IMEP # 137 - Part 1: Black Sea Bass and Tautog Reverse

[BlueChip]

IMEP #137 – Part 1: Black Sea Bass and Tautog Reverse
Artificial Reef Programs For Black Sea Bass 1975 to Present
Black Sea Bass and Tautog Reverse as the NAO Turns
"Understanding Science Through History"
A Case History of Habitat Reversal 1962 to 2012 – Winter Flounder – Storms And Cold
Black Sea Bass Thrive With Few Storms and Tremendous Heat
Viewpoint of Tim Visel – no other agency or organization
December, 2022 - January, 2024
This is a delayed report, December 2006 revised in 2012
Tim Visel retired from The Sound School June 30, 2022
Thank you, The Blue Crab ForumTM for posting these Habitat History reports
This is a delayed report

A Note from Tim Visel "Increasing Seafood from Reefs"
After any structure is placed into shore waters, decades afterward habitat researchers have reported upon its habitat services (succession).  Artificial structures, such as manmade reefs, platforms (including oil) boating facilities (docks wharfs) and shoreline erosion control board structures have all reported reef fish (See IMEP #35: Tautog Populations Collapse as New England Heat Builds 1985-1999, posted November 2014, The Blue Crab Forum™).  This newsletter referenced above reports upon the habitat services of two metal steel jetties that stabilized the entrance of Tom's Creek and some EPA Long Island Sound study discussions about habitat creation, modification and mitigation over a decade ago – 2006 to 2016 for artificial reefs (The Blackfish, Sea Bass and Scup Artificial Reef Plan).

How does habitat capacity interact with climate change?  That is the question being frequently asked in the mid Atlantic and Southern New England regions today.  A better question might be how does temperature and energy (storm intensity) change alters habitat quality and quantity.  To answer that question, we need to look at reproductive capacity of species that changes when sea water temperature changes.  This includes forage species abundance and the result when all four align, reproduction, temperature, energy and habitat quality upon forage.  I think we have no better example in New England waters than the black sea bass and tautog in our waters.  Tautog thrive in cold energized habitats while black sea bass do better in long periods of heat and little energy (few storms).

In the 1960's and even the 1970's, most of the black sea bass my brother Raymond and I observed were caught in our wooden lobsters pots in 30 to 50 feet of water in Central Long Island Sound.  When a wood lobster pot broke the surface and we heard the rapid tail slapping we knew that our lobsters were gone but handling these fish was even more dangerous than tautog (blackfish) and the dorsal fins were potential weapons and the gill plates sharp as knives.  The truth of the matter is black sea bass were scarce then, the shallow reefs held much more tautog in large numbers not black sea bass – it was also cooler.

Project Finfish was a 2009 Sound School proposal to the EPA-DEP Long Island Sound Study for building Blackfish and Black Sea Bass artificial reefs (Project Finfish March 24, 2010 HRI meeting T. Visel – also A Case History of Habitat Transition for Creation, Enhancement and Mitigation –September, 2009) which involved substantial changes in public policies towards habitat mitigation, creation and restoration for those purposes outside of only environmental protection.  Much of Connecticut's then environmental policy was the protection of coastal resources against pollution or development.  These policies did not align with programs to enhance species in new ecological niches or what is today termed a habitat bottleneck – the absence of sufficient critical habitats at certain life cycle stages.  In an effort to perhaps combine beach erosion (Hammonasset Beach as a case history) shellfish restoration (shell cutch programs for spatfalls) and artificial reef building to enhance fisheries may require changes in habitat restoration guidelines for habitat creating enhancement or mitigation (September, 2009).  This 2009 proposal is on the CT.gov website as a reference for The CT Shoreline Task Force and be found at Preserve The CT Shoreline as "Resource User Group Participation In The Coastal Regulatory Process – A Brief History," September 24, 2009.

Proposals dating back to the middle 1970's for artificial reefs were minimized by strong CT policies for environmental protection (T. Visel).  This was reintroduced by Chris Percy then President of the Sound's Conservancy in the middle 1980's September 10, 1985 and an Environmental History Review, 1988 Proposal to the University of Connecticut Sea Grant/Cooperative Extension Service August 1988) Sound School Publications Directory – and then revised in the "Natural Oyster Bed Report Westbrook, CT Shellfisheries" rekeyed November 2007).  The strength of the environmental policies were again reviewed (1989) as a constraint to habitat creation, modification and mitigation projects which included, dredging, wharf and dock construction, beach erosion control and shoreline structures to enhance fisheries were in general policy in opposition to the CT Coastal Zone Act (See "Resource User Group Participation in the Coastal Regulatory Process" September 24, 2009 – reprinted November 9, 2016 CHMA Banquet, highlighted these policies. This publication is on the CT Shoreline Task Force website.) 

Opportunities to mitigate habitat loss were missed as well as the some opportunities to create new or different habitats.  The emphasis on protecting existing habitats (no matter what the condition) would curtail artificial reefs projects in CT for decades.  The overall mission of CT Coastal Zone Policy was to protect coastal habitat from manmade impacts but tended to ignore climate patterns, rising sea level or warming impacts to them.  If habitat change was "natural" it was allowable (by what choice?) if not even the same basic energy/temperature parameters were applied to nature they were then heavily regulated.  This opens the discussions of scale and impact of natural climate events.  Hundreds of thousands of permit hours (both by applicant and Connecticut agencies) could be negated by a single natural event such as hurricane, rain/runoff flood damage or increased organic matter deposits after floods.  Storms may erode beaches, deepen coastal inlets or break barrier beaches – all today regulated (permit) human activities but "natural" events themselves.

