IMEP # 138 - Restoring Finfish & Shellfish Requires Habitat Studies 1972 to 2012

Started by BlueChip, June 25, 2024, 09:14:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BlueChip

IMEP #138 - Beach Nourishment and Sapropel Harvests of Dredging
Modifications of Healthy Habitats – Alteration of Natural Processes 1950's
"Understanding Science Through History"

The Long Island Sound EPA Habitat Restoration Initiative Guidelines – 2009 Page 6 
The Hammonasset Beach Erosion Problem Coastal Barrier Comments – Page 9
Habitat Transitions for Creation, Enhancement and Mitigation of Sea Level Rise – Part I
Restoring Finfish and Shellfish Populations May Require Additional Habitat Studies
Making The Case for Artificial Reefs – Part II
Habitat Creation, Enhancement and Mitigation HRI Policy Guidelines – Part III


H.R I. Comments from Tim Visel – Sept 2009 revised to 2012
Revised June 2021
Viewpoint of Tim Visel, No other Agency or Organization
This is a delayed report
Tim Visel retired from The Sound School June 30, 2022


[Addendum: Since the passage of CT Senate Bill 376 (Public Act 12-101), Connecticut's CAM policies towards habitat mitigation, creation and restoration have changed.  This report was developed after Habitat Restoration Committee discussions (EPA Long Island Sound Study) between 2007 and 2009.  For example, restoration guidelines for shellfish (oysters) first proposed in Connecticut's plan in 1978 were finally adopted in 2018.]

A Note from Tim Visel

This report was revised in 2012 for the Connecticut Shoreline Task Force, after the second hurricane Sandy hit Connecticut's coast within two years.  I was fortunate to have been able to take photographs of the coast with an Old Lyme, CT pilot Ted Crosby in 1988 three years after Hurricane Gloria.  Comparing these photographs (a series of Griswold Point photos have been put online taken by Mr. Crosby) with a 1934 series of Connecticut over flights provided me by Daniel Civco of the University of Connecticut it was easy to how barrier spits had changed and how much the shoreline had receded since the late 1950's.  Many towns of the 1950's had Flood and Erosion Control Committees to protect shore property.  (These were established after federal legislation provided studies and funds to control erosion.)

I was fortunate to grow up along the shore and witness how barrier spits had changed from nature (storms) and man, dredging and filling.  I watched Tom's Creek, Madison, CT, being dredged and groins built to stabilize the creek inlet, the place in which tides flooded and ebbed.  I also learned some of the history of a barrier spit erosion called the Dardanelles in Clinton Harbor (See IMEP #70-B: Clinton Harbor NAO Habitat series, posted July 26, 2019, The Blue Crab Forum™). 

My employment on the Cape for the University of Massachusetts Cape Cod Cooperative Extension Service soon put me into habitats with numerous barrier spits, bar, and barrier beaches.  Almost every Cape Cod town had a barrier spit, a salt pond or tidal river.  The 1980's was a period in which coastal inlets filled in and some areas nearly closed.  Many of these changes were the result of sea level rise and the "retreat" of the shore high tide line.  When after a long period of relatively "quiet" shoreline retreat, this report was submitted to the Connecticut Shoreline Task Force.  It is still on that website.

Introduction –

I had very little knowledge of barrier beach movements before working on the Cape.  I had passed the barrier spit in Clinton harbor for years not realizing what history of opening and closing this "Island" had.

Every river mouth was subject to the movement of sand.  When these habitats faced tide exchange restrictions fisheries declined.  When circulation was restored (most often by "breaching" closed spits) fisheries then improved.  One instance Green Pond in Falmouth was subjected to a sulfide fish kill which heavily impacted winter flounder populations.  (Conservations with Bill Bauknecht of Green Pond Tackle and Tim Visel 1982-83).  So many inlets, it seemed, were changing and people wishing to reopen them.  One of the serious signs of habitat decay was a building marine compost that smelled bad when disturbed.  Residents on the Cape wanted to reopen blocked tidal inlets.  This was confirmed by John Hammond, a retired oyster grower in Chatham.

In March of 1982 I conducted a dredging workshop as so many requests came in about barrier spits and opening up closed salt ponds.  This workshop soon exposed a conflict between those Cape Cod residents who lived on Cape Cod after the 1938 Hurricane and those who were relatively new to the region.

From the comments of workshop attendees, the barrier spits and breaches were filling up faster – necessitating more dredging.  But dredging was somewhat controversial on the Cape, a remnant of years of conservation effort to save remaining salt marshes which started in the 1960's as the recreational boating industry grew quickly.  Efforts on the Cape included slowing the longshore drift of sand, inlet stabilization and just dredging out closed spits.  The concepts of mitigation, restoration and creation were all discussed.  Habitat creation today is often called beach nourishment. This happened along Hammonasset Beach in the 1960's.  I watched a dredge operation pump sand onto the beach for weeks.

(In 2018, dredged material from a Housatonic River dredging project was placed at West Beach Hammonasset State Park, postponing a possible break at where Dowd's Creek used to exit.  The original text here, however, is from 2009, 2012 or June 2021 as noted.)

When the Connecticut Coastal Area Management Plan was finalized in 1978 (See Appendix #5).  Shellfish restoration guidelines were to be established as a priority area (1978 to 1981).  The guidelines were finally written in 2018 four decades later and can be found on the Long Island Sound EPA website, section 7: Natural Shellfish Beds Version 1.0 August 2018 – Long Island Sound Habitat Restoration Initiative.  Connecticut was slow to encourage shellfish restoration or habitat creation for many decades.  I believe this was the result of a public policy derived from anti-dredging policies and the belief that most, if not all, bottom disturbances were negative habitat outcomes.  This is not the case for most tidal habitats.  Tim Visel, June 2021

Introduction - Barrier Beaches and Inlets – Hammonasset Beach Erosion

Hammonasset Beach located in Madison, Connecticut is an active and large barrier beach system.  Its watershed and tidal wetlands/salt ponds have been significantly changed since colonial times.  Today, the barrier beach extends from Webster Point, Madison to the eastern tip of what is called Cedar Island, Clinton.  The Hammonasset

(*Please note as of September 2009, no committee consensus has been reached in terms of habitat modification in terms of building or restoring habitat capacity for reef fish or shellfish.  The view expressed here is not the EPA Habitat Workgroup for protection or shoreline or creating new habitat for fish or shellfish.  The viewpoint expressed here is that of Tim Visel – no other agency or organization.)

