CTFishTalk.com: Bottom Disturbance and Habitat Quality Case History IMEP #46 - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

Bottom Disturbance and Habitat Quality Case History
IMEP 46
Timothy C. Visel
The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center
60 South Water Street, New Haven, CT
TIM.VISEL@new-haven.k12.ct.us

(IMEP Habitat History Newsletters can be found indexed by date on The Blue Crab.Info™ website: Fishing, eeling and oystering thread) and Connecticut Fish Talk.com Salt Water Reports

Connecticut Harbor Management Association

“Not All Dredging is Bad”
Podium Comments
15th Annual Dinner, November 9, 2010

Case Histories

Updated for A Capstone Project – January 2015 – Silver Lake Berlin, CT – Farm Pond (Oyster Pond) Oak Bluffs, MA

Preface

This paper was presented in the fall of 2010 but does not represent the viewpoint of the EPA/DEP Long Island Sound Study. It is the viewpoint of Tim Visel, a committee member but in no way represents the opinion or consensus of the Habitat Restoration Committee Citizens Advisory Committee or the Long Island Sound Study.

I respond to all emails at tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us

Several of the IMEP newsletters mention the climate period of 1880-1920 I call “The Great Heat” for its very distinctive habitat changes for blue crabs, lobsters, bay scallops/oysters and winter flounder/striped bass in southern New England. It was a time of unprecedented heat, many of our New England Shore communities can trace their existence to this climate period.

As the climate changed in the 1890s inshore habitats also changed over time, the very large Narragansett Bay “Bay” scallop beds were covered with soft organics and vegetation and the bay scallop fishery soon collapsed as the Rhode Island oyster industry now soared. Fishery managers at the time sought explanations or reasons for this “reversal” taking the increase of oysters as something separate to the decline of bay scallops but it wasn’t. Assigning human actions for the bay scallops changes – water pollution and over fishing but in the final history analysis it was neither. The explanations of water pollution and over harvesting seemed logical and plausible at the time (and often still today) however the bay scallop habitats declined from high heat and low energy. There was an assumption a century ago that any increases in shellfish were the result of natures bounty or “goodness” and declines assigned to human negative actions.

“Not All Dredging Is Bad”
Updated for a Capstone Project – January 2015

Preface

This Capstone proposal is a review of the available literature (sometimes called a Meta-analysis) today. Within the available literature in libraries (University of Connecticut, Long Island Sound Research Center, Avery PT Campus) has bottom disturbance and dredging been reported in a neutral or unbiased way. For example, it was the Connecticut Marine Trades community that brought forward the information that it was natural to have heavy metal concentrations in oxygen-limited organic matter deposits undergoing sulfate bacterial reduction increase. Much of the focus against bottom disturbance references heavy metal accumulations in harbor sediments, but was it ever mentioned as part of a natural process? This heavy metal research is now part of a process to keep open water disposal an option for Connecticut.

A reference to this problem is found on page 17 of the Long Island Sound Assembly document (Long Island Sound Assembly Report to the Connecticut General Assembly – Connecticut General Statutes 25-155, December 2013):

“One of the impediments to open water disposal of dredged material has been the concept that referenced background samples do not accurately reflect background concentrations of sediment in Long Island Sound. By letter dated October 5, 2007 to the CT DEEP, Sailer Environmental Inc. on behalf of the Connecticut Marine Trades Association, presented a preliminary study on the occurrence of cadmium in sediments dredged from Connecticut marinas. In essence, background concentrations of cadmium found in sediments in Long Island Sound may be naturally occurring and should not be automatically excluded from relocation to established disposal sites. Support needs to be the CT DEEP to review the latest studies of sediment analyses of Long Island Sound, including the study presented on behalf of the Connecticut Marine Trades Association, as there appears to be more than sufficient information to warrant a reevaluation of the current method of determining what levels of these constituents, such as cadmium, are acceptable for open water disposal.”

Some of the research should involve the presence of Sapropel and the ability of sulfate reducing bacteria to naturally concentrate metals as a natural process associated with Sapropel deposits. This process is similar to natural organic reduction under salt marshes, in which aluminum levels increase.

Students interested in this Capstone research area should see Tim Visel in the Aquaculture office.

Habitat Reversals Misunderstood

Of course such habitat reversals (often in the same waters) were left for study or additional study or surveys. Rhode Island started the annual survey of Narragansett Bay at the turn of the century – one of the nation’s largest biological surveys which is still ongoing. If you look at some of the Rhode Island Shellfish Commission Reports they were shocked to see the return of bay scallops after bitter winters and strong storms (1922-26) that scoured out pockets along Rhode Island shores. Some of the best bay scallops occurred after severe “bottom changing storms” and as the cold continued and storm intensity increased bay scallops returned to the bay and its salt ponds. The deepening channels and broken inlets soon brought in cooler waters and oyster habitat qualities diminished. As the cold continued and strong storm period continued (1930s to 1940s) the oyster industry declined then collapsed only to be “replaced” by a growing catch of quahogs in the 1950s and 1960s. The constant pounding of the 1950 and 1960 hurricane seasons had changed inshore habitat quality – not “us.” It was a perception bias that continues today – nowhere as apparent with coastal dredging. This was a presentation given several years ago but still appropriate today. Those interested in historic trends in habitat quality may find the timeline found on page 20 of interest.

Not All Dredging Is Bad – November 2010

The average dredge plume generates 80 to 280 mg/liter total suspended solids (TSS) into the waters column and toxicity commences at 4,000 mg/liter. Much of the damage attributed to dredging is from burial rather than exposure to suspended solids (clean material). After exposure in closed tanks to suspended solids, any fish will perish from TSS but nearly all studied species have the capacity to flee the immediate dredge area before gill tissues rupture and ionic transport systems fail, referred to as “marine asthma.” My research over the last five years has examined natural coastal processes and has made comparisons with manmade coastal processes, such as navigational dredging to biological responses from storms.

The historical perspective is that sub tidal dredging is biologically neutral (i.e., not marsh removal), a process which is comparable to a storm event. Force imposed by wind and wave energies into coastal areas has been largely viewed as destructive (i.e., hurricanes) by society however, habitats have been created and sustained by such forces. The inshore habitats fished today have been shaped by energy over thousands of years. To measure the biological impacts of wind and wave energy, long term assessments are therefore necessary which may require several decades. We must review how we perceive the dispersal of these energies into coastal systems and habitats. It is critical for balance within the marine environmental community to properly evaluate habitat creation and mitigation, enhancement or restoration proposals coupled with the habitat impact to and made by dredging. Not all dredging is necessarily bad in terms of the habitats we value. While some impacts to organisms are clearly negative other organisms clearly benefit. Dredging may resemble periodic storm events. To properly evaluate dredging proposals we need to review habitat changes within life history parameters. Dredging in fact within certain temperature parameters help some species.