The foundation of the Connecticut Coastal Zone Act and plan was the loss of tidal wetlands (many ordered filled in an effort to control mosquito vectored disease a century ago) and largely put into a regulatory format as reactive policies.  Habitats that once existed could be "restored" but habitat creation or proactive habitat modification or mitigation were connected to only to the lengthy permit process.  But natural events are not often permit "friendly" and dwarfs human impacts often to the same areas, coastal hurricane damage especially.  The combination of conservation (a good resource management concept) and protection has intensified the regulatory process for us but largely ignored sea level rise, climate change and habitat succession as there was no permit entity.  In simple terms "natural" was exempt from the permit process, in the early coastal area management process human activities require permits – for any activity even fishing.  The General Public is largely unaware of this because of pre-existing allowable general permit provisions that allows pre-existing fisheries, lobstering and trap placement to be exempt from the permit process, the same size structure (trap) to grow oysters would, however, now need a permit.

The basic foundation of the Coastal Zone Management policies was created in response to pollution or dredging activity, or human caused habitat loss.  When natural conditions changed (rising sea level, storm intensity or frequently, warming temperatures) the responses were largely regulatory and enhancing marine resources such as artificial reef projects were non-regulated or rarely approved.  Therefore, these habitat projects were slow to materialize as the emphasis became regulatory functions, such as habitat mapping, protecting wetlands and slowing human coastal development impacts to waterways.  Habitat creation did not meet Connecticut CZM goals (See Final Evaluation Findings - Connecticut Coastal Management Program, September 2006 to May 2014, NOAA Office For Coastal Management.)

Artificial reef building would be held up by the complex permit process for decades.  The decades' long effort to map inland wetlands and/or to identify rare plants in them was largely an effort to save wetlands from development.  Inland wetland maps were created and then integrated into regulatory statutes.

In the marine region, a similar effort is seen with the mapping of submerged aquatic vegetation (especially eelgrass), which started with maps but eventually incorporated into changes in the Clean Water Act legislation and then regulations based upon policy.

Mapping eelgrass was made possible by grants, many from agencies that have regulatory oversight with a focus upon protection.  Much of this effort included large public awareness outreach activities focusing upon habitat value while highlighting negative human actions.

It may be unrealistic to expect changes in the Connecticut's response to resource enhancement proposals (such as subtidal fish artificial reefs) until non regulatory responses are amended to include resource enhancement policies without habitat value discussions.  For example, in terms of artificial reefs, the placing of structure on flat feature less bottoms would create additional reef habitats for fish or crabs at the expense loss of flat featureless habitats or a possible loss for worms and benthic organisms.  The building of a timber fixed dock does reduce benthic habitats but creates off bottom vertical reef habitats.  The value of man-made driven pilings (even soaked in tar) was discovered as in the attempt to fill Hudson River acreage for a 1980's highway project in New York City known as "Westway."  It was determined that piling remains provided small striped bass, a valuable feeding habitat even though it was man-made and was once considered a contaminant.  In this landmark case, the applicant had to demonstrate minimizing habitat loss but was "quiet" to habitat increase from the vertical reef aspect of marine growths on the structure itself even though the habitat was tar covered pilings.  This discussion did come up during the initial Coastal Area Management discussions in regards to the oyster industry use of shell to enhance oyster spat falls/sets for other species know to benefit from shell fragments or "shell hash" but often failed to gain habitat value from losses in mud flat habitat.
This concern was the topic of my Ocean Policy Task Force Public Meeting testimony (Sept 24, 2009) that contained three basic proposals. 

•   At new national consensus upon increasing marine fish and shellfish (not just mapping or permitting) and gave some Sound School student project examples.
•   The need to define fisheries history and societal needs as the climate fisheries sustainability issue. (Species reversals in the same habitat space over time)
•   Fragmentation of Agency Jurisdiction – Permitting issues/policies that at times approach extreme conservation and protection policies.  Many times many agencies have overlapping and often contradictory policies.

The entire testimony is reprinted from the White House Hearing (Jennie H. Dean 2009) as appendix I.  (Press release Sept. 17, 2009 – Obama Administration Officials Release Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force Interim Report).

The concern for those habitat proposals that contain habitat creation, mitigation or modification is that they will result in a value assignment in all natural habitats – the trading of many habitat types or the perhaps purchase or sale of habitat mitigation "credits."  Thus, many efforts to assign natural habitat values as superior or "priceless" placing them beyond any habitat criteria that includes "improvement."  The frustration of those that want to build artificial reefs – are not provided a chair at these discussions because the basic regulatory format for these discussions do not even exist.  This can be observed in the research scientific literature – as exampled by the lack of technical guidance or reports for the positive effects of coastal dredging or habitat reefs services of fixed piers.  (This, however, was detailed in the New York City Westway Project.)  Fishers know that structure(s) are better fishing locations due to complex marine food webs – and predator prey interactions they often enhance.  Even some state agencies themselves have put forward the concept of artificial reefs decades ago.  The Connecticut Marine Recreational Fisheries survey 1979-80 Robert F. Sampson CT Dept of Environmental Protection Marine Fisheries (1980) contains this section:
"Boats and artificial structures appear to be more popular among anglers than natural sites.  A second reason for the popularity of boat and man-made structures is that these two modes, very simply are more productive.  Man-made structure particularly docks and jetties furnish natural even currents and back water areas which tend to attract fish."  Source Connecticut Marine Recreational Fishery Survey, 1979-1980 Robert F. Sampson Jr. CT Dept of Environmental Protection Marine Fisheries (1980).

But more than three decades later (2012) CT does not have an artificial reef plan Blake et all a 1984 Marine Resources Management Plan for Connecticut on page 20 section 2.7.2 Reef Construction calls for studying the "environmental impacts" of artificial reefs and contains this section which mentions a cautious approach considering the context of the CAM act for reef construction (CT Marine Resource Plan DEP 1984).  On page 206 2.7.2 Reef Construction (1984) is found the following segment:
"The construction of artificial habitat has the potential to increase commercial and recreational fishing opportunities, thus helping to achieve other objectives of the Management Plan.  However, such construction activities would have to be carefully studied to determine environmental impacts and options for the most feasible methods, materials, and areas for construction."
That was almost four decades ago.

