IMEP # 137 - Part 2 Lobster Fishers Built Cobblestone Reefs For Kelp

[BlueChip]

IMEP #137 – Part 2: Increasing Seafood From Reefs 1972 to 2022
Lobster Fishers Built Cobblestone Reefs for Kelp
"Understanding Science Through History"
Habitat Mitigation and Creation Can Produce More Fish and Slow Coastal Sand Loss

This is the viewpoint of Tim Visel – no other agency or organization

November, 2021
This is a delayed report
Tim Visel retired from The Sound School June 30, 2022
Thank you, The Blue Crab ForumTM for posting these habitat papers – over 300,000 views

A Note From Tim Visel

The Public Policy Component of Man-Made Reefs

After seeing the Florida artificial reef programs during my time at the Florida Institute of Technology, Jensen Beach, Florida 1973-1974, I returned to Connecticut with several proposals.  Most of the reef programs I was exposed to here were the granite groins built to slow erosion or the cobblestone reefs built by lobster fishers.  In the times of wood pots, to weigh them down when first setting in these traps, they needed a cobblestone until they "soaked in."  After a few days, the extra ballast was removed.  Instead of taking them back ashore, they were placed between natural reefs (Harold Dowd, Charles Beebe personal communications, T. Visel).  This made a habitat for kelp and became very productive for lobsters (See Appendix #7).  It was known that reefs with kelp were productive places to set lobster pots.  By collecting ballast cobblestones, they provided setting places for kelp that later held lobsters.  To me, this was "helping nature out," producing a particular habitat benefit for benthic species.  Although years of lobstering left the impression that any rock or cement rubble could also increase fish – we also caught tautog and black sea bass in our "funnel in line" Vincent Clark and Wilcox Marine Supply lobster pots on a regular basis.   We have other examples of such habitat benefit, the construction and placement of man-made birdhouses and later the telephone pole osprey nesting platforms in salt marshes.

In these cases, the effort was made to increase bird habitat/reproductive capacity.  They moved beyond habitat restoration (telephone poles in salt marshes "are not natural") to habitat creation or habitat mitigation.  An early form of habitat creation was the US Fish and Wildlife efforts to improve duck waterfowl habitats by excavating wetlands to hold more water.  This program (once nationwide) was largely a trading of habitat types, a wetland or wet soil habitat to a pond or aquatic habitat.  In the 1970's, public policies started to change towards habitat mitigation or habitat trading.  A growing conservation/protection policy came into importance.  Constant changes in environmental policy soon placed "natural" above other uses and evidenced by increasing environmental protection regulations in the coastal zone.  This policy interpretation slowed Connecticut's Coastal Program as it was one of the strictest policy wise. 

An August 2011 Final Report – Long Island Sound Dredge Material Management Plan on page 33 contains this segment:
"In general, the Connecticut Coastal Management Act, does not encourage the trading of habitat types.  For example, the creation of a salt marsh from intertidal habitat or creation of a dredged material island would not be encouraged although it is not prohibited if the adverse impacts to coastal resources are minimal.  However, restoring a salt marsh would be promoted."
Artificial reefs, unfortunately, came under this public policy change, mostly with permit procedures that ended with "application exhaustion" where agencies or applicants, after lengthy and complex reviews for permits, ran out of funds or interest.

Other complications include massive car tire reefs in southern waters that were largely dumps (these reefs now require extensive clean-ups) and the efforts to slow erosion after hurricanes.  These were human changes in the coastal zone that did not align with natural or non-disturbance CZA policies.  These policies came to a significant change in Connecticut with the Shoreline Task Force following Hurricanes Sandy and Irene.  CT Senate Bill 376 (2012) was signed into law June 21, 2013.  It opened the regulations to include the possibility of habitat change (See Appendix #1 & #3). 

These artificial structures close to shore are now noted as "a living shoreline" but involves, to some extent, habitat trading although not recognized as such.  On the federal level in 2019, the US House of Representatives passed the Living Shoreline Act.  It was co-sponsored by Connecticut Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal.

Although not exactly artificial reefs, it does provide some encouragement to those interested in enhancing reef fish and other reef species – my view, Tim Visel.

Structures and Fish

If you fished off a dock or pier, it would be hard not to notice that portions underwater contained much life.  Watching tautog bite small blue mussels and barnacles chew them and spit out shell pieces – I was amazed at these toothed fish eating in such a way.  I guess the concept of eating shell and all to get soft tissue was something you remember.  Year after year, I saw evidence of similar meals, a missing section of barnacles or mussels.  Sometimes, these wood poles would be completely stripped, only to reset again with barnacles and mussels the next year.  Between the barnacles and mussel sets was green algae – these areas held small cocopods (shrimp-like) and small fish feeding on grass shrimp.  One thing for certain, each wood pole contained many species, either by a direct habitat or one that provided a meal.  The wood poles each had similar growths and habitat.  This jetty had about 100 wood poles at the mouth of Tom's Creek.  In the 1950's, many shoreline structures were built after The Army Corps of Engineers finalized erosion reports (to slow beach sand erosion) post the 1938 hurricane.  When they were built, habitat was created for a whole host of organisms.  They became a great place to fish. 

