellfish, it is more applicable here due to intense
harvest, the actual suitability of habitat for shellfish. This area is both great for wild steamers and
suitable for planting quahogs. The survey also showed a new wild set of quahogs on site. Since it
is somewhat cobbly along the shoreline, it historically was also used for planting oysters, though
the majority was planted further down along the shoreline. One of the major concerns with this
pier is that it would no longer be going straight out, it would be going at an angle and pinching
closer to the pier next to it. It is already difficult to get a boat in-between the piers for stocking
the area since they are so closely spaced together, this would make it significantly more difficult
with the new angle and smaller opening with the pier next to it. The angle of the pier only adds
4-6inches of water at significant detriment to the habitat and other stakeholders.
Arlene Wilson is incorrect stating this area is not open to shellfishing. In fact, great lengths were
taken to ensure this remains open and we have a delicate boundary set by the Division of Marine
Fisheries to adhere to the Food and Drug Administration Regulations. One of the larger concerns
here is that new regulations came out a few years ago with the definition of a mooring area from
the FDA. This triggered a response that mooring areas were shut down to shellfishing seasonally
when enough boats were moored together due to the assumption that fecal coliform counts were
higher from the increase in boat activity. In an effort to save shellfishing areas that are showing
clean water testing and should not be closed due to these new standards, a hard fought solution
was constructed with Harbormaster, Natural Resources, and Division of Marine Fisheries; the
end of the piers would mark the closure line and inside the piers would be approved for
shellfishing year round. The mooring field has now been negotiated to remain open; however,
the line remains there should this change. Inside the piers is approved for shellfishing regardless
of the mooring field. This is a state designated area agreed upon with the current length of the
piers. These pier changes with significant extensions give greater area for shellfishing and will
unfortunately expose the entire area to potential reclassification looking like we are expanding
the shellfishing area further into the mooring field. We would need to change our maps, GPS
points, and regulations to account for these longer piers. It further changes the dilution analysis
done by the state based on the current mapped area with a smaller square footage and the same
number of boats in that area which can impact open and closed shellfish areas.
This habitat is not only significant to the settlement and recruitment of shellfish, but also readily
stocked and accessible to shellfishers. It is used for classes and an area well known to even
novices. The shellfish regulations surrounding this shoreline only further complicates this
proposal and can have significant impacts throughout the shellfishery. These two piers should be
considered separately and independently of each other as they are significantly different in their
proposals. The private shellfish surveys should not have been done as one area to begin with.
Natural Resources is also looking at this project taking into account the cumulative effects of
these piers along this shoreline which makes it more difficult to work the area. The distance
between the piers here and sheer number is having the exact impacts on the area that is stated in
the preamble to the Conservation Commission’s own regulations. With all these points
considered, Natural Resources firmly opposes all parts of this proposal at 117 Eel River Road.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Lewis, Shellfish Biologist
5
6
7
Picture 1: Softshell, stout and mud
worm holes unreachable under water
in tackier sediment.
Picture 2: Healthy seed quahog found
in plot.
8
Picture 3: Seed softshell clam. New set of softshells showing nice settlement area. Notice
sandy/rocky substrate ideal for settlement of softshells, protected from predators
underneath cobbly shoreline