The delay of reef building here in Connecticut has long disappointed the recreational fishing industry.  This is especially regarded as a missed opportunity – and the recent surge of black sea bass perhaps the best example of a loss of fishing for inshore fishers.  Tremendous black sea bass young of the year needed more "habitat space."  Artificial reefs could have provided it.  In a March 2011 "The Fisherman Magazine," Tim Coleman wrote on article titled "Where's The Reef?  A Woe Full Record: Still No Reef Program."  It is representative of many similar articles the delay in construction low profile reefs in Connecticut.  Unfortunately, some have taken the liberty to construct their own which I mentioned in an April 2011 report for the EPA Habitat Work Committee on page 2, a month after the Coleman article (See EPA-DEP Habitat Restoration Committee Long Island Sound Study – Updates To The Artificial Reef Report – April 2011).

The disappointment of the recreational and charter industries in fishing magazine articles often fail to identify the causes of such a delay.  Connecticut's environmental policies were so strict that any activity that was "unnatural" could impact "natural" conditions.  One of the serious discussion points of Connecticut's "Farmers of the Sea" like its terrestrial counterpoint farmers of the land – the oyster industry had a long history of habitat creation, (oyster setting beds) habitat modification – hardening soft bottoms, or mitigation such as predator control and hydraulic cleaning of silt with manifolds.  Having spent several days on the hydraulic starfish drill vessel the "Quinnipiac" in the middle 1970's the machinery used in oyster culture rivaled then any tractors used in terrestrial farming.   In addition since 1958 the "wet dredge" used in the hard shell clam industry had introduced the concept of marine soil cultivation – increasing pore size circulation, improving acid bottoms with shell hash and removing sulfide rich composts – sapropel.  These acted to improve clam yields as aquaculture (John Volk Report To The Legislature).  CAM (Coastal Area Management) discussions in the 1970's broke down over the impact of aquaculture to marine worms (See report to Adam Whelchel, The Nature Conservancy, Jon Kachmar,  IMEP #56: Old Saybrook Oyster River Habitat Conditions 1981-1986, posted Nov 13, 2015, The Blue Crab Forum™) especially sand worms that had "rights" under the proposed CAM legislation – eventually a compromise was reached not to include habitat rights but did not acknowledge any habitat services that were positive from oyster shell or marine soil cultivation.  I guess the best analogy here would these same regulations were applied on land – perhaps requiring a permit for each soil cultivation or impact statements for garden earth worms for terrestrial agriculture (shovels) we would starve?
The strict interpretation of this coastal legislation over habitat creation, modification or mitigation was to be in a permit/regulatory setting – not as a policy to enhance seafood production (fisheries).  This has greatly slowed artificial reef programs in CT (my view, T. Visel).   

When sea bass populations surged in the 1990's, the state was not prepared to expand habitats in shallow water reefs.  In fact, in the 1980's, black sea bass lengths for commercial fishing were 8 inches and no restrictions for recreational fisheries.  In fact in a 1984 DEP Study titled Marine Resources Management Plan for The State of CT 1984, it did not classify them for an independent section but mentioned in 4.3.2.1805 as other finfish on pg. 79:

"The Black Sea Bass (Entropristes striatus) ranges from southern Florida to Cape Cod and occasionally to Maine.  It is usually found on rocky bottoms and around pilings or wrecks in water from a few feet deep to 70 fathoms (these can be considered artificial reefs T. Visel).  It occurs in LIS and several thousand pounds were reported caught mainly in the central Sound by Connecticut licensed trawlers from 1977-1983. 
Since 1967, (after a decade of colder temperatures – T. Visel) less than 6,000 lbs have been landed annually except for 1983 when landings increased to 10,000 lbs."
(Connecticut's quota for black sea bass in 2022 was 237,449 lbs – a huge increase T. Visel).

In the 1980s, placing structure to enhance a species or several species did not enjoy conservation support.  One fear expressed many times to me that if one reef was successful and showed juvenile fish important to recreational fishers increased pressure for more would be soon to follow.  Some discussions had the topic that it was unnatural to place or build structure when before there was none.  I countered that with the organized effort to build osprey nesting platforms in salt marshes, or even the erection of bird houses were structures?  (That usually changed the topic quickly) (I once calculated the tons of grain per day that is used in bird feeders).  Another concept that stalled artificial reefs is that they just "stole" fish from nearby natural reefs.  This was described as the "one big rock theory" in the 1970's.   But I believe the real reason was the 1970's had begun the placement of tire (car) reefs which soon became more of negative factor than positive.  Although started with good intentions – creating more seafood and solving a solid waste disposal problem – old tires, it ended as a detriment and environmental condition that will take decades to solve.  It has been nearly 50 years from the first artificial reefs – composed of various materials.  Materials and monitoring has changed – we can assess habitat changes with SCUBA and video technology more easily today.