For example, Clyde MacKenzie, Jr. a shellfish biologist, NOAA National Marine Fisheries discusses the bay scallop habitat preference of deeper channels. What scallop fishermen noted decades ago is described by Dr. MacKenzie in a 1989 Marine Fisheries Review article titled, A Guide for Enhancing Estuarine Molluscan Shellfisheries.

“Only one known attempt has been made to increase the abundance of the bay scallop through environmental improvement, and it occurred in Anthier’s Pond, Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., in the early 1970’s Bay scallops were relatively scarce over a section of the pond because the water was too shallow. The town dug a channel through the scallop bed 2 meters deep. In subsequent years, the bay scallops were relatively abundant in the channel as compared with the remainder of the bed. Although other options were available, the town chose the scallop bed as the site to take the sand for beach enlargement in an attempt to increase bay scallop production.” (See Town of Edgartown Shellfish Management Plan (1985) for a project description . [ Many biologists have reported that the largest of Bay Scallops exist near edge channels or dredged areas – several reports in Massachusetts (1950-1960) mention the best scallops in deep channels – West Port River – Pleasant Bay, page 598 – Bulleting of the Bureau of Fisheries – James Gutsell – Natural History of the Bay Scallops 1930. U.S. Dept of Commerce – Bureau of Fisheries Document #1100. “Thus in western Boque Sound, scallops of good size were found along the edge of the dredge channel north of Loretts Marsh – A few rods away from the channel scallops were of diminutive size usual in this section of the Sound.” ]

Another important mention of the positive impact of dredging comes from a very respected shellfish researcher of the last century. Dr. David Belding of the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Game – A report upon the soft shell clam fishery of Massachusetts (1930). On page 42 of Dr. Belding’s report can be found this notation.

“Several instances of a large clam set occurring on barren flats which had been covered with material from dredging operations are on record. In 1905 in the Annisquam River at Gloucester a heavy set of clams occurred on the flats which were resurfaced with the soil taken from the channel. In 1920 the dredging from the Yarmouth Cold Storage Company were placed on certain flats in Yarmouth. These operations were followed by a heavy set over some fifty acres which yielded about 40,000 bushels of clams. Experiments of this department have obtained similar results by resurfacing and building up flats, particularly with gravel.”

New marine soil or storm cultivated sands nearly always show increased clam productivity. Fishermen have reported that winter flounder often return to dredged areas. This may resemble restored habitat conditions after a severe storm. To research the habitat impacts again depending upon temperature of dredging, we need to review long term natural energy events I call a Environmental Fisheries Habitat History.

Navigation and Boating Industries as defined user groups

Much of Connecticut’s and other states environmental protection policies reflect that any resource use results in diminished resource value except shellfish management by state statute (Connecticut). Resource use can be broadly defined as alteration, harvest or capitalization. Therefore, conservation often replaced managed use or development, protection, replaced utilization, and natural over altered or manmade. The concept of renewable natural resource use has largely been replaced by protection and a dramatic increase in the use of preserves, sanctuaries and no catch zones.

Nowhere could a broader line be drawn than around dredging, the mere concept of taking something away appears to be leaving a far less valuable habitat behind. Lost were resource connections to actual practices. Early settlers noticed that logs, leaves and sticks blocked tidal flows in alewife streams and often took matters into their own hands and used teams of oxen to clear eastern Connecticut coves. Rhode Island Salt Ponds share a similar habitat history. Rhode Island landowners dredged them to maintain desired habitat/natural resource values. On Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod alewife runs into salt ponds blocked off by “natural” events were cleared to prevent the loss of alewife runs and shellfish resources.

In other areas metal bedsprings were used to keep channels clear of leaves, oystermen had local blacksmiths forge tree spikes to remove sunken logs off oyster beds. Charles Beebe formerly of Madison, once told me how much havoc one tree could cause disrupting flow and catching other debris such as to build an underwater log jam suffocating oysters below. Few people believed these reports until in 1985, when Hurricane Gloria dislodged a tree in the Branford River. It created a similar situation which ended with the CT National Guard removing it. [Engineers to remove fallen trees from Branford River huge oak tree snares debris floating in water – New Haven Register, August 5, 1988] The truth of the matter was that we had much more fish (alewife) when all of these activities were occurring. Sometimes it took work to maintain a certain desired habitat value. The catching of fish, the clearing of leaves and navigational dredging were all activities however, that could be seen. A clear oyster bed with environmental services to small winter flounder months later could not be linked to clearing sunken logs. A sandy bank with soft shell clams and winter founder forage services had no connection to three feet of oak leaves weeks before they rotted or flounder in a tidal creek over shellfish beds now free of nitrogen enhanced algae made possible by dragging an iron bed spring back and forth.

Fishery management practices continued to focus primarily upon size and bag limits rather than ensuring reproductive success or habitat quality. What people perceived to be bad became bad. It is estimated that over one million metric tons of winter sand have been spread on road and highway surfaces here in CT since the 1940’s. Much of that ended up in our rivers and in deep channels to be finally removed by the boating industry. Navigation interests to some extent have been removers of fill both manmade and natural from coastal areas. Dredging is an important tool in the resource restoration/maintenance habitat quality toolbox.

Dredging projects have removed excess organics, sediment from poor watershed practices and in many cases improved tidal flow energy. The boating community has kept habitat diversity in many coastal areas. One aspect of natural policy conditions is a huge disconnect between perceived benefits of energy and actual fact. This can be traced back several decades.

One of the problems that occurred in the 1960’s environmental movement was the lack of differentiation between neutral, positive and negative resource practices whether it be soil, water, husbandry, or hunting such as the Duck Stamp Act. To understand the movement was to understand the appalling resource waste, a growing over reliance upon chemicals and destructive natural resource policies. Clear cutting forests for paper became national headlines, rivers that were so polluted they were literally catching on fire, and smog that blocked the sun became part of the evening weather report. This is the period in which many environmental organizations were created. It was a time of real and perceived resource misuse. Some of the most viewed misuse was those that could be seen.