Every pole was covered in marine growths – a huge vertical reef – or how one looks at this a vertical biological filter then by its existence now part of the carbon and nitrogen cycles.  At times, larger fish would come in and feed between these poles (vertical reefs) as a significant habitat feature.  These man-made vertical reefs would deeply divide the conservation and environmental communities wherein response to a fill project in New York City known as "Westway."  It was shown that abandoned creosote soaked piers (Hudson River) were an important striped bass habitat (See "Pier Area on West Side Called Vital to Survival of Striped Bass by Richard Severo, April 25, 1982, pg. 50). 

In response to a court ordered monitoring program to assess environmental impacts to the proposed highway dredge and fill project showed that large numbers of small striped bass utilized relic piers and edges of relic docks as feeding habitat.

(In a more detailed report to the Hudson River Foundation Grant #003/07A – by Thomas M. Grothues and Kenneth W. Able titled "Association of Adult Fishes with Piers in the Lower Hudson River, 50 pages)
In a July 1982 New York Times article titled "Outdoors, The Striped Bass and Westway," the Sierra Club had filed a lawsuit, claiming the Westway project violated provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and further:

"The most recent instance of this was the decision of Judge P. Griesa in Federal District Court in Manhattan late last month that blocks, for the time being, all federal funds for New York City's Westway Project.  Included in Judge Griesa's decision was the observation that state and federal agencies had conspired to distort the findings of a study completed in 1980.  The study found that the area of the Hudson that would be lost to Westway landfill was a significant striped bass habitat."

(See Sierra Club vs. Hennessy, 695, F20 64B, 1982)

Subsequent surveys of the piers along the west side of Manhattan New York City Hudson River have shown piers and relict pilings do provide substantial habitat services if not blocked to sunlight.  Several reports describe the "edge effect" for forage feeding.  The absence of sunlight prevents the growth of marine algal species important to the base of the marine food chain.  Some species, besides the striped bass, preferred dock and pier cover edges (eels) while others such as the tomcod relict piers were habitat significant (See Effects of a Municipal Pier on Growth of Young-of-the-Year Atlantic Tomcod: A Study in the Hudson River Estuary," authors Metzger, Anderson, Able, Bulletin of The New Jersey Academy of Science, Vol. 46, Issue 1, 2001).

An earlier court ordered survey of Pier #40, part of a $3.1 million study for the environmental impact statement found (1984) that from December to June, in just four months, 57,429 fish were sampled and 11,415 of them were striped bass (See New York Times article "For Stalled Westway, A Time of Decision" by Sam Roberts, June 1984).

On October 5th, Westway was cancelled, but this decision showed that despite heavy man-made changes (the structure of piers) that they (even soaked in tar) provided significant habitat services.
Developers and project supporters acknowledged the value of this habitat and had set aside 52.6 million for a type of "Cap and Trade" that included steel and concrete "fish houses" to be placed to mitigate habitat loss (See IMEP #95-Part 2: Striped Bass and Habitat Ranges – A Review of the Westway Project in New York, posted August 26, 2021, The Blue Crab ForumTM Fishing, Eeling and Oystering thread).

I never really thought about how structure added fish habitat until I saw the 1973 Florida artificial reef program.  Here, large pipes and chunks of concrete were placed to add fish and lobster habitat.  My lobstering experiences showed that even small rocks held fish and lobsters and miles of featureless bottom existed in Long Island Sound. My first proposal to build artificial reefs happened in 1975.  For nearly fifty years, my conversations about building artificial reefs were that simply "Long Island Sound is not a dump."  This perception is quite strong in Connecticut, which has one of the most restrictive coastal zone plans. Other views exist that rocky or structure habitat has not been diminished by human activity and, therefore, little incentive to create more structure containing habitats in exchange or instead of existing habitats.  Another important viewpoint is that habitat creation has little financial incentive because there is no cost mechanism to the development of reefs.  They do not replace natural habitats' loss by development and, therefore, there is no "pay to play" or, in this case, development fee, bond or permit fee assessed.

There is yet very little incentive to create reefs to increase fisheries as it would revive the discussions of the four-decade ago Westway project that human-created habitats also have habitat value – my view, T. Visel.