The Car Tire Reefs
In the 1970's as artificial reefs started showing larger amounts of fish, interest in recycling used car tires for them increased.  At first car tires were connected but later they would be cut into strips and bundled tightly to make a matt.  A thin metal bolt held these compressed bundles that in time corroded or failed releasing a fan like structure.  These strips of tires did function as a reef for a while – but often both tie points failed allowing thin strips of tires to become loose and wash up on shorelines.  In time some of these whole tire reefs became a nuisance, and what had started as a positive habitat effort (for fish) became a liability and the subject numerous negative press articles (See Scrap Tires As Artificial Reefs SW119 National Marine Fisheries Service US Dept of Commerce – under an interagency agreement US EPA 1974).  Instead of undertaking pilot studies millions of car tires were dumped – some containing cement.  They often did not grow coral (a prime reason in southern waters) or algae – or forage species such as encrusting organisms, such a mussels or barnacles – quite opposite with wood or concrete.  As the years progressed, concrete became the material of choice.  Concrete today is more favorably received and studies are underway that examine this opportunity.
A Middletown Press May 6th 2021 newspaper article titled "Swiss Cheese – Like Reef Balls Debut at Marine Max Open House In Westbrook" by Susan Braden – mentions concerns of placing non natural debris.  The article is about the Connecticut College reef ball project and contains this section,

"Students at the college construct the reef balls in June.  This involves fiberglass molds, each with a large central air bladder which creates the hollow void in the middle of the reef ball.  "Then you pour specialized reef safe concrete in, let it set overnight, and remove the mold, said Jason Krumholz foundation director."
"Many visitors to Marine Max told Trowbridge (A Connecticut College Official) "We could do this up and down the Shoreline she said) nothing they were especially interested in the fact that they could help with fish and oyster habitat."
"Do no harm"
"Krumholz hopes the results from the Connecticut College project will encourage the State Dept of Energy and Environmental Protection to grant more permits for reef ball and artificial reef technology in Long Island Sound.
He said the permitting process is lengthy and somewhat tricky in that the DEEP is reluctant as their policy is "do no harm" meaning they are hesitant to allow people to put objects in the Sound.
The fear is that should a manmade reef caused problems, removal could be difficult and costly, Krumholz said, "they don't want artificial reefs to be used as an excuse to dump trash or construction debris in the ocean.  Clearly that's not going on here."
But more than four decades later (2022), Connecticut does not have an artificial reef plan. Blake et al. a 1984 Marine Resources Management Plan for Connecticut on page 20 section 2.7.2 Reef Construction calls for studying the "environmental impacts" of artificial reefs and contains within this section, which mentions a cautious approach considering the context of the CAM act for reef construction (CT Marine Resource Plan DEP, 1984).  (To my knowledge, no reef studies were conducted after 1984 – T. Visel.)

The Black Sea Bass

But today, black sea bass have a length restriction of 16".  This excludes the aspect of "cropping" removal of excess biomass before that biomass can reproduce and diminish survival ratios or prevent stunting.  Populations that undergo rapid rise can stunt from forage limitations.  Fish stop growing because, quite simply, there is not enough food.
I often use the example of oyster industry instead of laying down dock dried shell or cleaning silt off setting beds but instead just dumped oyster larvae in the water?  The truth of the matter is you can have lots of eggs but limited habitat can create what is termed today a "habitat bottleneck."  The current literature refers to access reproductive capacity as "pooling over ages."  Another factor is growth of the habitat limited fish – fish that face habitat constraints grow slower (space and food) that without – the stunting impact found so often in the shellfish historical literature with clams.  Most aquariums owners have similar knowledge of these habitat limitations.

One the ways you can distinguish differences in habitat and biological clocks is competition – fish or shellfish occupy habitat niches with little competition space and food will grow rapid and length/age profiles biased against years of good recruitment – fish may increase in number but not grow enough for "legal length".   The resulting fish stunt and give the appearance that they reach reproductive status sooner but reflect on fish that grew slowly (length) but aged nonetheless – despite the lack of food.

This introduces the concept of "estuarine cropping" (Saul Saila) one of my University of Rhode Island graduate advisors.  (See Some Applications of Optimal Control Theory to Fisheries Management, Saila and Hess, 1975).
For instance, Addis et al. (Biological and Fishery Characteristics Of Black Sea Bass In Florida Nature Through 2010 – Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Sept. 2011) contains this segment:
"Female black sea bass reached sexual transition and maturity at significantly smaller sizes and younger ages in the southern area compare to the northern areas."
When waters warmed post 1972 in southern New England (a positive NAO phase), fishers over time would see this maturity stunt change.  Smaller fish would appear to have eggs as compared to the cooler periods, the consequences of increased reproductive capacity has its own habitat clocks connected to food, shelter or habitat availability to fisheries.  We can change habitat carrying capacity by increasing length limits, as larger fish consume more prey leaving little on the dinner table for the young.

It is hard to visualize this aspect as it opposes most management themes, but examples can be found in pond fisheries, (bass) and even lobsters.  When the habitat is fixed excess reproductive capacity is lost and at times is destructive.  (This is why anadromous fish do not all return at the same time – they would all dig each other's eggs out of the same habitat type).
The destructive nature of too many mouths searching for same morsel of food is often masked by climate changes as huge sections of the coast that once had marginal quality habitat now turns into "good" quality.  This is compounded by space and prey food, as black sea bass habitat quality improved its primary reef companion tautog would suffer a habitat failure freeing up habitat "space."  With "new" habitat and food black sea bass populations would soar.  Black sea bass would go from an occasional catch to an abundant creel/catch fishery.  If it gets cool again, and the last several winters seem to indicate that, tautog will rebuild and reclaim its lost habitat niche.  Reefs have certain prey opportunities and limitations resulting in fresh water "skinny bass" syndrome – there are just "too many mouths at the table" (See What Is Wrong With My Bass? Texas A&M University).

"The problem is an overpopulation problem for whatever reason the adult bass in the pond have successfully spawned but too many of the off spring have survived."
The author suggests thinning out the bass – so they will not have crowded stunting occur.  While thinning out is accepted in farming (for example, thinning carrots) so that remaining adults have space and nutrients from the soil – habitat capacity remains poorly understood in many fisheries.  With fixed habitat, black sea bass will rise and fall with habitat quality and opportunistic declines in habitat competitors – in this case largely the tautog.

Under this scenario, increasing the size of black sea bass to maintain populations has perhaps the exact opposite impact – increasing intra species competition on reefs as well.  The last good catches of a black sea bass population in this example would be all large with a failure or very poor young of the year counts.  Those fish that survived would be slow growing. 
The Connecticut history of sea bass catches indicates this "surge" just prior to a collapse.