Alarmed by the loss of salt marshes in Connecticut in the late 1940s Arroll Lamson, then Chief of the Game Division of the CT Board of Fisheries and Game organized a conference in 1958, and the first on record to discuss the value of salt marshes and potential impacts upon near shore ecosystems. The keynote attendee was Dr. Paul Galtsoff, a shellfish biologist with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Interior Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. For decades, it had been public policy in CT to fill and drain salt marshes as they were linked to outbreaks of malaria here until the 1930’s. The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the 1880’s, also detailed shellfish loss from “factory wastes” which at times completely filled water courses and deemed shellfish unsuitable for human consumption. Pollution and its impacts upon natural resources were also well documented by 1885, some eight decades before the Clean Water Act.

For those who fished from the sea or cultivated oysters and shell fished from local waters pollution and natural resource loss was no surprise. They had seen the negative impacts for generations. The last Connecticut River native sea run salmon had been captured in 1793, not 1993. On the eve of the creation of the Nation’s Environmental Protection Agency, a sense of relief was expressed by fishermen, that others also would help them clean the waters and restore habitats. Other attempts to address air pollution and water pollution were also in development.

What Happened? This focus upon natural resource use to guide national resource use policy in not new. Some of the first wildlife refuges were created a century ago and habitat programs for waterfowl – ducks soon followed. Environmental pollution soon refocused efforts to protect resource uses as a loss of hunting, fishing and water based recreation happened in the 1950s.

The concept of environmental protection was not new to existing state and federal agencies, whose roles were largely to document and report pollution. They were not advocates for environmental policy or sanctioned programs to marshal public opinion. Much of the distrust of existing agencies therefore, came from decades of “apparent” negligence, not ignorance. Public policy scientists may differ in interpretation, but often the case of “action” or “correction” in the 1950s and 1960s was largely left to elected officials or respective legislative bodies, not appointed or civil service staff. In education terms, there was no application connected to content. Information was available about pollution but there were few to interpret meaning or provide possible solutions and no call to action. That is until public opinion tipped the balance from problem documentation to environmental protection and effective not ineffective regulatory policies. It appears that the better the previous agency had documented the problem, (1960s) the worst they were now seen under this new environmental spotlight (1970s). While the zeal and some might say emotion surrounded the environmental awakening in the early 1970’s it was clearly evident to elected officials, it soon was to manifest itself into legislation. EPA was established December 2, 1970, with both research and regulatory authority with a broad mandate to protect the nation’s natural resources and finally some “teeth to match the bark.”

It was simply the case that most often than not, pre existing agencies often lacked the authority to make change, but merely documented that change was needed. The public was shocked and appalled at the “discovery” process of documentation of the extent of the pollution problem, but lacked strategies of implementation or “corrective action” that would be the realm of a growing and more powerful environmental movement now sweeping across America. New policies values and environmental beliefs were to be created from this void of public agency perceived inaction. Nothing in the marine coastal environment would be used to such an extent to create new environmental policy then navigational dredging. It also had to mitigate decades of neglect and widespread introduction of hazardous chemicals and toxic substances that now were present in harbor bottoms. One of the first national studies of this problem was done in Quincy Bay Massachusetts and impacts upon its famous winter flounder fishery.

For decades such activities to name a few had altered coastal habitats, changed river courses, removed oyster reefs and destroyed salt marshes. For fisheries, its habitats’ loss was at times significant so the entire practice (dredging) became a negative one to be restricted, regulated and impacts mitigated. But dredging was very noticeable and galvanized early environmental policies for habitat protection. Early discussions clearly avoided what was “valuable” or what mitigation could be measured in response to navigational dredging. This disconnect was most apparent with long practices of unblocking coastal salt ponds – the habitat impacts of stagnation were at times very noticeable – dead fish and shellfish.

Unfortunately, no criterion was offered as to degree or habitat value losses from dredging. Dredging was a negative one and bad for the environment became a common perception. A Guilford, Connecticut case involving a Mr. Hunter who wanted to build a new marina in the East River would galvanize all fledging CT environmental groups into action which eventually led to closed door discussions on preservation and habitat values. The key issue was dredging. With the emerging analytical regulatory response would come to define all aspects of bottom disturbance as the “dredge issue” sought to provide a foundation upon which to build regulatory policy. If dredging resembled the tree than bottom disturbance was its roots. Regulate the roots and the tree itself will soon perish as was commonly heard in the early 1970’s. Instead of fighting pollution, limits were set on how much you could pollute, rather than prohibit dredging extensive monitoring and disposal studies were required, there seemed no end to the analytical regulatory response to even the slightest of activities that disturbed the bottom.

With this regulatory transition in the early 1970’s, the shellfish industry also found itself in chilly environmental waters. It harvested the resource it used dredges to harvest clams and oysters (an unfortunate Middle Ages term, drudge, that stuck to the shellfish industry); it cleaned and cleared silt to promote better recruitment and survival and it created new habitats by dredging up and planting dead oyster shells, all significant bottom disturbance activities. A significant amount of energy “work” was now spent in removing soft silt and organic accumulations from shellfish beds, much of it from poor watershed management practices on land. The very act of harvesting seafood contained some aspect of bottom disturbance.

For tidal rivers, the practice of oystering there had taken on new roles, removing vast and increasing accumulations of leaves, silt, and other organic debris. George McNeil had noticed this in Clinton Harbor and produced during of my interviews he provided a 1953 article titled, “Oystermen Fights for Clinton Crop”. What he was fighting at the time was not oyster drills or starfish, not that prevalent in brackish waters, but leaves, logs and sticks. He had to constantly remove them with his dredges or the bed itself would foul and die. The public did understand pests such as starfish and drills, but these oyster predators were rare in brackish areas what he was actually fighting was leaves and sticks. He wasn’t certain as to the source if all the organics, but had become increasingly evident that a problem silt covered shells while leaves sometimes three feet thick could be found in early spring. The habitat itself was changing – softer and more muck-like. At first he opposed the navigational dredging, but as the leaves accumulated, he started to appreciate it. They can have all the black muck they wanted, I recall him once saying; he just felt at the end, they, the Army Corps of Engineers, could help spread some oyster shells to help catch a set.