Barrier Beach once contained two barrier inlets, one east of the center of what can be called the main breach and a smaller barrier breach system which formed Sandy or (today) Cedar Island.  The two inlets were called Dowd's Creek at Hammonasset and at Clinton Harbor, "the Dardanells" as the inlet was locally known.  (The term barrier beach inlet is a rather new term, so colonial and historical references that referred to creeks in fact functioned more like episodic barrier inlets, frequently opening and closing during storm events, as a breach or hole.)

The shape of Hammonasset Beach itself is determined by geologic history, the glacial period and terminal/recessional marines.  Its bowl-like feature sets the stage for classic barrier inlet formation, a split in the sediment transport system or littoral drift.  This split can be plainly seen from aerial photographs – large accumulations of sand to the east of a granite groin at Tom's Creek at the western park edge, and large accumulation of sand to the west of Meigs Point Groin at the eastern end.  A split transport system creates a weak "section" in the middle as currents take sand east or west from the center.   This split can be seen during powerful "Nor'easters" coastal storms as the normal drift to the east is interrupted by a sudden movement to the west.  Hammonasset is likely a connection of two separate barrier beaches each with its own dynamic transport system.  The Dowd's inlet can be found on colonial maps as a separate and distinct opening east of Tom's Creek.  According to local oral history (Mr. Emil Miller), Dowd's inlet was filled along with a salt pond during the construction of the State Park Grand Pavilion prior to the opening of the State Park in 1920.  Its remaining watershed and smaller salt ponds were again filled in the 1960's by dredge/fill, operations and in the 1970s with gravel parking, and finally again with the construction of a large paved parking lot now known as "West Beach".  The remaining Dowd Creek inlet and watershed area was connected to the east branch of Tom's Creek with a straight 1,500-foot long lateral tidal ditch.  Little, if any, of the original inlet, creek or salt pond system in this area survives today.

Sediment Transport – Inlet location – Sea Level Rise

According to maps, aerial photographs and oral history, the inlet and salt pond were located1 much in the same area as the two West Beach bathhouses and the newest paved parking lot.  That is the "weakest" area that is subject to the worst erosion and loss of beachfront as waves split or attempt to re-split the beach into two beaches, as it will always do, especially during storms.  In general, fixed permanent structures should be avoided or moved back from the beachfront.  Inlets were subject to large corrective wind wave forces such as from hurricanes.  The Dowd's inlet was active in the 1880's and 1890's, but over time, such openings, removed from extensive fresh water drainage, tend to heal or "close" moving landward.  Tom's Creek does function as a creek because, at low tide, it has sufficient fresh water flow to cut an "ebb channel".  Dowd's Creek did not cut its own channel acting more like a salt pond, and this opening would open and close as the storm events.  This was similar to many inlets and salt ponds on Cape Cod.  Colonial landowners often sought to permanently close inlets such as those for transportation and to prevent periodical flooding of farm fields behind the breach.  The original opening to Niantic Bay between East Lyme and Waterford, for example, once had three such openings but only one remains today.  The others were filled and paved for ease of transport, both vehicle and train, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Barrier beach inlets also have been liked with often-extreme unfortunate consequences.  The North River Inlet between Situate and Marshfield is a very famous case history study of building such dikes, and for nearly a century, deeply divided this coastal community.  Fishers wanting full tidal exchange while farmers tried to prevent flooding of farm fields.  On Hammonasset Beach, the location of the Parks "Grand Pavilion" and the Clam Shed were just west of the Dowd's Creek barrier inlet.  Because of the climatic and temperature charges and sea level rise, the barrier beach inlet may again reopen.  A second weak section existed just west of the 1964 Pavilion (since removed), and in the early 1970's, this beach front was also breeched, but was quickly closed by state park staff using bulldozers.

In the late 1970's, the State of Connecticut sought to expand parking at the West Beach bath houses.  To do this, they excavated an area behind the beachfront, and I watched as hundreds of old poles 4 to 6 inches in diameter, were exposed.  At the time, I thought I was seeing1 the remains of a colonial bridge, but now realize that it was an old Native American fish trap that had been preserved in the acidic muck of the previous tidal environment.  I recall the state park had to send many of its large green dump trucks to carry away all the poles from the site.  Mr. Miller once told me of a fish trap in the area, but always thought it was Sound side, not in a salt pond behind the beach.  The practice of trapping fish in such a tidal breach/salt pond was common by Native Americans.  Fish would enter such a salt pond on the incoming tide and be trapped by a big brush fyke trap net.  Salt ponds were actually preferred for such "vee fykes" were common to catch alewife, flounder and eels.  Many have been found in Maine where the "V" stone wall configuration can be seen on aerial photographs.  At the time, I first thought that the original salt pond was being created or restored.  My enthusiasm waned as fill was trucked from the site, which yielded a silt-like gray to black sand with many clam and oyster shells, only to be replaced with crushed stone.  It was very evident that this area was tidal and even the excavation itself soon filled with seawater, and it became more of a dredging operation that an excavation one.  My disappointment yielded a letter to the Army Corps about several projects in 1979 and highlighted the need to rebuild, not fill in such salt ponds.

Erosion Control – CT Coastal Embayment Board Discussion

After Hurricane Gloria, the Connecticut Coastal Coves and Embayment Board (a state appointed volunteer board) briefly discussed the Hammonasset Beach issue.  Two suggestions surfaced.  The first was creation of two new rock groins one toward Tom's Creek which entrance had been "stabilized" in 1925 and the other towards Meigs Point.  Placement is critical and similar stabilization projects actually increased scouring/erosion in Rhode Island for salt ponds.  The groins should not be placed at the convergence of the two transport currents.  Groins also could slow the erosion if combined with a dredge project similar to the one in the 1960's.  A downside was normal erosion/accretion on either side of the new groin.  This is often called "step or ladder beaches," and some famous photographs from Florida illustrate the impact of a series of groins and jetties on shoreline sediment transport processes. 