A Fish Restoration Service

During the 1980's, we had a New England Regional Marine Advisory Service group called NEMAS, and all the Sea Grant New England programs would meet two to three times each year to review projects – some were collaborative programs as with Connecticut's and "Sea Grant" positions were often funded by the "Land Grant" or Cooperative Extensions.  So, at any meeting we had a good representation of Regional Land Grant and Sea Grant programs.  During the meetings, we had breakout sessions and Sea Grant researchers met and so did the "field" agents, both Cooperative Extension and Sea Grant Marine Advisory.  We were the people "in the trenches" so to speak, working directly with fin fishermen and shell fishermen.  In the middle 1980's, Sea Grant Research drifted away from "applied," to more "basic" topics, some of which we could see little value to us, then the field agents.  At UMASS 1981-1983, I asked questions about MIT Sea Grant role in huge expenditures in underwater metal welding technology, for example, how could that help me in Massachusetts with shell fishermen soon facing shellfish closures from bacterial pollution, etc.  After many months, I was successful in redirecting some MIT Sea Grant funds for inshore fishermen's education, but it was small and nowhere near what I thought the problem warranted.  It's not to say our group didn't have differences – we did, as a group we didn't feel Rhode Island Sea Grant support of the "Rock Hopper Gear" was a good idea, it threatened so many unwritten fishing grounds between long liners and gill netters, but this difference never went public.

One issue that everyone agreed was the diminishing applied research and development role – funding Marine Advisory was getting less as we saw the need increase, as less and less support was going to us agents "in the field." I remember one Natural Sea Grant official coming into a Newport, R.I. meeting, and expressing concern at "our closed door" meetings, and that we were getting too close to the "user groups" and starting to advocate, not educate.  Looking back, he was right, but we were advocating more dollars for what we thought was a huge problem -- at the time, a lack of practical application.

Key to our restoration efforts was a strong "No discard policy" similar to WWII programs.  We thought that if the industry was required to keep undersized managed fish – (50% of market price) the policy would drive changes in gear technology – reducing the bycatch of undersized fish.  We had this happen in a small long line flounder industry here in Connecticut at the turn of the century, they just changed hook size.  I saw an opportunity to have the new USDA Aquaculture Centers house the proposed "Fisheries Restoration Service" as forms of aquaculture but got into the conflict of who was going to be the lead agency for aquaculture, USDA or NOAA, which was a huge topic (still is) no one wanted to talk about, especially those programs that had combined Cooperative Extension USDA and Sea Grant – NOAA appointments.  That conflict eventually led to some Cooperative Extension programs leaving Sea Grant years later, they are now housed in different locations.  I always felt that was a mistake, the food producing areas were the same.

Looking back, I doubt that such an effort would have gone far so many political problems existed and no one thought about the seafood consuming public or the huge discard problem – loss of food.  Although I had seen a massive artificial reef programs in Florida (1973) while attending the oceanography program (FIT) at Jensen Beach Florida.  New England artificial reef programs were slow to materialize.  Everyone was just saying "we will just import seafood for what we need," etc.   Perhaps the timing is better today.

A letter sent to Dr. Ned A Ostenso, Director of the National Sea Grant Office (of which I would meet many times over applied projects) about the value of and assistance to fishers.   The Narrative Accomplish Reports (NARS) I used to do for the USDA - # of bushels produced – dollars gained for the industry showing a "return" for dollars expended.  In later years, I termed these "fish in the basket" projects) about the trend of basic research from applied research in the late 1970's and early 1980's – the time I worked for the USDA and NOAA programs.

In 1981, then Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige, recommended elimination of Sea Grant Programs in FY-82 and I asked our group "if a commerce budget zeros out Sea Grant, how much do they really feel about the work we do?"

This segment is from The Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 123, Friday, June 24, 1983, Rules and Regulations (pg. 29133), concerning budget provisions:
   NOAA Programs –
"Several commenters submitted comments about programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  One commenter suggested that the Sea Grant College Support Program (#11.417) and Marine Pollution Research (#11.428) should be totally excluded from coverage under E.O. 12372 (Executive Order) instead of partially excluded as proposed."

And further:
"These programs generally involve research performed by non-government entities (which includes universities and colleges) outside the scope of the order." 
"In determining which programs are subject to the executive order, the Department has, as one commenter suggested, been guided by Section I of E.O. 12372 [programs that did not directly affect state or local governments, T. Visel].  While the phrase "directly affects" can mean different things to different people, the Department has attempted to be overinclusive."

Sea Grant surviving came down to who we helped and the value of our work did directly affect state or benefit local governments.  After obtaining some criticism, Sea Grant was quickly reestablished.
While basic research is very important, the concept of demonstration or pilot projects was underfunded along the coastal zone (my view, T. Visel).  Artificial reef programs were seen as a way to develop and monitor fish enhancement efforts.  Unfortunately, an immense federal response in the 1970's to coastal development had caused a tremendous change in coastal policies – one that prohibited coastal work without a permit.  At a time in which demonstration projects were greatly needed, few could acquire the permits under a dramatic transition from state and federal agencies conducting such projects themselves to applicants seeking coastal work permission.  This public policy change was a dramatic one to beach/shore erosion from sea level rise or storms.  During the 1950's, national flood and erosion control acts came from the Connecticut congressional delegation with Prescott Bush (R) cooperating with Public Law 685 – The Bush-McCormick Act, following several hurricanes and destructive floods.  Under this and similar legislation, coastal towns were authorized to establish flood and erosion control committees (boards).  The 1950's and 1960's were very destructive to Connecticut's shoreline with 1955 perhaps the most destructive.  While the Coastal Zone Act of 1972 provided a new response to erosion, many states, including Connecticut, had years of planning before Coastal Area Management Plans were approved.  Because artificial reef building is structural with changes habitat types and even though slowing erosion, they would require a lengthy permit procedure.  These shoreline reefs for holding sand, while not completely blocking energy (such as seawalls), were first proposed for Connecticut four decades ago.