This theory would be tested some years later in the East River/Guilford anchorage area with much success. Rather than view such dredging as bad, Guilford shell fishermen also came to value it and the lower river dredging projects became viewed as maintaining sediment traps for leaves and sticks. In other words, the sticks, leaves and dead marsh grass carried down river now, had a place upon which to settle and remain “trapped” in the lower East River. Frank Dolan formerly of Guilford felt similarly to George McNeil, that the Army Corps should at least return some shell to the bottom and further that he could remove the sticks, dead grass and leaves cheaper than the Corps; it’s “fish food” as he would describe it and maintain a certain depth and oyster culture at the same time. He saw the boating community and oystermen as allies in the war against silt and organic matter much of it caused by poor watershed practices. I would have a chance to test Mr. Dolan’s theory in 1986-88. He offered to plant at his own expense some 30,000 bushels of shell to help restore the oyster setting capacity of the lower East River in Guilford, CT. He did restore the oyster setting capacity and in a big way, University of Connecticut underwater photographs and dive reports detailed the return of juvenile winter flounder and tautog over the shelled area. These reports were immediately made available to the Army Corps of Engineers including photographs and slide presentation at their then office on Trapelo Road, Massachusetts. (Follow up letter to the Army Corps, Mr. Edward O’Donnell, March 13, 2001.)

University of Connecticut Personnel, Bob DeGoursey and Patty Myers of the University of Connecticut provided underwater photography which clearly showed thousands of small seed oysters in the restricted area as well as small winter flounder. Dredging had cleaned the area – improved tidal flushing and with some habitat mitigation (shells) restored to some extent a previous habitat value. Tidal flushing has been linked to fisheries improvements in many coastal areas. The positive habitat aspects of dredging however are rarely discussed, reviewed or monitored.

Dredging and Public Policy

Dredging always had another aspect – disposal. For decades the “problem” of dredge spoils (now termed material) complicated navigational projects. The approval to dredge would now be linked to disposal, and what was valuable habitat wise would now be linked to contamination, in particular heavy metal accumulations. The difference is that the fact that sulfur reduction of organic matter naturally complexes heavy metals and efforts to control disposal as a way (back door) to control dredging. The bias in the presentation of benefits of it continues today. Much of the literature involving dredging is how bad it is; very few mention good or positive benefits.

This divide in opinion is not new and can be traced back to the original Coastal Management Act (1972). Our program would focus upon the negative aspects of contaminants (at times in our industrial harbors – a concern) while missing that most of the dredged material is termed sulfate acidic soil (some of the first studies that noted increases in aluminum and iron in sulfate acidic soils occurred in the 1960s) high in organics. In high heat and low oxygen conditions, sulfur-reducing bacteria can complex heavy metals as a natural organic matter digestion process. Some of the first studies to clean mining water of metals used sulfate acidic soil as a natural binder and were conducted by the EPA decades ago.

Bottom Disturbance

In some of the first studies in coastal saline mangroves of West Africa, the decomposing of leaves and mangrove roots accelerated the formation of sulfate-rich soils that occurred in the 1950s. Along our coast the increase in leaves has been linked to the occurrence of sulfate acidic deposits that fishers term “black mayonnaise.” Most often they, in time, can cover and suffocate river oyster populations. This aspect, sulfate acidic soils, has never been discussed in Connecticut (to my knowledge) as a basis for dredging; a bias that reflects one side of the argument that existed even before our Connecticut Coastal Area Management legislation. In Connecticut Values (Volume #1, Number 4, July 1977) mentions that in a magazine published by Union Trust, a financial institution under a section titled, “To Dredge Or Not.”

“In addition to the question of coastal management, other major recommendations of the federally financed survey are receiving varying degrees of attention. Dredging plans for harbors and selected coastal regions, and the difficult problem of disposing of the dredged material are being proposed at public hearings in towns along both shores, from Stamford to New London, and in Rye and Setauket, Long Island.

Why dredge? Major reasons include the need to keep open harbors and channels, which constantly fill up with sand, silt, and organic material. These come from natural erosion and wetland processes, watershed runoff, municipal and industrial waste, and tidal movements and currents. Four interim disposal areas* are currently under consideration, contrasted with 19 in use over the last two decades, from Stamford to Stonington at the Rhode Island border, which have received a hard-to-visualize 32 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. This would make a six-foot-high pile five miles long and a mile wide!

As with many problems today, marine authorities disagree on the effects of dredging, just as economists argue over economic matters. Some scientists maintain that dumping injuries the “aquatic nurseries” ripped out of shoal areas; others believe that the Sound may be resilient than commonly supposed and able to accept man’s depredation – at least for the short term. However, most authorities agree that dredging and its related issue of disposal have been studied for a long enough time for comprehensive conclusions to be reached.

Interestingly, New Haven’s Long Wharf region, where dredging and fill operations provided industrial land 28 years ago, has since become an important feeding area for birds.”

Dredging has benefits

Linked to a coastal feature from rotting leaves, organic matter termed sulfide block (long a problem in low energy freshwater trout streams) for returning anadromous species its disposal form low oxygen to high oxygen levels (such as offshore disposal sites) can produce a sulfuric acid wash followed by a return of oxygen sufficient bacteria decomposers. It virtually disappears overtime as this organic matter is recycled quickly to the marine food chain*.

What Fishermen Say

The problems of estuarine channels and the filling of them with leaves were not new. Often communities of local fishermen had compensated for increases in organic debris, practices including dragging the channel to remove leaves or sticks on the natural oyster beds logs were pinned and dragged off with chains by tongers if they weren’t entire bottoms would be fouled. I tried to explain that during a 1987 talk in Old Saybrook, regarding the Oyster River and the need to “work the beds” to remove silt but few believed that to be beneficial (I’m being kind) or that turning the oyster shells and loosing blankets of sea lettuce with chains was actually beneficial to the bottom and the oysters growing there. To many of the program participants this was just dredging by another name or term. Removing three feet of acidic muck as a positive management practice seemed contrary to long standing environmental policies. [In some reviews of dredged material open water disposal acidic sulfate soil (Sapropel) a sulfide rich material can produce a sulfuric acid wash as oxygen is again introduced and quickly disported by tides. Several disposal reviews mention winter flounder around such material if it contains estuarine shell. As organic matter is the base of the marine food chain for many organisms such deposits would hold “grazers” and reducers of organic matter. It is thought that grazers such as sand shrimp attract winter flounder. For more details see the US Army Corps 2001 publication monitoring at the New London CT Disposal Site 1992-1998 DAMOS project #128 or SAIC # 515.]

