HomeMy WebLinkAboutDMF Comment Letter Gill to Concom 9-26-22The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries
251 Causeway Street, Suite 400, Boston, MA 02114
p: (617) 626-1520 | f: (617) 626-1509
www.mass.gov/marinefisheries
CHARLES D. BAKER KARYN E. POLITO BETHANY A. CARD RONALD S. AMIDON DANIEL J. MCKIERNAN
Governor Lt. Governor Secretary Commissioner Director
September 22, 2022
Barnstable Conservation Commission
367 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Dear Commissioners:
The Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) has reviewed the Notice of Intent (NOI) by
Michael J. Gill to modify and expand an existing pier, ramp, and float within North Bay at 72
and 52 North Bay Road in the Town of Barnstable. The bottom of all proposed floats are at least
2.5 feet (30 inches) above the substrate over mapped shellfish habitat, at MLW. The project was
reviewed with respect to potential impacts to marine fisheries resources and habitat.
The project site lies within mapped shellfish habitat for northern quahog (Mercenaria
mercenaria) and softshell clam (Mya arenaria). Subtidal waters within the project site have
habitat characteristics suitable for these species. Land containing shellfish is deemed significant
to the interest of the Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.34) and the protection of marine
fisheries. During a shellfish survey conducted by David Ryan on August 27, 2022, American
oyster (Crassostrea virginica), ribbed mussel (Geukensia demiss), and northern quahog were
present.
The project site overlies salt marsh vegetation. Salt marsh provides a variety of ecosystem
services, including habitat and energy sources for many fish and invertebrate species [1-3].
MA DMF offers the following comments for your consideration:
• MA DMF conducted two field studies to assess the relationship between shading, marsh
growth, and dock design; these studies collectively indicated that a height-to-width
(H:W) ratio of 1.5:1 between the base of horizontal stringers and salt marsh reduced
shading and marsh loss relative to the typically required 1:1 H:W ratio [4-5]. Current
plans show a pier width of 4 feet and variable clearance between the lowest stringer and
salt marsh. Current plans do not meet the 1.5:1 H:W ratio recommendation [6]. MA DMF
recommends establishing a minimum 1.5:1 H:W ratio for pier decking across the full
extent that overlies the marsh.
• MA DMF recommends avoiding placement of piles in salt marsh vegetation to the extent
practicable [6]; habitat loss associated with piling structures may require mitigation at the
state or federal levels of the permitting process.
• Any activities requiring a barge will be restricted to 2 hours before and after high tide to
prevent barge grounding in mapped shellfish habitat.
• Fuel spills from refueling of construction equipment will adversely impact sensitive
resource areas. Impacts to resource areas can be avoided by prohibiting all land-based
equipment from being refueled on-site. If equipment is refueled on-site, adequate
containment and clean up material should be required to minimize impacts.
• MA DMF recommends that all staging and storage of construction equipment and
material be located on the upland side of the project site.
Questions regarding this review may be directed to Amanda Davis in our New Bedford office at
Amanda.davis@mass.gov.
Sincerely,
Amanda Davis
Environmental Analyst
MA Division of Marine Fisheries
cc:
John O’ Dea, Sullivan Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
John Logan, Emma Gallagher, Terry O’Neil, MA DMF
Doug Kalweit, Osterville Shellfish Constable
Robert Boeri, CZM
AD/eg
References:
1. Boesch, D.F. and R.E. Turner. 1984. “Dependence of Fishery Species on Salt Marshes:
The Role of Food and Refuge.” Estuaries 7(4):460-468. https://doi.org/10.2307/1351627.
2. Deegan, L.A. and R.H. Garritt. 1997. “Evidence for spatial variability in estuarine food
webs.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 147:31-47.
https://doi.org/10.3354/MEPS147031.
3. Deegan, L.A., J.E. Hughes, and R.A. Rountree. 2000. “Salt marsh ecosystem support of
marine transient species.” In: M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger, eds. Concepts and
Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology: Kluwer Academic Publisher, The Netherlands.
pp. 333-365
4. Logan, J.M., A. Davis, C. Markos, K.H. Ford. 2018. “Effects of docks on salt marsh
vegetation: An evaluation of ecological impacts and the efficacy of current design
standards.” Estuaries and Coasts 41:661–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-017-0323-1
5. Logan, J.M., S. Voss, A. Davis, K.H. Ford. 2018. “An experimental evaluation of dock
shading impacts on salt marsh vegetation in a New England estuary.” Estuaries and
Coasts 41:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-017-0268-4
6. Logan, J.M., A. Boeri, J. Carr, T. Evans, E.M. Feeney, K. Frew, F. Schenck, and K.H.
Ford. 2022. A review of habitat impacts from residential docks and recommended Best
Management Practices with an emphasis on the northeastern United States. Estuaries
Coasts 45: 1189–1216. https://www.mass.gov/doc/dock-bmp-
recommendations/download