A second option was the offshore placement of cut granite blocks 8' X 4' X 2' high.  They would be placed 800 feet shoreward of the low tide line.  They would act to disrupt the surge of water during storms by reducing the wave energy as an "underwater breakwater" directed toward the beachfront.  This option would not stop only slow the recessional/erosion movement of the beachfront that creates the split which can become the barrier inlet.  All agreed that without intervention, the beachfront would continue to recede, eventually splitting the beachfront dune line in this area which it has done twice since the 1950's.  A suggestion was made to place them further offshore in case they became popular recreational fishing areas as often is the case with more permanent breakwater projects.  (They often enhance the habitats for reef fishes.)

Environmental History

Evidence does indicate the presence of Native American coastal fishing village(s) 1,500 to 2,000 feet offshore of the current high tide line.  The 1960's hydraulic dredge operation pumped hundreds of artifacts ashore with the fill.  If estimates are correct, since the colonial period, Hammonasset Beach has eroded an average of 2 feet/yearly (from 1900 to 1955, 200 feet; since 1955, around 100 feet).  The age of the offshore site is suspected to be around 900 to 1100 AD placing it in the proximity of its current offshore location.

Using a standard slope angle (which changes from summer to winter) of 1 to 4, a 6-foot erosion event signals a high tide line about 24 feet beyond the erosion artificial tide line.  Within the last 10 years, several erosion events have exceeded six feet, which places the natural new high tide line at 15 feet under and beyond the existing bath houses.  Excavation of dredged sand and fine grain silt nearby (which it appears contained hundreds of Native American artifacts) has prevented the loss of the existing boardwalk and bath houses This slows but does not stop the natural processes to open the Dowd's Creek cut.  The fine grain silt is not the proper size for the active transport system wave energy and is quickly washed away.  (Note since this article was first written the West Beach Bath Houses have been torn down and replaced – T. Visel, 2021).

"Natural" Corrections and Storm Events

The geologic history and sea level rise do point to a gradual receding shoreline that includes Hammonasset Beach.  The recession is not a constant condition, but the beach subject to "large corrections" is usually storm related.  Massive corrections occur after hurricanes.  Some literature does include references to the "safety valve feature" that barrier inlets absorb and dissipate massive storm energies (probably why they reopen), and that once closed, set the stage for broader area erosion or severe point erosion as wave and storm surge energy has "no place to go" (hydraulic pressure).  While the western end of Hammonasset Beach continues to erode, Meigs Point to the east blocks much of the transport system, and the beach there has actually grown much wider over time.

Beach "nourishment" activities temporarily postpone corrections and require frequent and sometimes massive intervention.  Many researchers feel that the shoreline should be allowed to retreat and with it, a dune line which acts as a partial "sand bank" during these storm events. Windblown sand accumulates and creates "dunes" which are temporary and subject to movement and destruction themselves.  The stabilization of the beachfront and boardwalk prevents the "sandbank" dune line to form.  In powerful storms, waves cut and withdraw sand from the dunes lessening erosion events.   There is no dune line here to provide the "loan" of sand during storms, so any energy is subject to creating more severe sand/sediment loss.  This aspect is well known and has led to some positive and extensive dune restoration projects at the park.  These have very successful and are considered a model for other states.  In this case, fill was dumped behind the dune line and native plants replanted.  Wood walkways have lessened the impact of foot travel, and today it is hard to tell these modified habitats or created dunes from the natural ones.

Fifty-Year to One Hundred - Year Storms – Future Events in Connecticut

We have cyclic storms of powerful historic magnitude consequences.  They are described as 50 – 100 - and even 500-year storms.  They leave lasting and memorable impacts beachfronts.  Several freestanding Hammonasset boardwalks have been lost to such events.  The 1938 hurricane and three hurricanes after, between 1955 to 1960, left terrific damage to the boardwalks.  The 1918-20 boardwalk pilings (stumps) can be seen after Nor'easters today, some 10 feet below the extreme low tide line.  With today's perspective, the first State Park boardwalk would appear today as a lateral fishing pier separated by 50 feet by water from the current beach, that is how far the beach has receded in a century.  In 1965, a large dredging operation filled in and expanded beaches eroded from the 1938 and 1955 hurricanes; to stabilize the Tom's Creek entrance, three jetties have been built since 1920.

In a century from now, Hammonasset should again be two beaches.  Waves should break beyond the edge of the "new" paved parking lot.  And the two remaining bathhouses should be just history.

In the event of a 50-year of 100-year storm, the absence of a sandbank in the area predicts the next correction could be catastrophic.  It could happen tomorrow, to quote the Weather ChannelTM.  A major reestablishment of the Dowd's Creek entrance could occur after such a storm.  (Note: In 2015, Dowd's inlet was included in The Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Tidal Inlets in the U. S. – Tracy Monegan Rice.)

Part I
Broaden Project Scope Parameters

Habitat Restoration Initiative Guidelines

The above history illustrates three areas of concern regarding the modifications of "healthy" habitats and alteration of "natural" processes and habitat creation.  The State Park has a long history of all three:  intervention (alteration), habitat natural process modifications (mitigation), and habitat creation (dune building).  It may be necessary for these activities to occur in order to restore the natural processes or recreate the lost habitat.  If citizens or the State of Connecticut wish to restore "populations" of living marine resources, the environmental habitat history needs to be considered. 

The State and prior colonial use altered the natural processes here for quite some time.  Road building and public use such as agriculture and recreation have on many occasions, altered the natural processes at Hammonasset.  Not all actions have been damaging and, considering overall ecology, some have been good.  A tremendous dune building effort in the 1970's recreated a dune ecology that continues to flourish and support a rich ecosystem of wildlife.  Salt ponds have been excavated and enlarged, and salt marshes and tidal inlets reestablished.  It is important to weigh the long-term impacts of resource loss in terms of habitat value to citizens without debating the consequences of the loss itself.  For example, many of the State's salt ponds were filled for agriculture, mosquito control, transportation or development.  To excavate upland for salt pond creation may act to replace that "lost" habitat while destroying a healthy upland habitat.  In many cases it is impossible to restore lost habitats simply because its use is so different or its cost astronomical.  For instance, converting road causeways back to salt marshes or tidal ponds is not practical.  Other undeveloped areas might however serve a "restoration purpose" for some species.