Decades earlier, a now very distinguished marine biologist and shellfish production expert, Clyde Mackenzie, Jr. would publish a paper titled: “How to Increase Oyster Production“ on just this very subject. Or, when a large tree was caught in the Branford River in 1985 and caused so much disruption, the National Guard was called in to remove it. I just chuckled to myself at that newspaper article since the oyster tongers would remove (without any press) several trees each year from the local oyster beds. During the 1950s floods dozens of trees were removed this way (Frank Dolan, personal communication). George McNeil, a former oyster grower from both New Haven and Clinton, told me about hitting logs in the Hammonasset River each spring. He would drag the beds just as the ice was leaving because he knew it was just a matter of time before leaf covered oysters on his beds would begin to suffocate “we had to get the leaves off before they started to pump” as he would say. As the first ice cleared Mr. McNeil claimed at low tide you could see the leaves sometimes up to two feet of them over the oysters. As he recalled, he noticed a dramatic increase in leaves at first he suspected there was just more trees, but at the end of his oystering career, he suspected people were dumping them in the upper (Hammonasset) River, but couldn’t prove it. Mr. McNeil didn’t feel he was dredging but assisting the downstream flow of a now increasing forest canopy. I had Mr. McNeil’s prediction come true sort to speak years later on Niantic Bay. I was assisting with a hard shell clam grow out experiment with hard shell clams. After a few months many of the seed clams had suffocated under partially rotten leaves and we thought that the recent fall storms had deposited them. As the shellfish commission chairmen sifted the dead clams, a neighbor dragging a large tarp dumped the huge mound of leaves into the water just a few yards away from the clam beds. The shellfish commission chairman ran towards the neighbor, I ran for my car thinking of George McNeil.

Old Saybrook’s Oyster River

The Oyster River Old Saybrook Project created an opportunity for fishermen to again oyster “legally” harvest and relay oysters to cleaner waters. Although the Oyster River had been closed to direct harvesting in 1971 (high bacteria counts). Some of the Oyster River neighbors felt ownership of the oyster resource and the appearance of “Natural Growthers” was to some, a concern. But all the oyster harvesters commented that the beds needed to be “worked.” Worked, to them was a term that describes the lifting and scouring of the shell bed itself. Living oysters would be harvested but the process of hand dredging dislodged sticks, leaves and logs exposing buried shells to the water column and surfaces for potential oyster sets. According to several small boat commercial fishermen, the Oyster River was closed to both recreational and commercial harvesting in 1971 so it had been a decade since oyster tonging had occurred. The prevalent harvesting device in 1981 was a hand oyster dredge similar to scallop dredges hand hauled and dragged for one to two minutes from a skiff or scow before hauling. Each of the hand dredges was equipped with a “Mackenzie pressure plate” a fairly recent feature created in the late 1960’s by Clyde Mackenzie. In his now famous technical bulletin titled: Oyster Culture in Long Island Sound 1966-1969 (CMF January 1970, pages 27 to 40) published before the US Fish and Wildlife Service before it turned over its marine laboratories to commerce NOAA which then became the National Marine Fisheries Service (or NMFS in 1973). The paper describes how oyster setting was improved by the use of cutting boards flushing away organics which was a smaller version now added to the centuries old hand oyster drags. Dr. Mackenzie documented that many seed oyster beds were buried in silt preventing oyster sets. (MFR paper 1259 Development of an Aquacultural Program for Rehabilitation of Damaged Oyster Reefs In Mississippi, August 1977). The hand dredging also accomplished another important process it tended to uncover buried shell bases, lifting and scouring the bottom, in effect, cleaning it. It was also Dr. Mackenzie that documented this process, that “black shells” as he called them because buried in anaerobic acidic muck were in fact, biologically clean and therefore of great value to the oyster bed. A supply of clean shell upon seed oyster could set, but needed cultivation to uncover it.

What confused the issue even more was the term itself, “dredging.” Shell fishermen were providing the energy necessary, in this case harvest energy to restore the habitat value of the oyster bed. In some areas up to three feet of soft organic muck was removed as it was dislodged by the hand oyster dredges. Shortly afterward, neighbors reported a huge increase in winter flounder populations and catches. As oyster harvesting had occurred each year as part of a seasonal fishery, leaves and organic matter had been “cleared” it could be determined that a habitat value had been therefore sustained. As organic loadings increased and nitrogen enriched algae grew denser, energy would need to be increased. It was Joe Dolan, an oyster grower from Guilford who likened the dredging problem to lawn care. If dredging were to happen every year it would not be such a huge expense or concern. If you didn’t cut your lawn for two years the first new cut would be tough. He saw the same thing for the boating industry – ten years – now it is a big project instead of 4 to 5 inches/year now it is 50 inches. He had practical experience with his several oyster boats, he could wash and clean oysters, remove the silt quickly. If he waited the oysters would suffocate and to him the washing and cleaning had done the bottom some good. In his mind navigational projects increased tidal flushing and improved fisheries habitats but predicted, it would be decades before the truth about dredging would become well known.

Dredging to Restore Tidal Circulation and Benefit Habitat Values

Several habitat restoration projects and programs have looked at the impact of reduced tidal circulation to saltwater habitats – such as salt marshes but also tidal benthic species as well. Some restoration projects have sought to stabilize channel openings, improve the size and capacity of culverts, widen and deepen bridge openings. These have occurred here in Connecticut with alewife restoration. Occasionally dredging projects have created new habitats such as salt ponds or helped to restore habitats impacted by improperly sized pipes. Dredging can remove fill or lengthen habitat values in coastal salt ponds. Dredging terrestrial ponds has a long history of reversing or sustaining habitat values. In the 1990s effort were underway to use high organic dredge marine “spoils” as a soil enhancement by Texas A&M University. A century ago “mussel mud” was a commercial product, valuable to farms in Canada as fertilizer even here in Connecticut. Much of the material removed by navigational dredging is in fact, leaf compost. One such project in Alewife Cove New London was one of the first projects that attempted to measure habitat improvements from dredging. One additional benefit on reviewed as hydraulic stress is the positive impact salt pond creation (dredging) can have during storms. Excess surge now had somewhere to go – a modified manmade barrier inlet as compared to barrier beach cuts made during storms. Coastal salt ponds often have a habitat history linked to storm driven opening and closures. Oral histories of fishers and landowners often have similar accounts of the impacts of reduced tidal circulation termed flushing.