A Marine Resource Management Plan for The State of Connecticut (1984) has this section on pg 79 regarding black sea bass.

"The peak period of commercial landings occurred from 1939-1960.  A record of 215,000 pounds were landed in 1957."
Within a decade, black sea bass populations would collapse in Connecticut.  This pattern signifies a return to low year class survival, but adults then surge just before a dramatic collapse.  It is important to remember that fishery researchers noted the arrival of adults in May in Rhode Island waters, but not the young.  Around 1900 that changed with seine reports of small black sea bass.  Within a decade swarms of black sea bass with sharp gill plates took apart Rhode Island fish traps.  In a 1916 report for Buzzards Bay by G.W. Field reported that in 1898 only 5% of the fish caught were black sea bass but by 1916 had grown to be commercially important (See IMEP #106: Small Black Sea Bass Shock Woods Hole Researchers 1900-1904, posted March 11, 2022, The Blue Crab ForumTM).

The best example of multiple stressors inshore is perhaps the 1934 year class of stripers.  The 1934 recruitment of stripers was exceptional but within six years were gone – thought to be the result of a forage prey species shortage as cold quickly returned to New England.  This colder period would break in 1972 and turn warmer in 1976.  As reproductive capacity fell in southern areas, the Hudson River stock became more significant, indicating habitat improvement in northern areas as waters continued to warm 1976 to 2001.  Warm waters, however, are subject to aluminum releases after acidic rains these conditions are very deadly to striped bass habitat.  The term "bottlenecks" and collapsing habitat suitability have been used more and more recently and may add support to at least investigating subtidal artificial reefs for black sea bass in Long Island Sound.  This effort would need careful monitoring and reports.
Most inshore fishers I speak with all mention the increase in reproductive capacity of black sea bass but without increases in habitat this excess capacity is lost to the fishery.  This has an economic aspect as well as mentioned in IMEP #36: Can We Build Artificial Reefs for Lobsters, Tautog and Black Sea Bass, posted November 3, 2014 on The Blue Crab ForumTM.  Black sea bass are known to consume large numbers of post megalops blue crabs and, at times, small lobsters.
Large Environmental Factors Influence Habitat Quality

After 1972, New England's climate started to moderate or become warmer.  Oxygen became limiting in very hot weather.  Bad smells in late August, once an occasional event, increased in shallow waters.  In some areas, a sulfide-rich compost increased because certain strains of bacteria break down marine plants, using sulfate as a source of oxygen.

If the 10-foot or less deep habitat becomes unsuitable because of bacterial sulfate reduction, oxygen depletion or nutrient enrichment – it matters little what we do.  We can take all the nitrogen out and if the waters are warm and oxygen levels remains low with sulfide – unsuitable conditions still result.  The waters can be cool but if habitats are covered by several feet of sapropel – shellfish sets will not occur.  Warm waters naturally contain less oxygen and very hot waters with bacterial reduction are lethal to most shellfish and finfish species.  This condition leaves few options for improving habitat quality – removing organic matter or adding structure to raise levels, increasing tidal flows (dredging) all permitting activities are options that remain.  It is perhaps the option of providing (increasing structure) that could boost black sea bass in what has been described as a habitat "bottleneck."  I have often mentioned in fisheries history/habitat newsletters that we could learn much from natural/environmental history and we have on huge opportunities for black sea bass.  If the habitat bottleneck is reef habitats we should be able to measure that in Long Island Sound because it contains huge areas of featureless bottoms or no reefs at all.

We should begin some pilot black sea bass habitat artificial reef projects as soon as possible – my view.
Black Sea Bass Returns to New England – The Concept of a "habitat bottleneck"
Dayton and Sala (2001) in their paper "Natural History, The Sense Of Wonder, Creativity And Progress In Ecology," Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jalla, California Scientia Marina 65 – Suppl 2 199-206 points to a negative position for natural history in roles for ecology.

"Despite its fundamental role, natural history recently has been ignored and dismissed.  It has been displaced, expelled from the ivory tower, and it is presently seen as less prestigious than other disciplines.  More than ever, ecologists study problems caused by human activity, but they study these problems in the absence of an understanding of natural patterns and often they ignore other science traditions, long term common sense observations, and their own scientific foundation of natural history."

But, I am more optimistic, perhaps, and reports about habitat observations from those that see these inshore areas – fishers will bring balance to a situation which in my opinion has become, at times, "extreme."  The ability today in exchanging observations has shifted the balance a bit to "common sense observations." Up until very recently we did not even ask the correct questions to some fundamental habitat concerns, or why protecting or conservation of habitats does little to ensure habitat stability or quality with climate change.  This is especially significant concerning the marine sulfur cycle.
This question has been asked many times about the policy of forest fire suppression (once a universal policy) to a better understanding of allowing huge amounts of dry forest duff during a drought.  More recent policies are tending to move from the universal policy response (suppression) to a more flexible approach and that energy (fire) had a role in maintaining grassland habitats.  Hurricanes (energy) are seen to play a large role in eelgrass habitat quality.
With black sea bass may be able to do both, look at habitat quantity and quality and the roles fishing managers have in resource abundance an understanding of fish on limited habitats and how habitat enhancement can evolve in a conservation and protection public policy era.