Specific Examples of Habitat History – Habitat Creation Meigs Point Groin - 1955

To alter the natural erosion processes, the State of Connecticut with the US Army Corps of Engineers built the Meigs Point Granite Groin.  Constructed of cut granite blocks over a stone core, the groin quickly became a popular recreational fishing spot.  Once the pre-existing habitat was changed – the granite blocks were quickly covered with the typical ecosystem profiles encrusting organisms of structures in marine reef habitats.  I would say that the groin has supported millions of recreational fishing hours.  Today provides a richer and different habitat structure than it did before.  The carrying capacity of reef fish organisms has been enhanced by this created habitat which continues today.

Habitat Mitigation – Chase Pond - 1979

One of the most popular estuarine bird watching areas in New England is largely the result of habitat mitigation.  In exchange for the loss of healthy habitats resulting from road construction at the State Park, Chases Pond was excavated and tidal connection improved (Army Corps of Engineers, August 1979).  The resulting Chases Pond habitats quickly adjusted to the habitat creation that included the dredging of upland and fill to enlarge the pond.  I feel that most bird watchers are unable to distinguish the natural part from the man-made sections of the pond today.  It is a rich estuarine tidal habitat enhancement environment that supports a different species profile than before.

The Dune Rebuilding Project of the Late 1970's

A series of serious storms and Nor'easters caused destruction of much of the existing dune line from the 1964 pavilion to Tom's Creek.  It was rebuilt over a series of four years by dumping fill behind the beachfront.  This habitat enhancement has been so successful only a trained ecologist would realize it was not natural but created by man.  The State of Connecticut trucked in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dump truck loads of clay to form a new artificial dune line over about a mile of beach front strategically placed back from the beach front, once the clay had stabilized by absorbing water and hardening, loose sand was placed at the base and shore/coastal plants soon followed.  In the years after this habitat creation, these dunes continue to support a wide variety of wildlife and native plant species. I am certain this has enhanced organism richness and diversity in these areas.  These dunes over time migrated back from the high tide line.
Habitat Creation, Enhancement and Mitigation Discussions
Part II
Possible Changes in State Policies

Restoring Populations May Require Additional Habitat Studies

In order to fully utilize all restoration options, it is necessary to know the capacity of various marine habitats.  Without the carrying capacity figures, no measure can be made to assess habitat values.  Habitat enhancement can increase populations when the carrying capacity of a given habitat type is increased or enhanced.  The carrying capacity is sometimes referred to as a heritage value; in this case, the quantity of a given organism a given habitat type can support.  This is especially true with our lobster Homarus americanus.  The ability to sustain population densities is directly related to the size and type of bottom structure – more structure is often recognized to yield more lobsters and visa versa.  To release stage four lobsters into barren feature-less bottom will likely exceed the natural carrying capacity, and most of the small lobsters will perish for lack of cover (predation).  If the bottom habitat was enhanced first before the release, in this case by adding structure, the population of lobsters that this habitat theoretically could sustain will be increased.  This is an example of extensive aquaculture.  In areas of high lobsters' fecundity and poor lobster habitats (less or no structure), increasing the carrying capacity can have more of a positive impact than recruitment.  It is often the case that recruitment potential is almost in every case higher than habitat capacity.  Oystermen in the 18th and 19th centuries increased the habitat carrying capacity of the northern or American Oyster Crassostrea virginica here in Connecticut.  It was learned that a tremendous amount of oyster spat was wasted in the water column landing and perishing upon substrates unsuitable for survival (See Appendix #3).

Oyster growers soon found by experiments that enhancing favorable habitats with clean dock-dried shell and placing it precisely when oyster larvae needed a clean substrate upon which to set could yield up to 50,000 oyster spat/bushel of shell.  The success of such habitat enhancement is legendary, and Connecticut was soon producing millions of bushels of seed oysters.  Connecticut had more structure- dependent fish also.  Oyster growers had increased the carrying capacity of the Connecticut shoreline for oysters, and they did it in a measurable way.  Southern coastal states have for decades sought to increase the carrying capacity for reef fishes, a popular recreational fishing opportunity, by use of submerged structures – building debris, old transportation vehicles and vessels.  It is hard to determine the economic value in terms of the recreational boating and fishing industry, but it is in the billions of dollars.

The lobster resource here in Connecticut is in steep decline.  One of the ways it can be rebuilt to sustainable levels is by constructing artificial reefs to create deeper cooler habitat.  The carrying capacity of high profile reefs (structure) is some 12 times as large as smooth bottoms.  That is why lobster fishermen seek out structure by which to place traps.  Increasing the number of mature size lobsters may allow for reproductive success but, without increasing the habitat carrying capacity, it will not ensure a quantitative increase in lobster populations (lobsters eat each other when crowded).  However, the combined impacts of capacity enhancement by way of food and shelter from the lobster traps themselves, many felt has altered the population dynamics of the lobster resource by driving the natural size distribution from larger to smaller and increasing the number (density) of sub-legal lobsters in specific habitat types.  A similar often used example is supplemental bird feeders and nest bird houses.

One of the challenges of natural resource management is the identification of primary and secondary limiting factors.  They may include habitats for life cycles, sufficient food availability, reproductive success (recruitment) and predator/prey relationships.  Disease outbreaks often occur when the population is sustained beyond the normal carrying capacity and under stress.  It is speculated that the huge number of lobster traps in northern waters has enhanced the habitat carrying capacity several fold, beyond what is a normal yet smaller population of larger lobsters.  At the same time, this increase drives the average size of the lobsters smaller than what could be considered natural and feeding them at the same time.  Two centuries ago, the Cape Cod lobster fishing grounds and the Maine coast were diminished by over-fishing; as fishing pressure increased, a general decrease in lobster size occurred2.