Natural Energy Impacts upon Habitats

It appears that looking at the organization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) it set the stage for two opposing resource views – the first was the wise use of the resource (renewable) and secondly, the protection and conservation of the resource. The same debate has influenced forest management for decades, re forest fires or even logging. Many environmentalists resist both fire suppression and logging – setting the stage for horrific, often devastating “natural” events. Even the term “natural” has been in the forefront lately. What is natural and what isn’t? The term habitat quality also had problems as regulations tended to ignore long term natural environmental changes such as temperature and energy cycles. Early on, the coastal preservation and conservation management efforts looked at dredging – just as a regulated activity after all, it was a direct removal of something from the marine environment, a potential habitat loss. Removal became negative, not natural and any aspect associated with it. One of the factors was suspension of silt/sediment in the water column. So you have regulations developed about “prop washing” or disturbance of the “natural bottom.” One of the first reported negative associations was that re-suspended fines were harmful to marine life and that is true. This, of course, happens “naturally” with storms, also the topic of my research at present. The truth is most of the marine organisms have adapted to fines and silt. This needed to happen over time for these organisms to survive in Long Island Sound. Some of the first silt studies however were in closed system tanks, with “Fullers’ earth” in which no escape was possible – that really bothered the shellfish industry here – impacts from shellfish dredges are so small and most fish flee – coming nowhere near the severity of a coastal storm, for example that can impact tens of thousands of acres. Tank studies have no “flee” factor. In many instances, fish are attracted to such bottom disturbances such as the “flounder pounder” used here with spear fishing until recently. Two of the largest concerns regarding dredging are habitat (fish egg) burial and the size, shape of the sediment particles themselves. Most of the marine sediments are “polished” – rounder and less sharp edges, fish adapt well to them. What is dangerous is “sharp” sand like brick sand and sand that is spread on roads in the wintertime. These sharp sand particle edges irritate and cut soft membranes. Eventually even these sharp particles become polished by wave and tide action. Restrictions on seasonal dredging today called windows were based mostly upon:

1. Disturbance of seasonal migration patterns; (windows)
2. Burial of eggs.
3. Fish tissue damage

Silt loading that caused damage was higher than estuarine dredging could produce that is concentrations in the “open” environment, even with dredging, never approached that. Dredging windows often did not make sense with occasional hurricanes and winter northeasters both “warm” and “cold” scenarios. If organisms (fish and shellfish) were that sensitive Long Island Sound would have been vacated of living organisms thousands of years ago. Shad and other herrings return to our stream when runoff from spring is highest not the lowest. Some of the dredging windows for species like winter flounder have conditions reversed, winter flounder habitats actually benefit from energy (dredging).

Most of the research community has weighed in that re-suspension of limited duration presents little (most say none) environmental risk. But many groups have seized the negative aspects of shellfish “dredging” and clump that with navigational dredging. In Madison, CT (1990), that was the case there – shore front owners didn’t want the sight of or noise from the clam dredge boats. In the end, the scientific community dismissed the outrageous environmental complaints brought forth, and it came down to “we just don’t want to look at them.” Often public policy is wrapped around environmental policy especially when it comes to resource use and is nearly always so when it comes to dredging.

It may be that mitigation procedures mentioned on page 11, Guilford, CT for the East River Project (JSR Vol.7, No 2. 267-270, 1988, The Mitigation of Dredging Impacts to Oyster Populations) might have a role under essential fish habitat regulations for winter flounder. Although some egg loss can be attributed to dredging operations and siltation, the same process could also replace shells, clean them and provide an area for improved ground water quality – eggs survival and flounder growth mitigating any loss and perhaps enhancing habitat quality for winter flounder for years. This would necessitate long term habitat creation, enhancement and mitigation research. Recent studies have indicated a winter flounder habitat preference for cleaner, sand bottoms that contain bivalve shell litter. Egg suffocation, such as landing in areas that contain soft low pH leaf accumulations is thought to be just as damaging as passive silt deposition. In this case toxic sulfides or a sulfide block, so in many cases, removing soft bottom habitats and substituting bivalve shells may actually increase biological diversity, helping, not hurting desired habitat assemblages such as those identified for winter flounder. The positive habitat impacts of navigational dredging however are rarely reviewed. One of the few long term studies of annual bottom cultivation / disturbance is a Niantic Bay winter flounder trawl net sampling program conducted by Millstone Research Laboratory. Trawl net surveys in the Upper Niantic River showed consistent greater flounder abundance in areas traveled on a regular basis than occasional trawls outside of the study area (Doug Morgan personal communication 1988). It was suggested at the time that the trawl net itself acted as an annual leaf raking activity helps to maintain a firmer or hard bottom habitat. Oak and maple leaves are quite acidic – limiting bivalve sets in many instances. The action of the trawl sweep may have kept areas clear and improved habitat for winter flounder.

Some new research has indicated some benefits to bottom disturbances that remove silt from benthic habitats. A Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Vol. 7 #7 July 2008 speculates that bottom trawling disturbance may have habitat benefits. That study reviews a flounder species plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) and bottom disturbance may improve feeding and food webs. Ireland and Scotland in some studies have indicated the negative environmental impacts of sealing in terrestrial sediments (dredge spoils) effectively removing a natural process that supported several near shore food webs for fish. Oyster harvesters and winter flounder fishermen in Clinton Connecticut felt for example that periodic barrier inlet openings allowed organic material to nourish offshore and adjacent eelgrass beds in the outer harbor.

Natural Maintenance Dredging Versus Man Made Maintenance Dredging

It is not uncommon to witness and to some extent measure natural dredging events created by energy inputs we call storms. Barrier beach cuts show many of the same energy impacts and tidal changes accomplished by today’s navigational dredging – it’s just slower and harder to measure. Storms have breached sand barrier inlets such as Great South Bay in New York or Pleasant Bay on Cape Cod many times after such natural storm related dredging events. Tidal flushing/exchange improved and resource user group fishermen often reported enhanced fisheries production. Natural events that created new and restored habitat values can be found in several fisheries history reports - Clyde Mackenzie the shellfish biologist mentioned earlier in this report documented the impacts of enhanced tidal circulation after inlet creation for several shellfish producing bays (Moriches and Great South Bay for hard shell clams). A research effort in April 2000 by Allec King, Rosen and Fleming for the Army Corps of Engineers. Baymen interviews – Atlantic Coast of Long Island Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New York, almost every bayman interview concluded that “energy” inlet formation such as from hurricanes created greater tidal exchange (deeper and wider channels) and improved hard clam and other fisheries. Therefore in many respects maintaining navigational dredging mimics in much detail the impact of occasional “natural forces” in habitat sustainability. Therefore dredging may establish a new way to restore or sustain certain fisheries habitats. This is certainly somewhat controversial but historical references to erosion/cuts appear to indicate opportunities to rejuvenate or reinvigorate coastal habitats. Numerous references to the energy as both habitat creation or mitigation processes exist in the historical literature and resource user group beliefs.

Conclusion: “Not all Dredging is Bad.”