In the summer of 1983, a Madison beach association, Lee Manor Association, made application to build a flexible barrier to reduce beach erosion.  That plan was to fill plastic tubes duplicating the reduction of energy by bottom (seaweed) kelp bands.  With a projected reduction in energy, sand would accumulate in the form of a sand bar.  That project was never permitted (See Appendix #9).  A year later, 1984, a section of Chalker Beach (Old Saybrook) seawall collapsed, eroding the beach and adjacent upland.  Coastal property owners soon realized the erosion policy had greatly changed.  In a March 8, 1984 article in the Gazette newspaper on page 17 Dona Pumphrey, representative of the Connecticut's CAM program, is quoted to a seawall question "There is no point at which the state would step in" and "it is CAM policy not to endorse any further development directly on beaches" and that under the present policy (CAM) "would not approve the development of homes on Chalker Beach if they were being built today."

The eventual result of Coastal Area Management Plans was to respond to a permit application (reactive) process than proactive or to conduct a project for erosion control or mitigation.  That role had been transmitted to applicants, such as for docks or piers.

This was especially true for artificial reefs, which until the Sacred Heart-Connecticut Audubon Living Shoreline project with reef balls to build a fringe reef and slow erosion in 2014 was the first such effort in Connecticut. (Three decades had passed since the Lee Manor Association proposal.)

This project was possible by a new section amendment #10 (effective October 1, 2012) directs the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to solicit proposals for site-specific pilot projects – a part of Senate Bill #376 Public Act No. 12-101 An Act Concerning The Coastal Management Act and Shoreline Flood And Erosion Control Structures.


Appendix #1
Communications - Sound School Reef Ball Project


From:   Visel, Tim
Sent:   Tuesday 9/1/2009   12:58 pm
To:   Heather Young; Harry.Yamalis
RE:   Comments for Habitat Restoration Initiative 2009-2010 Workplan

Hi Heather and Harry,

Thanks for the response to my work plan questions.

I have four areas to comment on and I appreciate the opportunity.  Time forces me to be brief (which is probably a good thing.)

1)    Shellfish and Finfish Restoration Policies – I think we need to develop some public policy guidelines around enhancing/increasing shellfish and finfish populations.  Almost all species require some organized intervention/work and Roger Williams University has recently published some encouraging work on reef balls, Dr. Mark Green at St. Joseph College has published research upon the impact of pH clam seed survival.  If we wish to restore or enhance populations we may need to create or modify habitats that support them.

2)   Monitoring and Restoration - projects need monitoring and several questions were raised last year about fish ways and evidence of returning fish were actually in streams that contained them?  The State of Connecticut used to conduct a fish census in streams with fykes but that ended in the 1950's.  That might also be an opportunity toward the stewardship component.  Monitoring should command as much attention as the restoration activity.

3)   Technical assistance and a quick response/approval process for small scale projects might be necessary.  With approval civic and education groups also need technical assistance where practices, equipment loans, etc.  Some groups wanted to set out a fyke net to sample alewife but none were available to loan out, etc.  Others need detailed information about sampling equipment and what information would be useful for others.  Others were interested in setting up spat fall records for shellfish sets.

4)   Long Term Fisheries/Environmental Histories if anything we need to devote more attention to this area.  So often the life span and environmental conditions have a greater impact than what we can do ourselves.  Included here would be biological constraints, such as disease, life history, habitat quality and weather (climate).  Fishery production trends over a century or more are required in order to capture the full impact of these parameters.  After the 1938 Hurricane here in CT hard shell clams set heavy along the four fathom line and prospered for decades.  Looking at 5 or 10 year production period (landings) doesn't pick up long term trends/conditions that Hurricanes create by modifying or eliminating habitat constraints as an example.  Habitat associations and tidal restrictions are other examples.

I hope this is a help.  Thanks again for letting me comment.




1.   Peter Solomon Sept 20th 2011 Reef Ball question –

From:     Solomon, Peter
Sent:   Tuesday, September 20, 2011   10:20 am
To:      Visel, Tim
Subject:   Interest in Capstone Projects

Who is doing "reef balls?"  The reef I was diving on this summer were using them.



From:     Visel, Tim
Sent:   Tuesday, September 20, 2011   10:00 am
To:      Sound-Aqua; Sound-Ag
Subject:   Re:  Interest in Capstone Projects

Students have been coming in to see some information in about Capstone projects.  At this time, I have materials/reports for three species,

Alewife
Blue Crabs
Terrapins

And information on a manufacturing project for a 12 foot blue crab skiff.  A second technology project is proposed for an artificial reef study, using "reef balls."  These reports should be ready in a few days.