In the 1880's, lobsters between six to ten pounds were not unusual; smaller ones, two pounds or less, were often thrown back in waters five fathoms deep or less (30 feet).  We have Colonial reports of capturing three and four-foot lobsters by use of spears.  Lobsters between five to ten pounds were common at the start of the trap fishery before the Civil War.  Hard fishing pressure had reduced both the catch and size of lobsters within three decades of inshore trap fishing.  While size regulations and later V notch restrictions maintained a new and different population distribution, they did not increase the habitat.  However, feeding sub-legal lobsters and providing cover (structure) with the traps themselves did increase the carrying capacity in certain habitat types.  With the natural biology of the lobster, which is typically cannibalistic, increasing the food supply alone could enhance survivorship.  Habitat studies that include demonstration projects (artificial reefs) to increase lobster populations in light of the resource decline should have merit.  These studies on lobster habitat creation (circular pipes) are found in Our Changing Fisheries Boothbay Maine, USFWS 1966, printed in 1971.  Divers reported that circular enclosures held many more lobsters.

Little difference can be seen to placing shell to catch oysters' spat; favorable habitat for oyster growth will be "enhanced," and a new population of seed oysters "created."  The loss of clean shell can be mitigated by cultivating or washing off silt from oyster beds which could be considered an altered natural process -- in this case, periodic storm energy.  The guidelines continue a past pattern of highlighting a conservation analytical approach to resource restoration.  This approach certainly has merit, especially with preserving natural resources such as in protected or wildlife areas.  This conservation model most often was designed to prevent or restrict natural resource use.  It is difficult to make this same model work for the enhancement/restoration of resources or populations when its design fundamentally is to "protect them" from use or loss – my view, Tim Visel.

Anyone who have ever turned the soil, watered plants during a drought or planted seeds has practiced some form of habitat mitigation, enhancement or creation. 

The current "green" application of roof gardens is one of the newest and potentially largest habitat mitigation examples of modern time, which seeks to both restore natural water cycles and respiration of plant life.  Grassed waterways, retention basins and aquatic recharge ponds were created to restore surface and groundwater tables.  Millions of birdhouses and nesting platforms have been built to restore habitats and enhance wildlife ecology.  This includes the very successful telephone pole osprey nesting platforms.

These are just a few of examples of successful interventions to restore natural resources or increase specific populations.  The Habitat Restoration Initiative should consider modified approaches and include them in the revised policy/guidelines for Long Island Sound – my view, Tim Visel.


Part III
Habitat Restoration Guidelines and Comments – Tim Visel

Discussion

The habitat restoration guidelines often lock applicants into specific sites.  I feel we should be looking at target populations, assemblages and the habitat carrying capacity for such organisms.  The carrying capacity for various habitat types remains largely unknown and unstudied in Connecticut.  This is especially true for shellfish species – especially the oyster.

Such activities when combined in a pilot project or small-scale demonstration experiment can provide valuable information on population assemblages as our state faces global warming and sea level rise.  The first three items listed under "activities not recommended for funding (page 9): Habitat creation, modification of healthy habitats and alterations of natural processes" fail to recognize that they occur with or without our permission.  Sea levels rise and global warming has modified "healthy" habitats have altered all combine to "natural" processes and created new habitats here for quite some time, all combine to create an "environmental habitat history."  The area in the former Dowd's Creek region of Hammonasset Beach, after very serious storms, exposed two large peat bog banks, very old remnants of a marsh.  In the peat itself was roots and fibers as well as thousands of holes that appear to be created by mollusks.  No doubt at one time it had been "healthy" but has been eroded by a receding coastline, one that has been receding for over a thousand years.

Therefore, removal of habitat creation, habitat modification and alteration of natural processes from consideration restricts our efforts to restore populations when the natural environment is itself undergoing immense change.  These are important tools to remove from the HRI toolbox.  To include them would certainly require a broadening of the concept, beyond existing programs which have focused upon tidal restrictions and installation of fish passage ways, positive outcomes in their own right but well established before the EPA LISS or even the CT DEP came into existence (See Appendix #4).  Many alewife runs on Cape Cod today viewed as important or valuable are, in fact, man made (Belding, 1920).

Several of the not recommended activities do occur, in fact, in the state.  The interpretation of "healthy" itself is debated often with no clear outcomes.  Excluding these activities from consideration ignores the positive outcomes of man-made interventions.  I think the "artificial" nesting platforms for osprey come to mind as an important modification to help restore a population, in this case, the osprey.  This example shows the positive benefits outweighed the negative for instance, herring and alewife might have a different opinion if able to respond.  Without these "tools," the habitat values of ecosystems, which today remain largely unknown or at least in many cases, poorly understood, are subject to conflicting goals.  Consider the efforts to remove an invasive reed, Phragmites.  Site-specific restoration is often impossible, and while natural habitat exchanges occur, there often is no acceptable way to measure them.  For example, the environmental services from vertical artificial reefs docks pilings would be enormous, but I find them rarely referred to as a positive benefit.  (Students interested in this aspect should review the New York West Way Striped Bass Lawsuit).  We could create habitats to restore or enhance reef fishes in the coastal zone, but with habitat creation off the table, one would need to find a degraded reef and, even if located, would need to promote one habitat value (reef fishes) over another of unknown value which would need to be defined against an unknown measure (See Appendix #5).

To remove these items from consideration eliminates to a large extent an important way to restore populations of organisms that are specific to a certain habitat. Most of the estuarine and near coastal recreational and commercial fish species are dependent (associated) with sub-tidal and tidal shore habitats.  It also ignores the habitat values created by human activity as well as those degraded or destroyed by nature.  These policies also fail to recognize the extent of habitat acreage there is no longer a viable or practical way for which to restore.  I feel the three examples found in Hammonassett State Park illustrate this concept.  A new project (and a good one), started in 2004, excavated several acres of fill from the 1965 dredge/fill operation in order to nourish the beach and to create a new salt flat marsh environment.  This project illustrates the successful implementation of #1, habitat creation and #2, modification of "healthy" habitats.  The previous created habitat was a sandy upland with successional cedar trees, low scrub and bittersweet.  It supported typical wildlife, many species of birds, rodents and predated prey species, such as rabbits by fox. This created habitat over previous salt marsh appeared to be healthy and well established.