But first the term "Habitat Bottleneck" needs a review and describe what fishery managers mean when these terms appear in the fisheries literature – my view, Tim Visel.
Habitat Creation, Modification and Mitigation – Reef Balls, Shell Programs and Beach Nourishment
Habitat Values –

In an oyster research restoration project in the Pattagansett River in East Lyme, the placement of shell cultch was questioned as to impact habitat for silversides, the marine shiner.  After the Coastal Zone Act, the burden of proof or habitat value was taken from the states and placed upon permit applicants (persons wishing to perform aspects of work in the coastal zone).
In more recent times, the shading of marsh vegetation by structures and walking across or anchoring in eelgrass meadows have been raised as regulatory questions/activities based upon habitat types.  Shell placements on SAV is not allowed.  Aquaculture – Connecticut General Permit.  In guidance documents from the Army Corps General Programmatic permit guidance suggests Appendix C General Permit Standards – Aquaculture Terms and Conditions suggests procedures for oyster shell cultch placement.  Pg. 60, GP #16 Part 10.
CT General Permit is administered by the Department of the Army – our current permit is 84 pages long (effective date December 15, 2001 expires Dec 15, 2006 artificial reefs is found on page 31 GP11 (B) Coastal. (Several new general permits have been issued since then.)

It is easy then to determine how difficult it would be under this regulatory framework permit issues for an individual black sea bass artificial reef.  The public is largely unaware that all activities now need a permit – even activities that seem so casual or historical fall under a general permit that allows certain activities to continue.  Although many New England States have active artificial reef programs it was not until legislative changes opened for door to "living shorelines" a new term used to signify manmade structures – Public Act 12-101 was passed by the CT Legislature in 2012.

The NOAA Final Evaluation Findings Jeffery Payne 1/22/15 Connecticut's Coastal Management program September 2006 to May 2014 published Jan 2015 NOAA Office for Coastal Management (23 pages) on page 14 is found this section,
"In 2012 Public Act 12-101 passed, which referring the concept of "living shorelines" for the first time and provides a detailed explanation of alternatives to structural solutions and mitigation to structural solutions and mitigate measures.  The Act also authorized the creation of a pilot program to encourage innovative and low impact approaches to shoreline protection."
A Capstone proposal for The Sound School, which included ISSP guidelines – Can We Rebuild Our Lobster Fishery? detailed in 2009, was revised in 2012 following a communication from Peter Solomon, an expert diver, after a visit in southern waters.

The 2011 proposal listed on pg. 16 as question #2 "Can we build or demonstrate opportunities for increasing State lobster habitats – in deeper cooler waters, such as reef balls, or concrete rubble reefs similar to reefs built in Rhode Island."
A key component to a reef ball pilot (experimental) subtidal deployment is monitoring – most by SCUBA but also includes the setting of fish traps in and amongst the reef balls.  It is important to record the use of small fish in the reef ball field as we as the "edge effect" mentioned so many times in the historical fisheries literature.  We need to carefully monitor with live fish traps to determine food webs in reef ball projects – my view, T. Visel.

On September 20, 2011, Peter Solomon wrote me an email that stated "Reef Ball Question – Interest in Capstone Projects – Who is doing reef balls? The reef I was diving on this summer, we're using them." Mr. Solomon today heads up The Sound School reef ball project.  During the same time Jennifer Mattei of Sacred Heart University and Audubon Connecticut proposed the first reef ball living shoreline deployment to slow or halt catastrophic erosion at Stratford Point, CT – A pilot project was started in 2014 with 64 cement reef balls.  The concept was to break wave and current energy slowing and perhaps building sand amongst the deployment array.  The living component relates to the presence of encrusting organisms that mimic or natural processes.  This deployment was tidal, most if not all the reef ball were exposed to air during low tides.  By 2017, it was evident the reef balls were working.

The Sound School pilot started in 2018 with the deployment of 5 mini bay reef balls – 3 of which held remote set oyster spat.  These are subtidal and monitoring reports including underwater photography showing oyster growth and small fish in the reef are on line.  Several Sound School teachers have assisted this project (See Sound School Reef Ball Project Progress Summary and Future Plans – Peter Solomon, The Sound School, Summer, 2018).  The first two years monitoring have shown small black fish (tautog) and black sea bass utilizing the artificial reef.  A presentation to The Sound School Advisory Committee in 2019 documented fishing crab, lobster and conch in or near the reef balls.  This presentation by Mr. Solomon to the advisory committee resulted in an article by Captain Morgan, Madison CT Industry Committee Member, and titled "Edging Closer to Adopting the Concept of Artificial Reefs" 4/25/2019 – here is a section of that article:
"Through the years we have advocated for the development and use of an artificial reef program for Long Island Sound.  Similar programs along the Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico have been implemented and continued successfully for years.  So why not Connecticut?  New York has one even the final draft of the Blue Plan makes mention of artificial reefs being authorized when meeting certain criteria."

And further,
"It all started with the idea that reef balls made by the students and deployed into the waters adjacent to the school would have a positive impaction on the environment by restoring enhancing, and protecting the habitat," along with creating new opportunities for the recreational fisher, after much work that entailed some trial and error, reef balls were perfected to the point of being readied for their inaugural setting under a limited temporary permit.  Some were set with oyster spat, while others were dunked plain, leaving it up to the sea god to generate a living ball – and they did.

It is vital that any artificial reef is properly prepared by eliminating all potentially harmful chemicals and components before being introduced into the water.  The reef balls created by The Sound School are just that: safe and purposeful."
In 2020, a third reef ball project was approved with Connecticut College Professor Dr. Maria Rosa and Connecticut College students.  The site is on the Connecticut College property on the Thames River in an area of huge erosion (very similar to the Stratford Project).  In October of 2021 the first reef balls were deployed and a recent July 2022 deployment has reported to have now 150 reef balls in place (made by Connecticut College students).  During an August 2022 EPA Long Island Sound Habitat meeting Dr. Rosa reported phase one of the project will have 400 reef balls, she reported that black fish and menhaden have been seen in or near the reef balls under water.
The delay in establishing a reef program in CT For fisheries can be perhaps because many conservation policies tend to limit or oppose work in the coastal zone.  The Coastal Zone Act purpose was to do this and its regulatory response is designed for applicant's doing coastal work which may negatively impact coastal habitats, not applicants that want to enhance habitats. 