It remains to be seen that dredging will continue to be a controversial issue for quite some time. This is unfortunate as the debate often ignores the negative impacts of shoreline development in general, run off, nitrogen enhanced vegetation, poor storm water management practices and potential mitigation activities. These issues cannot be removed from the “natural” “environmental debate” and if energy “work” such as navigational dredging is viewed solely a negative input or impact as that I believe is often incorrect. It is not “all bad” nor should it be treated as such, what is needed is a thorough review of what habitats we seek to protect is what we value – that is a social and public policy debate not just an environmental one. Natural energy is applied to coastal habitats everyday – but that is called erosion. We may choose to fight or prevent erosion based upon values of a greater good. Even docks and bulkheads have habitat value and in some instances substantial habitat value (vertical reefs) such as pilings but are rarely mentioned in positive terms. Jetty and Groin construction provided hard structures (artificial reefs) for fish but our state has not commenced one artificial reef study even though Rhode Island has several experiments underway. Sub tidal offshore reefs have much promise in minimizing seawall damage but conflict with “natural” regulatory policies. There is a bias policy wise towards resource use as it simply conflicts with protection. Until this bias is recognized and then “balanced” it will be an uphill effort for the boating industry that needs dredging. In many cases what is valued environmentally is not aligned to user group perspectives or values. This is the challenge that navigational dredging presents – how to combine both and involve resource user groups in these important discussions.
Tim Visel

Tim Visel can be reached at The Sound School: tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us

Outline for Case History Study – Silver Lake Dredging Berlin, CT – Farm Pond Flushing Oak Bluffs, MA.

Environmental Fisheries Habitat History

• Histories fisheries – production – user group observations and records, catch statistics
• Fisheries habitat histories – preference suitability
• Environmental history – storms – coastal process energy events and yes dredging
• Can these combined reviews provide information for resource abundance?

Slide 1
“Not all dredging is bad”

This is not science, it is history. To understand the science you must know the history.

A look at dredging from three views: historical abundance of habitat dependent species, scientific and public policy views of coastal processes, and trends in the environment – climate.

This area of study is termed Environmental Fisheries Habitat History – this has been the topic of my research since 1978, when I was first involved in shellfish management.

Slide 2
Why dredging?

• Dredging is a coastal energy pathway and provides a unique opportunity to study much shortened “habitat clocks” of several species.
• There is much material around dredging and species impacts but little regarding long term energy and life cycle impacts.
• Public Policies defer from science, in many areas and influence beliefs and values associated with coastal energy i.e., erosion policies.

Slide 3
Why examine dredging for habitat histories?
• Dredging is manmade controlled erosion; this provides short-term opportunities to review habitat change that may otherwise require centuries of natural processes to alter.
• My research attempts to combine fish production and habitat suitability to significant environmental events.
• Dredging is one example of a coastal energy pathway, albeit manmade, and coastal energy drives near shore habitat formation.

Slide 4
To evaluate coastal processes, investigators must review energy pathways such as wave, wind, tides, currents, tidal flow, and surges (floods).

• We examine fisheries habitats over time and verify accuracy by utilizing case histories (natural).
• Habitat creation/destruction, mitigation, enhancement and restoration (manmade).
• How are the results of energy pathways described and incorporate into research papers.

- User groups - accounts/events
- Natural weather/climate
- Manmade pathways– shell fishing – dredging, Jetty and groin construction, docks and pilings (vertical reefs)
- Pathway alterations, tidal flows, salt marshes, railroads, barrier inlets, road causeways.

Slide 5
Applications of energy related projects for bottom disturbance and terrestrial linkages

• A Hurricane represents what on land would be a forest fire habitat succession, such as the increased productivity of hard shell clams, years after hurricanes.
• The cultivation of marine soils – testimony from shellfish fishermen New England States, the impact of acid bottoms and other pH changes – soft-shell clams following storms (Cape Cod studies).
• Habitat histories introduce the concepts of habitat clocks sustained by energy pathways such as Niantic Bay and Cedar Island – Clinton case histories – barrier beach inlet openings and closures and long term impacts upon winter flounder populations.

Slide 6
Current areas to review – research in progress

• Oyster restoration, three dimensional mounds of shell that mimic historical oyster reef structures – review of the role of currents and profile. Great Wicomico River in 2004 - USACE project. These may have a role in Shoreline erosion.

• A review of bottom trawling disturbance that increases food production for the flounder plaice. (Long attributed to winter flounder and oyster habitats) Europe and Canada.

• Bottom disturbance may improve the feeding conditions for species that feed on small invertebrates. Joint Federal/State application for the alternation of any tidal wetland in Maryland 7/1/09.

• Habitat enhancements such as flounder and oyster shell, pH and clams, bay scallops and “red weed” are largely energy driven. Some species prefer high energy, others low.

Slide 7

New England case history studies
• Storms often dislodged vast amounts of “chips”- these shell fragments dislodged by storms were often cleaned and available for oyster sets; such was the case in 1899 – following the Portland Gale of 1898.
• Conversations with winter flounder fishermen have reported a bottom habitat shift from hard to soft – surveys of fishermen on Cape Cod to Connecticut and much Army Corps information from fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay region.
• Massachusetts accounts of barrier beach inlet breaks and the soft shell clam (Mya) response – Dr. David Belding’s Research.
• New York experiences with cultivation of hard shell clam bottoms, bull rakes for hard shell mercenaria over old oyster beds. The shell and hand cultivation may improve soils for sets.
• Connecticut’s experience with hydraulics in the hard clam fisheries cultivation of leased acreage after 1958.
• The wasting disease of eelgrass in the 1930s - 1940’s and increased bay scallop production from Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts during eelgrass declines. The real scallop grass appears to be red algae species, Agardhiella subulata

Slide 8

• The tremendous increase in winter flounder as a result of the growth of the oyster industry between 1880 and 1910 (shell as an artificial reef).
• Some species show high abundance during colder periods subject to high energy: lobsters, bay scallops and winter flounder; while others do well in low energy, warmer periods: soft shell clam, blue crabs, oysters.
• The period between 1895 – 1915 most of the small lobsters perished from high temperatures. Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut built lobster hatcheries for the critical Stage 4 lobster to replace hot water die offs – 1930s colder temperatures and more storms eliminated the need. As temperatures dropped in the 1940s and 1950s lobsters recovered.
• Bay scallop responses to energy is linked to algal shifts and the monkey dung of the early trawl fisheries is actually a substance called Maerl, a by-product of calcium containing red algae. A worldwide habitat association between scallops and red algal species is now suspected. Periods of low energy and increased organic deposition is now associated with lower red algae habitat quality.

Tim Visel

CT Harbor Management Association Meeting
November 9th 2010 at Woodwinds - Branford, CT
- Discussion -

Questions and answers following the PowerPoint Presentation
Timothy C. Visel

In our area much research surrounds the impacts of dredging upon finfish and shellfish species, such as winter flounder, lobsters, bay scallops, oysters and clams.