Questions please see me.

Tim


2.   Tim Visel – Change in State Policy for Artificial Reefs – November 6, 2013

Sent:   Thursday, November 07, 2013   1:32 pm
To:      Thompson, Brian
CC:      Visel, Tim
Subject:   From Tim Visel to Brian Thompson

To:      Director Brian Thompson
From:   Tim Visel
Date:   November 6, 2013
Re:       Change in State Policy for Artificial Reefs – Reef Balls™ Fishery Enhancement

Hi Director Thompson:

I heard recently from a colleague that the state may reverse its long stance against artificial reefs, including Reef Balls™.

You may recall we had some students interested in a Reef Balls™ Capstone and video cam photography project a couple of years ago (July, 2011).

I remember something about a letter of permission or cooperation for the project but was a policy question at the time; can you let me know if this is true and it is indeed a major policy change?

In 1974-75, I proposed artificial reefs and again in the middle 1980's and more recently with the Long Island Sound Study – Habitat Restoration workgroup.

It would be a new fishery enhancement effort for the state if this change is correct.

3.   Brian Thompson November 6th Response – Nov. 2013

From:   Thompson, Brian (mailto:Brian.)
Sent:   Thursday, November 07, 2013   2:27 pm
To:      Weber, Susan
CC:      Visel, Tim
Subject:  Tim Visel to Brian Thompson

Tim,

We do have some flexibility for consideration of reef balls now in some circumstances.  There was a legislative change in 2012 that promotes use of "living shorelines" approaches for shoreline erosion control.  Reef balls strictly for the purpose of creating an artificial reef is not the intent, but reef balls could be a component of a living shorelines project.  Any proposal will still require careful review of benefits and impacts, including fisheries and shellfish.  If you have a proposal that you would like to discuss, please let us know.

Brian

Brian P. Thompson
Director
Office of Long Island Sound Programs


4.   Steve Joseph Reef Ball Permitting Oct 28, 2014

From:  Joseph, Steve (mailto:Steve.Joseph)
Sent:  Tuesday, October 28, 2014   4:10 pm
To:     Thompson, Brian
CC:     Visel, Tim; jkrumholz
Subject:  Reef Ball Permitting

Dear Director Thompson,

My name is Steve Joseph, I am a teacher at The Sound School Aquaculture Center in New Haven, CT.  Tim Visel suggested that I contact you regarding a reef ball project.  We currently have several students and parents who are interested in deploying reef balls in New Haven Harbor, close to The Sound School.

I am contacting you for any information and guidance you can offer to help us obtain the necessary permits/and or authorization for such a deployment.  I look forward to speaking with you.

Respectfully,

Steven P. Joseph
Admission Coordinator
The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center
60 South Water Street New Haven, CT  06519


5.   Response to Dibron Ambari's November 11, 2015 letter – Use of Reef Balls at Sound School


From:  Jacobson, Susan (mailto: Susan.jacobson)
Sent:  Tuesday, February 02, 2016   2:09 pm
To:     'Soundrovteam; Low, David; Visel, Tim
Subject:  Use of reef balls at The Sound School

Hi all,

I have been asked to respond to Dibran Ambari's November 11, 2015 letter to Commissioner Robert Klee regarding the placement of reef balls off the pier at The Sound School.  You have two options for authorization:

1.   Our new General Permit (GP), attached, will work if this 'experimental activity' is of a 'temporary' nature.  There is no paperwork for this process, you just have to comply with the GP criteria.  'Temporary" is not defined in the GP.  As long as you take the structures out when you are done, this process should work for you.
2.   Submit a Certification of Permission application if you plan on leaving the balls in indefinitely.  Application and instructions attached.  You don't need to worry about the details in the application and I only need a sketch of the location with a description and/or sketch of the reef balls.  We can waive the application fee. 

Please take a look at the attached and let me know which process works for what you have in mind.
Thanks,
Sue

Susann Jacobson, Senior Environmental Analyst
Office of Long Island Sound Programs
Permitting and Enforcement Section
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection


6.   Response from Dave Low, Ocean Engineering – ROV Team, February 2, 2016

RE:  Use of reef balls at The Sound School
Low, David
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:48 pm
To:  Jacobson, Susan (mailto: Susan.jacobson); soundrobream; Visel, Tim

Susan,
Thanks very much.  We will confer and get back to you soon.

Regards,

-Dave

David Low
Ocean Engineering
Sound School
60 S. Water Street
New Haven, CT  06519


7.   Habitat Restoration Comments Tim Visel – Breeding Tomorrow's Seafood Farmers by Lynn Fanton July 15, 2020 Aquaculture North America

Breeding Tomorrow's Seafood Farmers by Lynn Fanton
July 15, 2020
Aquaculture North America

The tide was coming in as four teenagers in full SBUBA gear approached what looked like a giant, concrete riffle ball.  Attaching it to a lift bag in unison they moved to 150-pound object out into Connecticut's New Haven Harbor then began swimming to their destination.  As they slowly deflated the bag, the ball sank eight feet to the bottom.  What really sets us apart is not only the comprehensive nature of our school but how much responsibility we put on the students says teacher Peter Solomon.