Excavation of the site started in 2005 continuing until about 2007.  A new habitat was created - a tidal salt marsh and tidal flat environment.  Although the previous habitat values appeared to be good (healthy), they were changed to reflect a more coastal habitat, a habitat that once was prevalent in the area.  It is, however, a temporary habitat as sea level continues to rise.  The area will again be transitioned into an active beach front/dune line habitat as the beachfront continues to recede.

History shows us that nature, not man, is the largest habitat destroyer as well as creator, enhancer and conducts mitigation at the same time, and that habitat creation, enhancement and mitigation is not something to avoid but to explore.  Habitat changes are long term and dynamic; we can create habitat types that may or may not duplicate exactly natural habitat values, but we need to know what they are so we may be able to accurately determine the benefit.  The artificial reef breakwater habitat/services is significant, but carrying capacities of them in our waters remains largely unknown/unstudied because Connecticut has no artificial reef plan nor explored pilot projects for them.

Many harbors have been dredged in Connecticut, but the environmental services after dredging is nearly non-existent in the scientific literature.  Much effort has been expanded in the construction of anadromous fish passage ways, but monitoring is often slight and annual "fish census" activity needs to be reestablished.  Are fish able to fully utilize these fish passage projects?  We need to fill these "holes" and linking these similar tasks of habitat creation, mitigation and enhancement is a method to do this.  In this way, we may be able to address the issue of "sustainability" and resource restoration.  Fishing habitats, like those described above, may provide clues to this process.  The guidelines appear to narrow the focus to such an extent that it may seem easier to many to let "Mother Nature do it."  We may be missing an historic opportunity to study the environmental services of shellfish/finfish habitat associations by failing to study the cleaning, reshelling and cultivating of natural oyster beds.  The nitrogen removal services from structures, such as docks and pilings, has never, to my knowledge, been addressed here in Connecticut.  A realistic and sustainable approach to navigational dredging, especially in smaller tidal rivers, needs to be renewed in terms of habitat value and balancing them with user groups and resource utilization.

The current guidelines have placed much of the responsibility for determining habitat values placed upon the applicant.   Attaining and compiling complex technical information is often beyond the capacity of the general public or civic group.  This requirement can limit the opportunity for smaller groups or associations to participate in this program.  It continues to place barriers between the marine resources and the citizens of Connecticut (my view, Timothy Visel).



Appendix #1
State of Connecticut State Geological and Natural History Survey

Bulletin No. 46
"The Physical History of the Connecticut Shoreline"
Hartford – Published by the State 1929
By Henry Staats Sharp A.M.

Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven (1929)
New Haven, CT

HAMMONASSET BEACH

In Hammonasset Beach in Madison the people on Connecticut own one of the longest and most beautiful stretches of sand beach in their State.  As mentioned in Chapter I they have in this a self-supporting State Park maintained and operated for their benefit, and the writer strongly urges every resident or visitor in Connecticut who may not have beach privileges elsewhere, to visit and enjoy the excellent beach available here.  The outer two-thirds toward Hammonasset Point is a tombolo uniting the Point to the mainland.  The former stands about 20 feet above sea level and is composed of till containing many huge boulders, which form the shore as far as West Rock in Clinton Harbor.  Offshore boulders and shoals testify to the former greater extent of the till, which, before the building of the tombolo and deposition of the marsh, must have appeared as an island at a considerable distance from the mainland.  At low tide the surface of the beach averages 100 feet in width and slopes seaward about seven degrees.  Behind the beach is usually found an area of dune sand of considerable width but little height.  These dunes have been breached in a number of places on the western side of the Beach, and material has been carried three or four hundred feet back over the marsh.  These breaks usually take place during winter storms at which times the marsh and low upland on which the park buildings stand may be partly inundated.

THE MADISON SHORELINE

The remaining shore of Madison shows no feature of great interest.  As a rule, it is composed of the stratified sands and gravels of low plain, which has suffered severe erosion, although the larger part is now protected by seawalls. Shorefront acreage is extremely valuable here, and the shore defenses are proportionately expensive.  Immediately west of Hammonasset Beach the rapid wasting of the shore has caused the abandonment of a road, and the caving banks indicate the source of much material for that Beach.  The shoreline in glacial material is occasionally interspersed with a brief stretch of bedrock, which invariably makes a slight projection and can be regarded as a contraposed shoreline.  Tuxis Island and Gull Rock are rock islands, which were probably at one time largely or entirely covered by loose material.  According to Mrs. Wilson Coe of Madison, Gull Rock was formerly tied to the mainland by a tombolo on which grew beach plums, while Tuxis Island could be reached by stepping from stone to stone at low tide.  The upland here is said to have retreated at the rate of a foot a year before strenuous efforts at protection were made.  At Hogshead Point the upland ends, and the shorefront is formed by a low bar of sand lying before the extensive East River marshes.  In many places considerable areas of marsh appear outside the cordon of sand showing the retreat of the latter over the marsh surface.  The end of this bar at East River shows two minor recurved hooks extending out into the marsh and denoting the former position of the shoreline, when the drift of material was more directly northward.


Appendix #2

Lobster Habitat Carrying Capacity – Tim Visel – September 2009

This summer I have contacted several organizations seeking more up to date information on the carrying capacity of various types of lobster habitat.  By the end of September, 2009 no responses as yet have arrived.  Until I have more recent studies I'm using notes from a 1978 fishery economics course at the University of Rhode Island for estimates of habitat capacities.

The example below provided by a guest lecturer who used a 60-foot circle dropped over a certain habitat type (the example was a drinking glass on a desk).  The circle when placed over smooth featureless bottom yields less than one pound/year (harvest size).  Cobble stone/kelp circle – 3 to 5 lbs/year with more structure such as small stones – glacial boulders 5 to 8 lbs/year.  Large boulders/reefs up to 12 lbs/year of harvest size lobsters.  For the carrying capacity, the highest value can be one 12 lb. lobster or 12 - 1 pound lobsters.  Nature tended toward larger lobsters.  This can be considered a background or heritage value.

