HomeMy WebLinkAboutColliers Ledge memoTo: Barnstable Conservation Commissioners
From: Bill Hearn, Barnstable Conservation Commission
Date: October 11, 2024
Subject: Information regarding Coast Guard NOI for dredging Colliers Ledge
Following our October 1 meeting, I have re-reviewed the NOI materials concerning the dredging of Colliers Ledge. The proponent’s Supplemental Project Narrative does not adequately address
the question of the potential impacts to Marine Fisheries habitat. The preamble to 310 CMR 10.25 states:
“(1)Preamble. Land under the ocean is likely to be significant to the protection of marine fisheries and, where there are shellfish, to protection of land containing shellfish.1 Nearshore
areas of land under the ocean are likely to be significant to storm damage prevention, flood control, and protection of wildlife habitat.
Land under the ocean provides feeding areas, spawning and nursery grounds and shelter for many coastal organisms related to marine fisheries. Nearshore areas of land under the ocean
help reduce storm damage and flooding by diminishing and buffering the high energy effects of storms. Submerged bars dissipate storm wave energy. Such areas provide a source of sediment
for seasonal rebuilding of coastal beaches and dunes. Nearshore areas of land under the ocean also provide important food for birds. For example, waterfowl feed heavily on vegetation
(such as eel grass, widgeon grass, and macrophytic algae) and invertebrates (such as polychaetes and mollusks) found in estuaries and other shallow submerged land under the ocean.
When a proposed project involves the dredging, removing, filling or altering of a nearshore area of land under the ocean, the issuing authority shall presume that the area is significant
to the interests specified above.
When a proposed project involves the dredging, removing, filling or altering of land under the ocean beyond the nearshore area, the issuing authority shall presume that such land is
significant to the protection of marine fisheries and, where there are shellfish, to the protection of land containing shellfish and that it is not significant to storm damage prevention,
flood control or protection of wildlife habitat.
These presumptions may be overcome only upon a clear showing that the area or land does not play a role in the protection of marine fisheries or wildlife habitat, land containing shellfish,
storm damage prevention or flood control, as appropriate, and if the issuing authority makes a written determination to such effect.
When land under the ocean underlies an anadromous/catadromous fish run, 310 CMR 10.35(1) through (4) shall apply. When land under the ocean is in a designated port area, 310 CMR 10.26(1)
through (4) shall apply. When land under the ocean is land containing shellfish, 310 CMR 10.34(1) through (7) shall apply.
When nearshore areas of land under the ocean are significant to storm damage prevention or flood control, the bottom topography of such land is critical to the protection of those interests.
When nearshore areas or other land under the ocean is significant to the protection of marine fisheries or wildlife habitat, the following factors are critical to the protection of such
interests:
water circulation;(b) distribution of sediment grain size;(c) water quality;(d) finfish habitat; and(e) important food for wildlife.”
Please note that the above underlining is mine for emphasis.
Concerning definitions, 310 CMR 10.04 defines Protection of Fisheries as:
“Protection of the capacity of an Area Subject to Protection under M.G.L, c. 131, § 40:
to prevent or reduce contamination or damage to fish; and
to serve as their habitat and nutrient source. Fish includes all species of fresh and salt water finfish and shellfish.
See also the definition of Marine Fisheries contained in 310 CMR 10.23 (15)”
310 CMR 10.23 defines marine fisheries as:“any animal life inhabiting the ocean or its adjacent tidal waters or the land thereunder that is utilized by man in a recreational and/or commercial
manner or that is part of the food chain for such animal life.”
With respect to the effects of the proposed dredging of Colliers Ledge upon fisheries resources, I am attaching a species profile for tautog. That article makes clear the importance
of course material and eel grass as habitat for juvenile tautog.
I encourage you to spend a few minutes googling various word searches focusing onColliers Ledge/black sea bass fishing/ squid fishing/fishing Cape Cod/Nantucket Sound etc., and you will
find numerous articles indicating that Colliers Ledge is a prime or premier spot for fishing and harvesting these species. You will also find ample support that tautog are present at
this site. The NOI materials indicate that DEP mapping does not show eel grass present at Colliers Ledge. That seems understandable, given that it is 1.4 miles from our shoreline,
and I don’t dismiss Jacob Angelo’s observations of eel grass while diving at that reef.
It's worth noting that Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and comparable agencies in other coastal states engage in the construction of artificial reefs to enhance recreational
marine fisheries. I have attached links to two artificial reef articles. The attached article by Harrison and Rousseau (2020) states that “Nantucket Sound is largely comprised of featureless,
sandy substrate and is home to the state’s oldest and youngest artificial reefs.” It appears that they were unaware that Colliers Reef was “artificial”, because they cite their agency’s
construction and monitoring of an artificial reef constructed in 1978 in Yarmouth as being the oldest.MDMF has promoted artificial reef construction in Nantucket Sound because of the
very limited coarse substrate important to marine fisheries resources.
The age of Colliers Reef is unknown (Office of the Mass State Geologist (2004), however, given the rock’s similarity to the quarried materials comprising the Bishop Light House demolished
in 1952, it could well be a19th century deposition.
One last observation concerns the Tautog species profile which states (on p 15):
“Reef habitats that lose structural height are more prone to siltation (Rothschild et al. 1994) or burial by sediment movement. Briggs and O’Connor (1971) report that tautog avoided
estuarine areas that were sandfilled, as from shoreline sand replenishment. The decline in the number, distribution and structure of oyster beds (Rothschild et al. 1994) is another
threat to the estuarine habitat needs of juvenile tautog and other species with similar habitat needs (Chesapeake Executive Council 1994). The creation of new “reef” habitat by the
artificial reef programs of most states (McGurrin 1989) where the species occurs may be mitigating this habitat degradation to some degree.”
A couple of quotes from Rothschild et al. 1994) seem particularly relevant: “In addition to the substantial decline in substrate area upon which young oysters can grow, the ‘quality’
of existing bars must have also been affected. The reduced profile of oyster bars modifies the water flow near the oyster and presumably increases the deposition of silt on the bar.
… Relatively intense flow evidently mitigates the negative effects of siltation and biodeposition”
“It is reasonable to think that flattening of bar profile affects the dynamics of sedimentation on and around the bar.”
References:
Lukens, R.R. and C. Selberg. 2004.Guidelines for marine artificial reef materials.A JOINT PUBLICATION OF THE GULF AND ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSIONS. 205 pp.
Harrison, S. and M. Rousseau. 2020. Comparison of artificial and natural reef productivity in Nantucket Sound, MA, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 14pp.
Rothschild, B.J., J.S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, and M. Heral. 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Marine Ecology Progress
Series Vol.111 29-39.
Steimie, F.W., and P.A. Shaheen. 1999. Tautog (Tautoga onitis) Life History and Habitat Requirements. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-118. 29 pp.