Take the reef ball project, for example.  When the fiberglass molds arrived, Solomon stepped to the side as the students read the manuals and reached out for support from the Reef Ball Foundation and Reef Innovations, which had donated the materials.  After assembling the molds (which required some troubleshooting since the first one broke) they created the dome shaped structures – a process of inflating a ball inside the mold and pouring a cement and oyster shell mixture in between.

Then they worked with another group of students, which had been spawning Eastern oysters, and put their finished reef balls in a tank for the spat to set.  Getting things done through and with other people in a lesson unto itself.  After deploys the reef balls at the restoration site, students used quadrats and transects to measure oysters, analyzed fish assemblages and collected data.  They also did water analysis so therefore the hard skills, says Solomon.

The reef ball project is only one example of the approach at The Sound School where students not only learn by doing, but by reflecting on what they have done.  Regardless of the concentration or project, Solomon says "Accountability is huge."


Appendix #2


      

May 18, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing in support of The Sound School's field research project that will restore an oyster reef in New Haven Harbor using Mini-Bay Reef Ball Modules (RBMs) and Eastern Oyster broodstock sanctuary cages.  This project is led by Sound School students who will be responsible for all aspects of the work, including reef ball construction and deployment as well as monitoring of the reef and maintenance of broodstock cages.
The GoPro Habitat Aquaculture Project Team at the NOAA Fisheries Milford Laboratory will serve as Advisors for the Oyster Reef Restoration Project, providing guidance as needed on strategies for field deployments of underwater cameras.  This may include suggestions for camera setting and deployment locations of the reef balls and for processing underwater video.  Our Team will support student efforts through periodic video meetings and emails and will provide a revised version of our field guide "Using underwater video to observe aquaculture gear in Long Island Sound – A Citizen Science guide" which shares lessons we've learned while deploying cameras and collecting video on aquaculture gear and boulder reef habitat.  The guide is being updated to include information on newer camera models, video software and one versus two camera deployments.
Success of this student project may result in a variety of positive outcomes including restoration of historic oyster reef habitats, improvements to local water quality, replenishment of oyster populations in New Haven Harbor, creation of habitat structure to increase fish and invertebrate biodiversity and species density, and enhancements to coastal resiliency.  Milford Laboratory is pleased to continue its longtime collaboration with, and support of, The Sound School.

Regards –
Renee Mercaldo-Allen, Research Fishery Biologist
Julie Rose, Research Ecologist
Gillian Phillips, Community Ecologist Technician

And the GoPro Habitat Aquaculture Project Team


Appendix #3
State of Connecticut
Senate Bill #376 Public Act No. 12-101
An Act Concerning The Coastal Management Act and Shoreline Flood And Erosion Control Structures

Section 10 (new) (effective October 1, 2012) (a):

"The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may, within available appropriations, establish a pilot program to encourage innovative and low-impact approaches to shoreline protection and adaptation to a rise in sea level.  Such approaches may include living shoreline techniques utilizing a variety of structural and organic materials including, but not limited to, tidal wetland plants, submerged aquatic vegetation, coir fiber logs, sand fill and stone to provide shoreline protection and maintain or restore coastal resources and habitat.  The commissioner may solicit proposals for site specific pilot projects utilizing such approaches and may offer technical assistance for such projects" ... "the commissioner may select no more than three projects per year to receive expedited regularly approval pursuant to Section 22c-363b of the general statutes as amended by this act."

Appendix #4

The Fisherman
March 3, 2011

A WOEFUL RECORD: STILL NO REEF PROGRAM
Why are southern New England anglers treated this way?

By: Tim Coleman



As anglers in southern New England view our fishery landscape, we see ever tightening fluke quotas, no repair to a 12-month cod fishery, a lost giant tuna fishery, and certainly not least among questions, why do all the other states on the East Coast have robust artificial reef programs and we do not?

EFFORTS TO DATE
Last year, I spoke with the owner of Bobby Js tackle shop in Milford, CT.  The man had approached the CT DEP about starting a program but was rebuffed for various reasons, probably because they didn't want to be bothered; this in a state that ranked 50th in fishery spending the last time I looked.

A reef system off the soft bottom of New Haven would surely be within reach of lots of small boaters in that metro area.  How about Niantic or New London?  Reef structures in the New London dump would attract everything from porgies to sea bass to tautog, all within easy running of small boats.


