The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About95 Eel River Road, Madden, Shellfish Survey 1 TO: Conservation Commission FROM: Natural Resources, Town of Barnstable DATE: April 28, 2026 RE: APPLICATION: Replacement, reconstruction and lengthening of pier with ramp and float (+/- 104 ft. pier) APPLICANT: Stephen F. and Annette V. Madden 800B Beach Rd, Apt 372 Indian River, Florida 32963 LOCATION: 95 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 13, 2026 from 3:00 P.M. – 3:40 P.M. by Shellfish Biologist Elizabeth Lewis and Shellfish Technicians Cecelia Dunham and Jessica Ciarcia of Natural Resources. Low tide occurred at 3:52 P.M. (height +1.0ft.). Harvest was done with a lined basket rake for all plots. 20 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 pier (Transect B) and out 62 feet from the beginning of the float (the last permanent piling). 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 (beginning of boardwalk to float 98’7”) 5ft 5ft Float starts 0 10 20 x 30 40 50 60 Transect: C B A X indicates float location and no sample taken Unfortunately, during the survey there was a strong wind out of the west making for harsh sampling conditions. We were not able to see if there were any softshell clam holes in the deeper plots and the tide was higher than what was noted on paper. Since the same footprint of the pier is being used, only areas seaward with the proposed changes were sampled. The substrate here was a little muddy with sand and rocks mixed in. The farther out from the dock, the muddier the substrate became with more organics mixed in. Quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria, were found starting at 20 feet from the last permanent piling extending out to 60 feet. A small, healthy population of larger quahogs were found, all over 2.5 inches in length. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: This proposed replacement, reconstruction and lengthening of a pier with a ramp and float lies within West Bay, DMF/SC22.0, is in year-round approved status, and is rated a 10/10 by the Natural Resources sub-committee. All ten members deemed this habitat as significant. The surveys accompanying this NOI by Dave Ryan was done 6 years ago and Megalodon was done 3 years ago and therefore are outdated, but can hold historical significance for those snapshots in time. The survey done by Mr. Caruso does not look at this pier individually as it should be since habitats can change drastically from one pier to another as is the case with this pier being less productive with a much different bottom than that of 117 Eel River. Any survey done, is one sample of data in a larger set. It is even more critical to look at the substrate and habitat suitability rather than the actual number of animals found at a site. This is even more significant when an area is regularly stocked and faces heavy harvest pressure throughout the year by both the commercial and recreational shellfishery, as is true with this site. A significant population was not found at this location. However, the area is heavily fished. 10ft. South North 3 Since we found mostly larger quahogs, the habitat is not ideal for smaller animals most likely, but it is incredibly suitable for stocking the larger animals that we grow. This has been done for years. That turnover from actively shellfishing this spot can increase the health of the substrate and keep this habitat productive. This pier, specifically, with an extension and proximity to the mooring field (first mooring is about 25 ft. away) will make it more difficult to get in-between the docks to properly stock the area for shellfishing. This is critical since the area is so heavily trafficked, it is integral that we supplement the wild population here. It is so close to a major landing and when people just begin to shellfish, since many classes are held at this location right next to this pier, this is where newcomers to the fishery are most comfortable going to start out. Some people literally only know about this spot to shellfish. We held a couple classes here just last summer because it is ideal substrate and habitat where we have so many softshell clams and quahogs making it easy to teach learn to shellfish classes at this site. It is also an easily walkable distance from the landing for our aging shellfishers. It would be further beneficial for access if the floating dock on site was removed seasonally as well. This shoreline, even with a pier extension, is still relatively shallow. If motorized vessels are newly allowed on piers along this shoreline, it should be written in the order of conditions that the boat must be park bow in. These motors getting close to the bottom can create excess turbidity stirring up nutrients and creating holes in the sediment where the motor sits, especially on minus tides. The larger concern coming from Natural Resources is that there is already a permitted pier in place that adheres to regulations. Changes to this will effectively challenge that regulation across the board when we are trying to balance building and the environment. Furthermore, this shoreline is a challenging one because of the current shellfish regulations mandated by the Division of Marine Fisheries at the orders of the Food and Drug Administration. As is the case with the pier at 117 Eel River Road, changes to the length in this pier would mean that well documented GPS points marking the edge of the piers and creating the mooring zone (which formerly had seasonal regulations) would change. Years ago, this mooring field was closed and lines were drawn strategically from the end of each pier to keep inside the piers to the shore open to shellfishing year round. This area has always been approved (with much negotiation). Up until last year, the mooring field itself marked by GPS with the end of the piers and the Bridge Street recreational area was even shut down. According to a recent dilution analysis and boat activity being heavily monitored, the mooring area can remain open year round. With changes in the length of these piers, and setting a precedent for other piers potentially, this changes the square footage of the mooring field making it smaller (same amount of boats in less water) leading to the potential to have not enough water for proper dilution and the area could close. While longer piers would mean more area to shellfish, it is not worth risking the entire area that was heavily negotiated. The mooring field is currently in approved waters, but it does not mean that can’t easily change since those boundaries are still in place. Studies done on dilution analysis to keep the mooring field open year-round would be invalidated because the area square foot has changed. Due to these reasons, Natural Resources firmly opposes this project. The potential ramifications that this project can have on a highly rated habitat, even without a current large population of shellfish, will trickle through so many aspects of the shellfishery for years to come. This 4 shoreline is why we have regulations in place for these sorts of projects and this needs to be thoroughly considered. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Lewis, Shellfish Biologist 5 …. 6