Today, lobster fishers seek out habitats with structure so the above capacities may seem smaller that actual but the difference between smooth featureless bottoms (no structure) to those if that contain a high degree of structure should yield 12 times as much lobster each year.  Lobsters can be trapped on sandy and even muddy bottoms as they search for food or burrow into muddy bottoms for shelter.  The lobster fishery has enhanced the carrying capacity of the existing habitat by providing both, food/shelter and maintaining a constant reproductive population (gauge limits and the V notching of female egg bearing lobsters).  Food availability among rocks/ledges is slight but provides key habitat as lobsters increase in size.  This is not to say the other habitats are not important but similar to the oyster industry with supplemental shell, balance is needed to sustain lobsters at different stages of their life cycle.  By selecting larger lobsters, we may enable smaller lobsters to survive.

Lobster Habitat Carrying Capacity – Fisheries History United States Fish Commission

The Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States by George Brown Goode, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and A Staff Associates, Section V,  History and Methods of the Fisheries, in two Volumes, with an atlas of two Hundred and Fifty-Five Plates, Volume II, Washington, Government Printing Office 1887.

The Lobster Fishery – Page 701

South Harpswell, ME – Between 1850 and 1855, at South Harpswell, the fishermen were accustomed to go out two in a boat, each boat setting from fifty to seventy-five traps, and obtaining a daily average of from 400 to 500 lobsters of marketable size.  All lobsters weighing less than 2 pounds were thrown away, and the remainder was sold to the canneries at an average price of 3 cents each in the spring, and 2 cents each in the fall, the canneries agreeing to take only those above 2 pounds weight.  The fishing season lasted from March until May, and again from September until about the middle of November.  When the factories were closed, the fishermen sold to the smacks running to New York and Boston, scarcely any of the lobsters being disposed of to Portland parties.  The smacks paid about the same prices as the canneries, beginning in the early spring at 3 1/2 to 4 cents, and falling later as low as 1 1/2 cents, when the lobsters had become more abundant.  Frequently, when the markets were dull, the fishermen, after culling out all lobsters under 2 pounds in weight, would bring the remainder to the smacks, where about one-third more in number would be rejected, only the larger individuals being bought.  This would happen only late in a season, or during a very dull market.  Marketable lobsters then averaged about 3 1/2 pounds each.

At all points along the coast, from Cape Small Point to Pemaquid Point, the fishermen are agreed in saying that formerly lobsters were very abundant and of large size, and that overfishing has reduced them both in size and in numbers.  They are quite unanimous in the opinion that if the present State law is continued, it will be better for the fishermen.


Appendix #3

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries
Hugh M. Smith, Commissioner

The Oyster and The Oyster Industry of
The Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 890
By E. P. Churchill, Jr.
Assistant, U.S. Bureau of Fisheries
Appendix VIII To The Report of the U.S. Commissioner of
Fisheries for 1919


The Oyster and the Oyster Industry – Page 21

In tracing the history of any oyster bed, reference must be made to the nature and characteristics of the young oyster as it develops from the egg.  As has been explained on page 13 embryo oyster is a minute organism endowed with certain feeble powers of locomotion, which are sufficient for awhile to keep it suspended in the water and permit its being carried by the currents.  In some cases, it may be carried several miles from its parents before the setting stage is attained.  The chances are many that when this happens it will lodge on mud and end its story, for so small is the larva at this state that a mere film of ooze suffices to stifle it.  If, however, by rare good fortune it, at this time or just before, comes into contact with a shell, pebble, twig, rocky ridge, or other clean body, whether at the bottom or not, it speedily attaches itself and continues its growth.

So abundant is the supply of larvae in any prolific oyster region that ordinarily several or many will attach to each square inch of clean surface, and a shell may furnish attachment for a hundred or more.  Under such circumstances there soon begins a struggle for existence that is nonetheless rigorous for being purely passive.  As the young oysters grow there is not room for all, and the more vigorous ones, themselves distorted by the crowding, overgrow, stifle, starve, and eventually kill those of slower growth or less advantageously situated.  At the end of the first year there has developed a cluster of perhaps from two to a dozen young oysters growing on the original shell, all projecting upward and crowding one another into long, narrow shapes.  Upon the projecting mouths of these shells there is another set of spat on the succeeding year, and as this grows some of the survivors of the earlier generation are in their turn crowded and killed.  The result of this is that in the course of a few years there is formed a cluster like an inverted pyramid with its apex being gradually driven into the mud by the increasing weight above, while its broad base is made up of several generations of living oysters attached to the dead shells which constitute the middle parts.  The oysters around the edge where they have room to grow are often of fair shape and quality, while those more centrally located are irregular, long, narrow, and usually poor, owing to their crowded condition and difficulty in obtaining food.       


Appendix #4

Planning Report No. 27
Report to the Legislature's Committee on Coastal Management
The Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program
CAM Report to the Legislature's
Interim Study Committee on Coastal Management
September 1, 1978


This document was financed in part by a grant through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

Introduction

This report was prepared by the Coastal Area Management Program of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and is submitted to the Interim Study Committee on Coastal Management of the Connecticut General Assembly in fulfillment of the requirements of Public Act 78-152, Section 6(b).

The report consists of three sections: the main text which provides materials required by P.A. 78-152; the legislation which is a redraft of H.B. 5547 (1978 session) based on commentary received and the requirements of P.A. 78-152; and the appendices...

The basic approach to Connecticut's coastal management program remains unchanged. Yet there are some notable new additions. Most significant is the recommendation to create an independent coastal review council to resolve conflicts between the state and coastal municipalities over review and approval of municipal coastal programs. The council with membership representing state, regional, municipal, public and private interests would have a quasi-judicial role; that is, it would have the responsibility of making the final decision should any irreconcilable disputes arise over final approval of a local program.

The LISS generated 14 planning reports, and the final Plan, People and the Sound, released in the summer of 1975, contained over 600 proposals. One of the study's key recommendations was the creation of a coastal management program in both Connecticut and New York under the CZM Act to assure adequate, coordinated, sound-wide planning and protection of Long Island Sound resources.

Two other efforts went on concurrently with the LISS. In August of 1971, Governor Thomas J. Meskill appointed Senator George Gunther to chair a Coastal Zone Management Committee. The Committee was charged to investigate the state's capabilities for planning and managing coastal resources. Following several meetings and public hearings, the Committee prepared and submitted a final report, and in 1973 sent a bill to the legislature that would have created a 15-person Coastal Resources Management Council, charged with coordinating a coastal resources planning and management program for Connecticut. Initially defeated because of a moratorium contained in it, this measure has subsequently not been endorsed for a variety of reasons, including the continuing preparation of Connecticut's coastal management program under the federal act.