LOOK TO THE SOUTH
   All up and down the east coast, New York to Florida, states have been working to enlarge their reef programs.  This past winter, Florida Sportsman magazine published a four-page article on just the latest updates for all around the state.  South Carolina used to put up posters in various public areas proclaiming its reef system, saying "Artificial Reefs Equal Good Fishing."  Fifteen years ago, this magazine, using money donated by its readers, sank three wrecks just off Boston and Gloucester, which are still there today providing cod and whiting in season for those with small boats from Cape Ann to Scituate.  That project made us the number one reef producer in southern New England, more than the combined total of all three states. 

MORE THOUGHTS
   In 1998, this magazine also ran a story by Charley Soares about 45 reef balls sunk off the entrance to Buzzards Bay at a cost of $75,000 – a step in the right direction.  But the questions remain: are these open to the public 12 years later, and how many more have been built?


Appendix #5

1983 Annual Report
Habitat Conservation Program

Prepared by:
Office of Protected Species and Habitat Conservation
Habitat Conservation Division
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

May 1984

US Department of Commerce
Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John V. Byrne, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service
William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator



NORTHEAST REGIONAL ACTION PLAN ADDRESSES THREATS TO MARINE HABITATS

   The Northeast Region and Center have developed a Regional Action Plan (RAP).  They have jointly designed and implemented the RAP to identify, rank, and address future threats to the region's living marine resources and habitats.  This process represents the first permanent, formally-established link in NMFS between research and management for habitat-related issues.

NMFS PARTICIPATES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL ARTIFICIAL REEF GUIDELINES

   The NMFS Habitat Conservation and Fisheries Management staffs represented the Department of Commerce during the development of National artificial reef guidelines with four other Federal agencies.  A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), expected to be signed soon, encourages the proper placement and use of artificial reefs for the enhancement of fishery resources in order to improve recreational and commercial fishing opportunities in U.S. coastal waters.

   Artificial reefs, if properly sited and constructed, can greatly enhance marine habitats, by providing shelter and food for many valuable species.  The MOU focuses particularly upon the potential value of the approximately 4,000 oil production platforms currently offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.  It outlines a coordinated approach to the siting and use of non-producing oil structures as artificial reefs.  However, important legal and scientific questions must be addressed before extensive artificial reef development can occur.  These include the potential for obstruction of navigation and trawling, the liability for fishing gear damage, and the appropriate criteria for reef site selection.
   The NMFS Northeast Region has undertaken several activities to further interest and knowledge of artificial reefs.  These include the funding of a project to translate to English and summarize Japanese literature on artificial reefs, assisting the state of Delaware in organizing and acquiring funding for an artificial reef siting program, and co-sponsoring artificial reef symposia.

SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL PROJECTS REVIEWED AND MONITORED BY NMFS

   During 1983, NMFS reviewed and monitored proposed projects and permits potentially affecting living marine resources and their habitats.  The most significant of these are highlighted below.

WESTWAY HIGHWAY PROJECT, New York City

   A NMFS review of this $2.4 billion highway, landfill and development proposal for Manhattan's Lower West Side recommended against the proposed filling of 200 acres of the Hudson River.  The project site appears to be critical overwintering habitat for the severely depleted striped bass and a variety of other commercially important species.  Significant numbers of juvenile striped bass overwinter among the piers located at the project site.  The exact reasons why this area is utilized remains unknown.
   
Appendix #6

Article - April 25, 2019
Edging Closer to Adopting the Concept of Artificial Reefs
By: Captain Morgan, Madison, CT

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.
After a considerable amount of prodding and some proactive, but reasonable scientific-based presentations, meaningful headway has finally been made. For taking the initiative, we must give the nod to the Sound School's Aquaculture Science and Technology Center located in New Haven's Long Wharf district, led by its Aquaculture Center coordinator Tim Visel; the project manager, popular teacher, diver, and innovator Pete Solomon; and the students who jumped in to see the initial reef ball project from beginning to end.
It all started with the idea that reef balls made by students and deployed into the waters adjacent to the school would have a positive impact 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 gods 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.
According to an optimistic Tim Visel, we are happy to report that, through their efforts, the temporary permitting of reef balls has been updated. Recently, after an in-depth presentation of the school's comprehensive project to the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection and the Connecticut Aquaculture Division, their temporary permit was extended to 20 years with no limits on the number of reef balls deployed. This is a step in the right direction that can eventually lead to a successful artificial reef program for the state and our unique Sound. Thank you and to everyone involved whose hard work and dedication paid off.

Tight Lines,
Captain Morgan

Appendix #7

Harold Dowd, Local Lobsterman, Dies

The New Haven Register – Madison Section
September 9, 1971

In the death of Harold Dowd last week, Madison lost a colorful and beloved resident.  One of the last of the local commercial lobstermen, he represented an industry for which Madison was famed in an earlier day.  For many years Dowdy, as he was affectionately known, and his boat were familiar sights along the waterfront.

When it was decided that no commercial boats could be tied up at West Wharf, Dowdy fought the action vigorously, pointing out that the Wharf had been built for commerce and that all boats should be free to use it.  Although he did not prevail, he was given the special privilege as the only commercial fisherman allowed to tie up there whenever he wanted to.

