Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 1 Commissioner Sampou comments 5-26 hearing1 Cavanaugh, Kimberly From:Peter Sampou <psampou@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2026 7:06 AM To:Cavanaugh, Kimberly Subject:Re: Madden and Randon Statement Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Here it is, Kim: Madden & Randon piers The applicant’s agents have attempted to address several concerns that have led to Barnstable’s ConCom denial of dock projects in the past and I will argue that their effort to justify these dock extensions have not convinced me. Until recently, our denials have been upheld by our State’s judicial system; reference cases of Thomas Ryan (Superior Court Civil Action 2016-00012), Henry Comstock (Superior Court Dept. 03-222), Francis Keally (SCCA 03-223). The ConCom is required to evaluate, to weigh the evidence presented, on a case by case basis; do these two projects, the Madden and Randon dock extensions negatively impact the nearshore environment, the functionality of coastal ecosystems and/or detract from the public’s right to commercially and/or recreationally use the watersheet and underlying bottom below the mean high tide mark, and if they do, then we the ConCom are obligated by our Town’s bylaw and/or the Wetlands Protection Act to deny such projects. So, how is it that our TOB ConCom approves docks, floats, piers and their associated boats (hereafter lumping all three into the collective term docks) in our town’s waters given that there is an abundance of evidence in scientific peer reviewed publications and from Federal and State agency reviews that docks negatively impact nearshore environments (see Logan et al 2021; A Review of Habitat Impacts from Residential Docks and the Recommended Best Management Practices with an Emphasis on the Northeastern United States , Bliven and Pearlman 2003; A Guide to Permitting Small Pile-Supported Docks and Piers, Massachusett’s Office of Coastal Zone Management 2014; Report on the 2013 Rapid Assessment Survey of Marine Species at New England Bays and Harbors, the multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers in the 2 References/Bibliography of above reports and other peer-reviewed publications provided for the record. Well in a phrase common to Commissioner Abodeely, we have tried to “split the baby” acknowledging the truth that a dock will negatively affect the nearshore environment ecologically and/or recreationally, with a waterfront owner’s desire to have the privilege of a dock to access and/or berth a watercraft. ConCom attempts to balance these conflicting positions using information supplied by the property owner and their agents versus input from town experts; the shellfish biologist and past evaluation of Barns table’s coastal habitat, the harbormaster for navigational issues, town committees notably the shellfish committee, and information supplied by citizens and citizen organizations like BARS. If, to the best of our ability which is based on ConCom’s expertise and past experience, the net balance of the dock’s negative effect on natural resources and the public’s use of the land seaward from the mean high tide for fishing, fowling and navigation, is de minimus then we most often permit the construction and use of the dock. I will provide comment and analysis on 6 ecosystem and/or recreation related topics that pertain to the expansion of both the Randon and Madden projects before us. The first is the Town’s assigning this section of shoreline as highly significant shellfish habitat. What process did the Town employ to map our “Significant Shellfish Resource and Habitat Area Mapping Project for Selected Embayments in the Town of Barnstable”? A highly knowledgeable group of 10 individuals with expertise in shellfishing and/or the science behind shellfish habitat were organized by our Natural Resources office to assess shoreline habitat in the Three Bays Area. Having independent but expert opinion on evaluating, in this case shellfish habitat quality, is a well established process in a host of professional fields and is known as the Delphi method. Dr. Hearn provided irrefutable testimony that the Town’s method of rating shellfish habitat has a sound basis in science. Actually one of the sub-committee members is a person that Ms. Wilson herself hires to evaluate shellfish habitat quality, Mr. David Ryan. Additionally of note is the evidence and opinion of Mr. Paul Caruso (a biologist retired from Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries) which was provided in the applicants’ material. Like many in this case, Mr. Caruso thought that the Town’s habitat rating system was a sliding scale, rather than the Delphi method which allows either a yes or no on whether or not a section of shoreline has highly significant shellfish habitat. Given that Mr. Caruso “rated” this not the absolute best on a sliding scale of 10 he none the less did rate in the highly significant range (on a sliding scale) of an 8/9. So, Paul Caruso agreed with the other 10 expert members in the Significant Shellfish Resource and Habitat Area Mapping Project that this stretch of shoreline is highly significant shellfish habitat. 