In Florida, for example, a US Coast Guard Buoy Tender has helped deploy student constructed reef balls – a recent video of this project is on the internet.

School projects for example may not have the financial resources to complete the standard structure/fill permit process.  In addition some coastal permits may require consultants and legal representation the usual process for the applicant under the current permit process.  Another reason for the delay (one mentioned to me many times) is that if artificial reefs are successful and enhance recreational fishing (like in other states) the demand for them may increase.  With the current permit process some might consider just building their own – unregulated and like tire reefs of the past with inappropriate reef materials.  That is a real concern and why perhaps like mosquito control the state should establish programs with Non Government Organizations to oversee reef building here in Connecticut.  An example of this is a small living shoreline project in Old Saybrook, which created stone piles and changed the location of a tidal creek.  Monitoring of the site could become part of a school's curriculum.  Years of data could then be collected as The Project Oceanology database in eastern Connecticut recently published, detailing decades of inshore fish and shellfish surveys.  Monitoring and reporting on grant supported proposals (especially those funded by EPA) will become critical as we seek solutions to habitat quality questions and opportunities.

High School Students See Opportunities to Restore Fish Populations
Environmental History Seen Key to Future Habitat Restoration Efforts
Timothy C. Visel and Barbara Mente
ISSP Fisheries History Projects at The Sound School
2010

"Will future generations of students work to restore fish populations?"  This question was posed to Timothy Visel recently by a retired commercial fisherman who owned a trawler in the late 1970's.  Tim responded "Yes, if they know what we have here in Connecticut."  "Then you must tell them because we won't be here," he replied.  This same question was raised time after time in a book titled River Keepers and responds to the environmental history aspect of dependence upon natural resources and the social economic connection between "habitat and livelihoods."

Connecticut's own environmental fisheries history, although dramatic, is not unique.

A national commitment to habitat fisheries restoration/protection, an important consideration for many species, is being formulated by NOAA, the National Oceanic Atmosphere Administration.  The idea for a National Fisheries Restoration Service was proposed during public hearing testimony of the White House Council on Environmental Quality – Ocean Policy Task Force in September 2009.  The present decline in United States commercial fisheries has attracted the attention of most of the national media during the last ten years.  However the early danger signals were apparent as early as the 1950's if not earlier.  As many of our national estuaries were declared "threatened" or ecologically damaged in the 1980's, smaller bodies of water provided early warnings of what was to come three decades later.  Those smaller inland coves, inlets and coastal bays felt most of what are called coastal developmental impacts and sustained critical fishery habitat losses.  Most of our commercially important species (Note:  recreational fishing economic aspect is included as an important commercial industry) are estuarine dependent; that is, they depend upon shallow near shore areas for some part of their life cycles.   Therefore, the loss or a reduction of suitable "inshore" habitat has often had a direct, yet delayed impact upon "offshore" fisheries.  It was this time delay that has caused the cumulative effect of gradual habitat loss to go undetected, first in the coves and rivers and then bays and sounds, except for possibly one exception -- anadromous fisheries.

Here, a direct cause and effect was visible and understandable to the public, the blockage of fish migratory paths usually by dams.  Evidence of these fisheries in decay was apparent as early as the late 1800's.  A special Connecticut legislative equivalent of a Blue Ribbon Commission issued its 1867 report titled, "Report of the Commissioners Concerning The Protection of Fish in The Connecticut River and Connecticut."  Much of the report is still valid today.

The inshore fishermen of the 1880's who fished bays and rivers knew how rich and productive these inshore areas were, they fished them day in and day out. Many had learned of particular fishing technologies from family members, especially the fyke net fisheries in eastern Connecticut.  Whether it was night spearing of flounder in Noank or the menhaden long haul seine fisheries in Madison or the smelt industry in Greenwich, these fishermen worked hard as the habitat was transformed and their fisheries declined.  Connecticut coves and creeks are not nearly as productive as they used to be and most commercially sustainable inshore fisheries such as bay scallops were largely gone by the 1910's.

Shell fishermen also realized how many species of other commercially important fisheries were dependent upon these shellfish growing habitats.  The concept of sustainability also was familiar to these inshore commercial fisheries, because they relied upon the seasons and for the fish to return.  Each year, in Westbrook alone, five fish trap companies worked the shore between Clinton Harbor and Cornfield Point to intercept the movement of fish. (Occasionally entire fish traps would be carried away by red jellyfish (Lion's mane) getting caught in the leader (1880's), still a problem in our state during warm weeks!)

In Madison, one catch of white fish "menhaden" was so great that pitch pine torches were set upon the beach at night; it took two days to empty the fish trap at Hogshead Point, which is now part of Guilford.

Environmental fisheries history is one of the ways that young people interested in rebuilding commercial fin fisheries can study fishing production here during the last two centuries.  For instance, the bay scallop retreated to the east as Connecticut's coastline developed. In fact, Norwalk once had a significant bay scallop fishery.  The pattern of declining fisheries could be linked to changing habitat and environmental parameters.  Most of the salt ponds and bays by the 1960's showed signs of oxygen depletion (hypoxia), although the cumulative water quality impacts were not realized until the Western Long Island basin itself went hypoxic in the 1980's. "Death by a thousand cuts" seems to be a good analogy for many inshore commercial fisheries that once existed along Connecticut's shore.

Just as the cause and effect of individual and large scale habitat changes were difficult to associate with declining fisheries production, the overall trends were not.  As inshore fish populations declined, active mobile types of fishing gears replaced static or fixed gear types.  The trend to active gears brought with it the associated impacts of by-catch, clearly documented in the 1800's fisheries of England.  Pollution of coastal waters also was well known in Europe and its damaging impacts on shellfish beds were well documented in the scientific literature.  The same history is available from United States Fish Commission Reports compiled by George Brown Goode, the first assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.