Though the CAM unit was placed within DEP, it operated under a unique arrangement. From its inception the CAM staff has been directed by an independent Advisory Board. The Board was established following the concept of the interagency task force; that of providing a broader perspective to the CAM program than DEP's environmental mandate. The board was originally composed of representatives from eight state agencies and the six coastal regional planning agencies. In 1976 to more fully involve the public in program policy matters, the Board was expanded to include ten citizen members who were chosen to reflect a balance between environmental, social and economic (interests).

The CAM Advisory Board has been utilized throughout the program's development to establish policy direction, to provide continuing advice and to act as a sounding-board on major issues ranging from erosion and dredge spoil disposal to onshore development impact of offshore (OCS) petroleum exploration. For example, all CAM recommendations have been formally approved by the Board and its six working committees.

Areas of Particular Concern

Connecticut's Approach: The CAM Program is considering recommendation of the following seven generic categories as areas of particular concern within the coastal boundary: shellfish beds, tidal wetlands, federally maintained navigation channels, federally maintained dredged spoil disposal sites, state owned recreational forest and reserve land, erosion hazard areas and local flood hazard areas. With the exception of shellfish beds, flood hazard areas, and erosion hazard areas, all of these potential areas of particular concern are currently either state owned, state managed or under existing (federal) jurisdiction. Of the remaining three, shorefront erosion hazard areas are currently managed jointly by the municipalities (above mean high water) and the state (below mean high water). Shellfish beds are currently managed by either the state or the state and municipalities depending on bed location, and floor hazard areas are currently managed by municipalities.

These seven areas are being considered for designation as areas of particular concern in the management plan document because they are either significant coastal hazard areas, particularly valuable or vulnerable natural areas, commercially significant coastal resources in need of restoration or special management attention, or significant coastal recreational resources in need of special management attention.

Under the management program, all areas of particular concern would remain within the jurisdiction of the existing management agency. Advisory guidelines will be included in the plan document for all designated areas outlining the specific nature of the concern, recommended priority uses, and proposed management strategies. Priority use guidelines would be identified for these areas if designated as follows:

Areas of Particular Concern                                    Suggested Priority Use

Shellfish Areas                                                         Aquaculture - Restoration
Tidal Wetlands                                                        Preservation - Restoration
Federal Navigation Channels                               Navigation - Dredging
Federal Dredge Spoil Disposal Sites                      Dredge Spoil Disposal
State Recreation, Forest, Preserve Areas              Recreation - Preservation
Erosion Hazard Areas                                             Conservation - Limited Development
Flood Prone Areas                                                  Conservation - Limited Development



Appendix #5

Report of The Commissioners Concerning the Protection of Fish In the
Connecticut River
To The General Assembly, May Session, 1867.
Printed by Order of the Legislature.
Hartford: Case, Lockwood and Company, Printers. 1867.

Page 15

The disappearance of salmon in the Connecticut river is of much earlier date than in the Merrimack; nor was it gradual, but comparatively sudden.  In 1797 they were abundant; within a dozen years after they had nearly or quite disappeared.  The cause of this rapid extinction was a dam, whose effect was precisely that of the one at Lawrence, though its relative position was entirely different.  Just below the mouth of Miller's river, may yet be seen the ruins of this fatal barrier, erected about 1798 by the Upper Locks and Canals Company.  It was sixteen foot high, and stretched entirely across the river.  The extinction that followed makes a precise parallel with that already cited in the Merrimack river.  For some few years, till about 1808, salmon were caught at the falls.  The first year they were in great numbers, being headed off by the new obstruction, but, within a dozen years, their extinction was complete, and for the last fifty-five years

Page 16

The salmon has been unknown, except as a straggler, in the Connecticut.  It may be asked, how an impassable barrier, placed at Miller's Falls, one hundred miles from the mouth of the river, should have caused the immediate extinction of the salmon, whereas a similar barrier, near Bristol, on the Pemigewasset, at about the same distance from the mouth of the Merrimack, should simply have shut out the fish from so much of the river as lay above the day, while below they continued to flourish; for they were numerous a dozen miles above Concord, N.H., some thirty years since ?  The answer to this question is a complete illustration of those special conditions which are absolutely essential for the propagation of salmon.  The Connecticut has a long and gently declining course; it deposits the fertile alluvium of a sluggish stream.  The Merrimack has about the same fall, but in a much shorter course; it deposits the coarse, barren silt of a strong current.  The waters of the one were too quiet and too little aerated to hatch the salmon spawn, except in the mountain branches; while in the other, many of the middle tributaries, and parts even of the main river, were doubtless suitable for spawning beds, when the fish were cut off from the upper sources.


Page 19

Fish-ways may be made in two modes; the pass, which is simply a sloping trough; or the stair, which is a series of steps, whereof each is a water-tank; (see plate).  In the first case, the fish rush up the sloping trough; in the second, they jump from step to step, aided by the flowing sheet of water, which makes a serious of little falls in its decent.  The pass is more simple, cheaper and less likely to get out of order; but the stair gives better chances to the fish to rest in their ascent, and is, therefore, more fitted for high dams, and for fish of less activity than the salmon- for example, the shad.  Several modifications may be introduced in the construction of both.

The alewife will run up a fish-way of moderate width, as is proved by the success of the one below Mystic Pond; so, too, will salmon, which have been seen to force their way through water so shallow, that their back fins showed above the surface, and then rush up the apron of a dam six feet high.  But it is to be feared that shad will be shy of any fish-way that is not approached by a channel, a dozen feet wide and a couple of feet deep.  Furthermore, some mill canals are obstructed by locks, which would be a serious impediment.

The lower end of the way should rest in a large pool, not less than three feet in depth, and which, by its lower level, would be full, even when the river about it was shallow.  (We have installed many alewife ladders but questions remain concerning exit pools or exit passage – T. Visel.)



A D V E R T I S E M E N T