3 I would like to comment on what characteristics/properties make habitat in our town very good for shellfish and those that harvest them. We have testimony from our shellfish biologist, Liz Lewis, that there is a strong age class of softshell clams that have recently set on this very shore. She further supported the rating of this shoreline as a 10 out of 10 for shellfish habitat for multiple species of shellfish. Of course the presence of abundant shellfish speaks to a high quality habitat. But the absence of shellfish does not necessarily mean that habitat is poor; shellfish populations and recruitment are episodic by nature, and harvest by fishers can temporarily lower shellfish populations. If an area has had historically abundant shellfish populations then it should be assumed to be good habitat. Additionally, good habitat can be predicted from grain size analysis, the oxidized nature of the surface sediments and other physical conditions. Finally good habitat can be related to the ease of planting of shellfish by our Town’s shellfish propagation and harvest program in suitable habitat, gaining higher value due to the ease at which recreational shellfishers can access the area. These two dock extensions are being built in an area which has wonderful public access on Bridge St. in Osterville, so much so that shellfishing education classes are conducted here. The second is depth of water between the outboard engine and sediment at MLW. Blivens and Pearlman note that water which is too shallow likely results in propwash from the operation of motorize craft, but this should be obvious to everyone who has operated a motorboat in shallow water. We in Barnstable have evidence of prop- dredging/propwash in piers that do not have enough distance between boat motors and the underlying sediments (Bothwell dock in Shoestring Bay and others). Ms. Davis in her letter from the Division of Marine Fisheries warns of unavoidable and permanent impacts to shellfish habitat, propdredging when boats are operated in too shallow of water and recommends that the dock’s float have float stops at 30” above the sediment. Given the shallow nature of these sites, the proposed docks would have their floats up in the air at every low tide. In table 1 (Logan et. al) the Best Management Practices (BMP) lists Masschusett’s DEP recommending to its local regulatory agencies a depth of water under a float should not be less than 18” at MLW in habitat which is not shellfish significant. But, these two projects are in highly significant habitat so the recommendation is to have a minimum of 30” between float and sediment. Years ago, Barnstable’s ConCom realized that propeller scouring/propwash had a greater effect on surface sediments, turbidity and larval shellfish/finfish health than just a motionless float. So, we agreed that our local bylaw should not be less protective than the recommendations from DEP and we established a 30” separation between motor down (as it operates departing a dock) and sediment surface. Additionally, if we in the town hope to bring back the eelgrass beds that populated our southern embayments DEP BMP suggests a 48” depth below floats and their boats in 4 environments that have SAV. To allow these two docks to extend from shore AND still not gain access to depth of water with the 30” below the motor which we have for years required for shellfish significant habitat is an assault on all our shellfish significant shoreline habitat and can lead to a town-wide disastrous effect on shellfish resources. Thirdly, docks and their associated artificial hard substrate can attract invasive exotic epibiota (see references in the record; director P. Diodati 2009 letter, SeaGrant’s 2013 survey, Bulleri and Airoldi 2005 paper, Bulleri and Chapman 2010 paper, Glasby et al. 2007 paper. While Ms. Wilson did provide testimony that an invasive tunicate species were not present at either dock and provided three other articles (Bullard et al. 2006 not a peer reviewed article), the particular species of tunicates emphasized in her submitted papers were only one or two of 39 exotic species that the 2013 SeaGrant’s survey reported. This survey found that up to 31% of fouling in the region-wide survey were exotic species and their presence has increased over time. The proliferation of exotic species changes the environment, can alter ecosystem functioning and lead to significant economic damage. The peer-reviewed scientific papers put into the record along with their extensive cited references clearly show that ecosystem functioning and native species biodiversity can be severely impacted by invasive exotic species. Here at home, the director of MA DMF, Paul Diodati first concern in his 2009 letter relating to a dock in mapped shellfish habitat was that “ pilings provide structure for invasive species” and finished that letter with a warning that “ The continued proliferation of piers in Barnstable and other Cape towns could have a cumulative detrimental impact on the Commonwealth’s marine resources and could in time result in a much diminished population of marine species in these embayments”. My fourth point puts into the record information relating to the World’s largest fly fishing tournament, the Cheeky Schoolie tournament (CST) here on Cape Cod. I have been a fly fisher for more than 55 years and was a participant this year in the CST. It i s wade- only