One of the best examples of this was our own Connecticut oyster aquaculture industry, which from a modest beginning in the 1850's, grew to be a world oyster culture leader by 1900, only to decline 98% again before the clean water legislation of the late 1960's. With the shellfish restoration effort in the early 1980's by the State Department of Agriculture – Aquaculture Division and the Connecticut General Assembly providing millions of dollars to restore formerly productive oyster habitats, within a decade, the oyster aquaculture industry and catches greatly improved. The resulting comeback of our oyster industry from virtual annihilation has many referring to it as one of the most successful restoration efforts of a fishery in this century.

Another example is fish run construction and the restoration of anadromous fisheries. Both of these are examples of technical guidance resulting in the positive impact of government agencies, industry and elected officials working together to rebuild a fishery population.

What about the individuals that fished in Connecticut's bays and coves?  Their fisheries are mostly gone though bay scallops still exist in Niantic Bay and Stonington. Occasionally, a reminder such as an old smelt gill net or flounder fyke, net surfaces in a barn or shed in Connecticut.  Usually made of cotton or linen twine and exposed to moisture or sunlight, they did not last very long.  Few made it to modern times.  Fortunately, excellent documentation exists in Colonial records, newspaper articles and U.S. Fisheries Commission Documents.  The Connecticut River Museum in Essex documented an entire fyke net fishery from Hamburg Cove a few years ago.  Over thirty fykes and hundreds of hickory stakes found in a barn gave us an idea of how productive our bays once were (Daniel Fish Trap Company).

Historic fishing reports and oral accounts shed some light on these inshore fisheries of the last century.  Information compiled today helps comprehend the extent of differences in fishery production today and yesterday.  Key to our understanding is the habitat quality that once existed to support these coastal fisheries.  A national effort to restore the nation's fisheries was the topic of recent testimony on behalf of the Sound School.

For a copy of the transcript of the Council of Environmental Quality Ocean Policy Task Force Public Meeting, contact Susan Weber, Outreach & Adult Education, at The Sound School.  You may visit the following website:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceg/initiatives/oceans/comm

National Fishery Restoration Service – Tim Visel

The Sound School is now considering several research and history projects for students.  High school students can help fill the void of understanding what we have lost here in Connecticut, under ISSP guidelines.  ISSP is one of Connecticut's oldest and most established high school programs for talented and gifted students, having been in continuous existence since 1967.  It is a program not only for gifted, but potentially gifted high school students as well.  It may include a seminar, an independent study project, a college course, a special Yale-affiliated program, or working with a mentor.


Appendix #1
Council on Environmental Quality 
Ocean Policy Task Force Public Meeting - September 24, 2009
Rhode Island Convention Center, Providence, Rhode Island
Testimony from Timothy C. Visel
Coordinator, The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center
60 South Water Street
New Haven, CT  06519


Dear Committee Members:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and provide testimony in support of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force.
My name is Timothy C. Visel; I am presently the coordinator of The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center, a public high school located in New Haven, CT.  Connecticut has a rich history of marine resource utilization, and our students learn about the proper use and management of natural resources in our state and the country.  My comments today reflect the experiences of high school students at The Sound School, part of the CT Vocational Agriculture Education System.  Two areas in particular I would like to provide comment are national policy and implementation.

In the past five years, our students participated in alewife restoration, monitored and tagged tautog, a native reef species in steep decline, assisted the Guilford Shellfish Commission with raising disease-resistant oysters for reseeding public oyster beds, started researching habitat quality for diamond back terrapins, and most recently, participated in a two-year project to notch the tails of female lobsters with our State Dept. of Environmental Protection.  We also have had several collaborative research projects with the NOAA Milford Laboratory in CT.  These projects include sea bass survival, scallop genetics, lobster growth and winter flounder recruitment.

The Connecticut NOAA programs, Undersea Research, Sea Grant and Northeast Fisheries Center have been strong supporters of our Aquaculture School.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Stewart B. McKinney Refuge has assisted several natural resource activities.  We find our students to be excited and enthusiastic about managing and increasing our marine resources here and across the country.  We have been extremely fortunate to have nine American Fisheries Society Hutton Scholars in the past six years.

However, it becomes quickly evident that despite the interest of our students and others across the country, we need a coherent national plan for fisheries restoration and utilization of marine resources.  We need it if future generations are to benefit from these resources.  Our current marine policy is highly fragmented, split between agencies, both federal and state, and to some extent, absent of clear restoration mandates.  The extent of the resource loss is such that a sense of urgency should pervade a national consensus around fisheries restoration.  Many feel the lack of urgency has been modified by our country's growing reliance upon imported seafood – something that dates back to the 1970's.  That is partially correct but does not paint the entire picture.  In many cases, we have lost fisheries resources because we did not truly value them and thought our resources were without limits.
Recommendations for National Policy Stewardship and Implementation 

-   It is difficult to be both educator and police at the same time; separate regulatory from research and education functions.
-   Involve user groups in management and restoration discussions similar to the foundation of the Soil Conservation Service at the local, regional and national levels; this fosters the stewardship role like the USFWS Duck Stamp Program.
-   Designate one agency to operate and fund a Fisheries Restoration Service.
-   The goal of the Fisheries Restoration Service should be to increase the nation's finfish and shellfish resources to sustainable levels by habitat mitigation, restoration and habitat creation so as to enhance habitat diversity, biological diversity and ecosystem richness.

-   Similar to the Training Within Industry Program of World War II, such a service would be a hands-on agency involved with the direct application of scientific and research principles.  It is to do the work, not just permit it to be done.  It is to conduct demonstration projects that aid both the understanding and wise use of natural resources.

The last two centuries have not been kind to US Fisheries.  Few states can point to improved harvests.  However, I am certain that we have the creative talent and young people to do the job.  I know that because I see them every day.  We need a national consensus to make it happen.  We need a National Fisheries Restoration Service.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your panel today.