He was deeply interested in the protection of shell fish in Madison waters against commercial exploitation which would deplete the beds.  For many years, he was a member of the Shell Fish Committee and when strict regulations for the taking of shell fish were adopted, he was named the first Shell Fish Enforcement Officer.

Appendix #8

ALABAMA'S ARTIFICIAL REEFS
By William Hosking & Hugh A. Swingle
ALABAMA SEA GRANT EXTENSION
MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA SEA GRANT CONSORTIUM
A SEA GRANT COLLEGE
ALABAMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
CIRCULAR CRD-23
MASGP-88-019

Alabama has some of the best marine sport fishing in the nation, largely because of its artificial reefs.  This habitat program is sponsored by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division (MRD).

   Alabama's flat, sand and mud Gulf bottoms are filled with a variety of fish.  But without coral or reef rocks to draw them, these fish are widely dispersed.
   The artificial reef works much the same as natural reefs.  Large objects placed on the Gulf's bottom provide surfaces where algae and other small marine organisms cling.  This improved natural habitat attracts small fish to both food and shelter.  Larger fish soon came to the reef to feed on these smaller fish.
   Alabama's public artificial reef program began during the 1950's.
   Other major additions to these artificial reefs have been made by using the concrete debris of old bridges that were placed.  The former Dauphin Island, Lillian and Perdido Pass bridges are now part of the artificial reefs.  MRD continues to increase habitat by creating artificial reefs.

William Hosking, Extension Marine Economist And Marine Programs Coordinator, and Hugh A. Swingle, Director, Marine Resources Division, Alabama Department Of Conservation And Natural Resources.


Appendix #9

The New Haven Register
August 17, 1983
Group Hopes to Restore Beach
Artificial Plan May Succeed
By Audrey Kane, Staff Reporter


MADISON – Lee Manor Association members can still remember the summer days before Mother Nature took away their wide expanse of sandy beach.

   They want their beach back, and have a plan to fool Mother Nature.
   The association plans to install artificial seaweed to – halt the erosion and reclaim their beach sand.

   "It's a trial case," said Tom Peterson, the association's Beach Committee chairman.  He believed no one else on the Connecticut shoreline has tried it.
   The seaweed project works like a snow fence, but would create a sand bar instead of a snowbank.
   Plastic "fingers" float from sand-filled plastic tubes anchored to the water's bottom.  The tubes would be placed in three, 200-foot parallel rows about 120 feet beyond mean high water off an area at the end of Lee Way.

   The moving "fingers" would capture sand that has been tossed towards shore by rolling seas and create a sand bar at its base.  In turn, the sand would prevent further erosion.
   Friends of an association member who visited here about two years ago "couldn't believe there was no longer a beach," Peterson said.  "They had heard of the artificial seaweed project in North Carolina and sent back literature on it," he added.

   According to the material, the high tide line moved 240 feet back from shore within a year after the fake seaweed was installed.  That beach was on the ocean, however, where more sand would be carried toward shore by frequent heavy seas, he said.

   Peterson Tuesday stood on a deck above the area that he remembers as the sandy beach he played on as a child.  It was low tide.  Below lay a few feet of wet sand.  At high tide, the waves cover the few feet of sand and lap the sea wall.

   "Frustrating," he said of the area, recalling the wide beach expanse of a few years ago.  "The beach went rapidly in the last two years."
   Carol Lirot, association president, said she has heard several members talk about the "good old days when we had a beautiful beach.  It's a challenge," she said of the proposal to regain the beach. 

   The materials are expected to cost about $1,800 and members would do the installation, she said.  "If it works, maybe we can interest other associations in reclaiming their beaches," she added.
   Association members will vote later this month on a special assessment of about $35 for each of the 65 families to cover the cost, Peterson said.

   He has submitted applications to the state Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers on the association's behalf.
   Notices of the application have been mailed to town officials and nearby residents with the notation that any comments they care to make should be submitted in writing by September 12.
   Peterson hopes to have state and federal approval by the end of September so the artificial seaweed can be installed before the fall storms and after the swimming season. 
     
     
Appendix #10

Rock Structures Used to Modify Storm Sand Loss

Old Saybrook Fenwick's Seashore – The Lynde Point Land Trust 2017
(See To The Point, Issue 2, No. 1, Spring 2017 newsletter of the Lynde Point Land Trust, serving the Borough of Fenwick, Old Saybrook)

Five years after Connecticut changed its approach to non-natural habitat creation policies.  The Lynde Point Land Trust took the steps to modify storm energy and slow or prevent beach loss.  A small tidal creek called Crab Creek had reduced flow, a previous dune restoration had been washed away, and the open beach front badly eroded from Hurricane Sandy.  In a 2017 spring Lynde Point newsletter "To The Point," Lynde Point Land Trust President Jessica Gay mentions a policy reversal.  "This "living shoreline" approach belatedly is being embraced by the DEEP and it is vitally important that we take advantage of their new perspective while we can."