on walking accessible shorelines which means you can only fish from mainland Cape Cod-fishing from any island’s shore is out of bounds- see Rules and does pertain to these two docks projects and the proliferation of dock structures on Cape Cod. This is a new concern of mine, I hadn’t really thought about this impact before. Massachusett’s law gives citizens the right to fish, fowl and navigate up to the mean high tide mark. Fly fishing from a wadeable shore requires at least 25 feet of structure- less shore behind a person for the back-cast and coupled with the traditionally lighter tackle; line pound test of 15 to 20 pound tippet and a less sturdy rod means that a hooked fish does readily tangle/wrap one’s fishing line around sub-tidal structure like piles. So, one should not expect to land a sizable fish if hooked close to a dock. Therefore, the presence of a dock jutting out from the shore precludes one’s ability to 5 fly fish within a 50 or so foot (25 feet on each side of a dock) band of that shoreline. Docks, especially these docks which are close to public access parking, greatly limit a fly fisher’s ability to fish this section of a readily accessible shoreline. In fact in my 9 hours of fishing in the CST, at multiple sites in Barnstable, I did not see a single fly fisher along a dock studded shoreline. Docks have removed miles of shoreline in our town from shore based fly fishers. Fifth is the Town’s Open Space and Recreation Plan of 2018 and the status and future management of lands and waters within the Town’s borders. Section 4.7.3 Coastal Flood Plain and Resource Planning identifies the Town’s south facing coastal resources as very important and stated that the updated plan’s study area “contains important commercial and recreational shellfish resources and major public beaches, and is a popular sailing and power boating venue. The plan strives to balance the health and restoration of natural resource conditions with heavy demand for public access and impacts associated with water-based activities and structures. A key theme of the plan is providing access to waterways for traditional water-related activities such as shellfishing, fishing, swimming, boating and nature viewing:”. Section 4.9.3 Fisheries documents that 85% of the commercial quahog harvest comes from areas within the Three Bays and in 2017 2,760 recreational shellfishing permits were issued along with a controlled number, 47, of commercial shellfishing permits. Section 4.12 Environmental Challenges acknowledges that “Many of the environmental challenges that Barnstable faces result from the pace and location of land development over the past half century…...The need to plan for and address open space for recreation and resource protection has been a theme in prior town plans….. and remains one of the top priorities in Barnstable today”. Finally, under the summary section of our Town’s plan, Section 7.1.2 Protection of Fresh and Marine Surface Water Bodies, identifies “Barnstable’s fresh and marine suface waters are valuable ecological and recreational resources and are truly important ‘open spaces” used and enjoyed by the community. Heavy use of the water bodies and their shorelines, coupled with dense development in the watersheds surrounding them, can result in unintended degradation of vegetation, water quality and animal and plant life. The Town’s land use policies as well as strategies for open space acquisition and management should continue to protect the Town’s fresh and marine surface waters.” Permitting the Randon and Madden dock extensions is clearly in conflict with our Town’s Open Space and Recreation Plan. Finally, Logan et al. warns that even following BMP by a town, deleterious ecosystem and recreational effects can result in a dense build-out of docks along a shoreline. See the areal picture in the record of Waquoit Bay and the Child’s River to its west. I have paddled along the shore that has the high density of docks with their developed 6 shoreline and along the almost no dock or human-altered eastern shoreline of Waquoit Bay. The biodiversity, the health of benthic organisms, the vigor of the intertidal environment is sharply different: the Child’s River dock studded shoreline is an extraordinarily degraded environment compared to Waquoit Bay’s eastern shore. We, the ConCom, have an obligation to the citizens of our town and its natural resources to not allow such an environmental travesty to our estuarine embayments. The net effect of allowing these two dock extensions over highly significant habitat and in an easily accessible shoreline will most certainly have major negative ecological and recreational effects. It will not be de minimus. Therefore, this commissioner is firmly against allowing either Madden or Randon to add anymore to the docks they already have. On Friday, May 29, 2026 at 08:47:48 AM EDT, Cavanaugh, Kimberly <kimberly.cavanaugh@barnstable.gov> wrote: Good morning, Pete, Could you please email me a copy of the statement you read into record for the above hearings? I am trying to do the minutes today. Thanks, Kim Cavanaugh Planning & Development/Conservation Program Town of Barnstable l 230 South Street l Hyannis, MA 02601 kimberly.cavanaugh@Barnstable.gov P 508-862-4043 Please note my new email address above.