However history tells a different story, that climate especially temperature combined with energy has the most important role.

That role we value as habitat quality and quantity and a brief look at the last century (within 1 year at 5 year blocks) reveals that impact. The result of which governs resource abundance and habitat sustainability.

- New England Case Histories –

The time line below summarizes some key – climate/temperature/energy periods

1880 Smithsonian Institution under the US Fish Commission starts a comprehensive US fishery history (published 1887-91).

1885 Norwalk Bay Scallop Fishery ends – CT enters a warming period
(Greenwich Scallop Fishery ends in 1882-84)

1890 Soft Shell Clam Production in Norwalk surpasses 20,000 bushels – oysters flourish.

1895 CT Bay Fishermen report widespread euthrophic conditions especially in eastern CT. Bay Scallops die in Poquonnock River in Groton from heat and stagnant water linked to excess eelgrass growth. Oyster sets greatly increase.

1900 CT Oyster sets peak – 2 million bushels of shells planted/yr. Flounder fyke
fishery nears 500,000 lbs in eastern CT. It gets hot in CT. Greenwich, CT has malaria outbreak.

1905 Rhode Island opens first lobster hatchery to replace heat related die offs records exceptional soft shell clam sets – CT and MA consider similar US Fish Commission proposals for lobster hatcheries. Record heat continues. Blue crabs increase in Narragansett Bay.

1910-20 Moriches Bay New York trapped flounder die in hot spells (especially in
1917), July 29 - August 4, Clinton CT Bay Scallop fishery ends. Blue crabbing now increases. Connecticut now has a commercial blue crab fishery.

1915 Soft shells clams peak in Chatham MA, New York, CT. MSX hits Connecticut nearly all southern transplant oysters died. Massachusetts Oyster Production nears peak. CT Oyster Growers frequently mention winter flounder over oyster beds.

1920 Oyster Sets fail in CT – production tumbles – winters turn sharply colder after 1921

1925 Flounder catches surge peaking at 11 million pounds in 1931 from early trawl net fishery. Bay scallops return to Rhode Island after severe (cold) winters.

1930 Eelgrass dies off and bay scallop catches soar in CT, NY and MA. The eelgrass died off is worldwide.

1935 Niantic Bay CT Bay Scallop Fishery tops 15 thousands bushels eelgrass almost completely gone winter flounder catch falls from record high.

1948 Colder temperatures eliminate the need for RI and CT lobster hatcheries, they focus now on flounder and smelt. Excess clam production in Rhode Island causes digger strike following an intense quahog clam set in 1939-40.

1950 Hurricanes Dog and Easy destroy much of the Rhode Island and CT Oyster fisheries – sets the stage for heavy hard clam sets and lobster recruitment in 1952-54 for both states. Tens of thousands of acres of kelp/cobblestone habitat created important to lobster habitat.

1955 A busy hurricane season and a nearly complete absence of eelgrass in Niantic Bay sets the stage for the best ever bay scallop fishery. CT would land a record 425,000 lbs of bay scallop meat, the highest record bay scallop harvest. Hurricane Connie and Diane rake the New England Coast as the busy 1955 hurricane season which lists 13 storms.

1960 Hard shell clam production soars as flounder continues to fall soft shell fishery ends in CT – MSX detected in New Haven, CT oysters. Oyster sets infrequent, often late in the fall.

1965 Long Island Sound freezes over for the last time that century. Many Southwest gales. CT Oyster sets fail.

1970 Connecticut oyster industry falls to 2% of 1910 level obtains Disaster Relief Funding. Winters now turn warmer.

1975 Oyster sets increase, flounder recruitment fails, hard shell clam sets decline.
Niantic Bay is choked with nitrogen enhanced eelgrass the growth of which becomes so thick explosives are used to restore tidal circulation. Summers are warmer winters become “mild.”

1983 Thousands of acres are closed to direct shellfishing harvesting oyster beds begin to silt in – lobsters begin to improve – 40% of New Haven Harbor Winter Flounder now show fin rot.

1985 Habitat extinction event occurs for winter flounder, Niantic Bay flounder fishery is closed (86), Bay scallops reappear in Niantic after Hurricane Gloria for a two year period, Long Island Sound Study commences. LIS temperatures increase.

1987-90 Lobster die offs occur Long Island Sound report widespread anoxic events MSX hits CT widespread mortality reported from the oyster industry QPX clam parasite detected in Rhode Island and MA – suspect warm water temperatures. Kelp cobble stone habitat begins to fail.

1995 Flounder habitat recruitment continues to drop CT DEP reports small winter flounder prefer bivalve shell habitats, hard shell clam sets improve following Hurricane Bob. For the most part winters are mild – summer heat now intensifies.

2000 Bay Scallops now largely absent from CT waters, hard shell clam CT production increases on leased beds. Oyster sets improve/soft shell clam sets greatly improve. Lobster population collapses. Blue crabs increase in CT River.

2005 Lobster and flounder populations drop to new lows (V Notch). Blue crabs and soft shells sets show improvement oyster setting remains strong. Rhode Island sounds alarm bell for lobster habitat. Bay scallop production remains very low.

2010 CT Blue crab season reported to be best in a century. CT lobster die offs reported in late September. Sound School reviews cooperative DEP – Industry lobster hatchery proposal. RI confirms species shifts in Narragansett Bay first reported in (2007)) Maine oyster sets continues to grow. CT Winter flounder continues at very low levels. Striped Bass now frequent Southern Maine waters.

Case Histories for Capstone Study - January 2015

Habitat histories – printed or oral history from newspapers exist (see sample newspaper articles) – one in fresh water – Silver Lake, Berlin, CT (proposed for dredging – 1989 Dredging finished, Sept 27, 2014 (according to DEEP permit on file) – fishers survey – Did dredging Silver Lake improve fishing or recreational access – opportunities?

A second case history (salt water) involves restoration of tidal flow/flushing into a coastal pond on Martha’s Vineyard in the town of Oak Bluffs. (Initial flow improvement water – June 8, 1990 quality/fisheries concerns). An article in the Vineyard Gazette Martha’s Vineyard, MA, June 6, 1990. From the article Town Officials expressed concerns (Mr. DeBettencourt) “feels the State Department of Environmental Protection has been less than helpful.” Perhaps a survey could be developed to access policy implications of the project which according to a newspaper article that appeared very recently (Jan 8th 2014) which mentions nearly the same issues as the June 1990 article.

Students interested in these case histories should c