Minutes
Minutes
Shellfish Advisory Board
February 6, 2017
Wellfleet COA
Present: Barbara Austin, Jacob Puffer,, Zack Dixon, Rebecca Taylor, Brett Morse
Regrets: Jim O’Connell, Tom Siggia, John Duane
Others in Attendance: Andy Koch (Shellfish Constable) John Mankevetch (assistant
constable), Michael DeVasto, Katie Murphy, Martha Craig, Don Palladino, Ed Tesson,
Sue Tesson, Jerrie Austin, Richard Blakely, Susan Baumgarten, Helen Miranda Wilson,
Abbe Seldin, Farny Schneider, Judith Stiles, Bob Wallace, Jodi Birchall, Brad Morse,
Michelle Insley, Ethan Estey, Tim Hughes
Meeting called to order 7:06 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Jake made a motion to approve the December 28, 2016 Minutes, Brett seconded,
motion passed 5-0.
2. PRESENTATION BY HERRING RIVER CONCERNED CITIZENS
Susan Baumgarten of HRCC introduced herself as someone with experience in working
with big, complicated projects and doing research to uncover facts and science.
After reading the HRRP FEIR, Susan has some concerns about the risks and claimed
benefits. She handed out a HRCC fact sheet titled Herring River Restoration Fact Sheet:
Evidence of Shellfish Benefits (attachment 1).
Discussion included:
- Susan pointed out that benefit to shellfishing is not listed in the FEIR “need for action”.
Mike Devasto noted that he has not heard that it was claimed as a reason for the project.
- Susan mentioned that the evidence of reduction of coliform bacteria to safe Shellfishing
levels is based on a 2006 study and was only a suggested result based on that study.
Martha Craig stated that it is basic estuarine science that clean water moving will
reduce f. coliform. Jodi Birchall said that while that is true it is only true for surface
water and there is no study on what effect the project will have on title 5 septic systems.
- Richard Blakely raised the issue of the plume from the dump. If the hard clay that
keeps the plume from leaching back downriver is breached we are in trouble. Martha
stated that with this project the mean level of the water would not change, so the plume
would not be affected. Also, the landfill was capped and leaching has been drastically
reduced since. She said that testing has shown no movement from the plume into the
river. Jodi said that she’d like to see independent research (not the Park Service) on the
plume. She also noted that Eastham had regular plume testing for a long time and
everything was fine until one day when it wasn’t. Martha clarified that testing is done
by an independent group hired by the town. It is well monitoring not hydrological
study.
Susan handed out a second HRRC Fact Sheet: Risks to Shellfish Beds (attachment 2).
- Susan asked if a more detailed sediment transport study has been undertaken. Martha
answered that Woods Hole Group is doing that now. Judith said that the FEIR states
that temporary sedimentation is a possibility. She also mentioned that mitigation in case
of damage to the golf course and private home owners is mentioned many times in the
FEIR, but nothing about mitigation for shellfishing. She said that insurance is not
needed, because it would be too hard to collect. What is needed is an emergency fund, a
liquid emergency fund that would help shell-fishermen to pay their rent and make
decisions about how to go forward in case of closure.
- Alfred Pickard gave the example of the parking lot at the gut disappearing after the
seashore assured us that it would come back. The Seashore could be wrong with their
modeling and there is absolutely no mitigation plan (no money, no relocation, nothing
for the shellfishing people).
Susan handed out a third HRRC Fact Sheet: Herbicide Risks (attachment 3).
- Susan asked if there has been any study or result from the spraying of Glyphosate at
Herring Pond.
- Judith read the warning from the label of a Glyphosate product referring to the
possibility of suffocation of fish. Susan added that the WHO has labeled Glyphosate as
a probable carcinogen.
- Helen mentioned that the 3 entities on the Executive Council must each consent before
any action on a particular issue (i.e. herbicide use) is taken.
Susan handed out a fourth HRRC sheet: The Adaptive Management Plan, What Does it
Mean? How Will it Reduce the Risks? (Attachment 4)
- Susan expressed concern that Adaptive Management is too reactive and that by the time
something is found to be harmful, it may be too late. Martha reiterated that there will be
constant monitoring.
Barbara Austin informed the committee and the audience that Friends of Herring River
will be presenting Scientific Studies of Interest on March 23. Martha handed out flyers.
3. NOTICE OF INTENT FOR SPAT COLLECTION DEADLINE IN CHIPMAN’S
COVE
Barbara - extending the deadline for hat removal needs to done permanently.
Helen - DMF says that if Shellfish Dept works with Board of Health and ConsCom then
7.15.3 can be made permanently to reflect the dates of June 15 through October 20 for hat
removal deadline.
Barbara made a motion to make permanent the dates for hats in the Cove June 15
through October 20. Jake seconded, motion passed 5-0.
4. PETITIE REGULATIONS
Barbara - the State is no longer asking Wellfleet to have an endorsement for petites.
Many grant holders have expressed that they would like to be able to sell petites and have
a commercial license.
Andy said that the State no longer requires an undersize permit, so it is a done deal.
Helen’s only concern is that it may be unfair to those who do not have leases.
Brett and Tim Hughes stated that there would have to be very strict enforcement. Jake
agreed. Brett Morse agreed.
Barbara mentioned that DMF is going to be tightening up on the wild guys, especially
during vibrio. The wild will be much more strictly regulated.
Jake made a motion to recommend to BOS that 7.16.3, 7.16.4 part a, b and c and
7.16.5 part c and d be removed from the Wellfleet Shellfish Regulations. Barbara
seconded, motion passed 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 1
HERRING RIVER RESTORATION
FACT SHEET: EVIDENCE OF SHELLFISH BENEFITS
Re-opening and expansion of the shellfish beds has not been cited as one of the
primary reasons to restore the estuary.
• The “need for action” is based on six “adverse ecological impacts”: 1) tidal
restriction, 2) plant community changes, 3) loss of estuarine habitat and
degradation of water quality, 4) alteration of natural sediment processes an
increased salt marsh surface subsidence, 5) nuisance mosquito production and 6)
impediments to river herring migration.”(FEIR, page iii)
With no restoration the shellfish population will continue at current levels.
• “Wild and cultivated shellfish populations downstream of the dike and in
Wellfleet Harbor are expected to continue at current population levels. (FEIR,
page 248)
Oysters are unlikely to re-establish themselves unless the riverbed hardens.
• Even with restoration upstream of the dike it is “unlikely that oysters would
establish themselves naturally, unless the bottom substrate of the river hardens
naturally with restoration.” (FEIR, page 250)
The evidence that restoration will reduce coliform bacteria to levels “safe for
shellfish harvesting” is based on an inconclusive 2006 study”. [Email, 1-6-17]
• Results from the Herring River, plus a preliminary survey of other diked Cape
Cod estuaries, suggest a direct relationship between the degree of tidal restriction
and surface-water fecal coliform, which should be studied further.” (Portnoy
and Allen, Journal of Shellfish Research, vol. 25, No. 2, 609-617, 2006).
The real-world evidence that the beds will re-open and expand is based on an
example in North Carolina (North River, Carteret County). [Email 1-6-17]
o Approximately 200 acres were reclassified from closed-to-shellfish harvest to
conditionally-approved-open.
o Conditionally approved beds can be closed after a significant rainfall due to fecal
coliform bacteria, so the project failed to re-open the beds permanently.
ATTACHMENT 2
HERRING RIVER RESTORATION
FACT SHEET: RISKS TO SHELLFISH BEDS
Sedimentation is one of the most often cited risks and was studied by the Woods
Hole Group (WHG), but questions remain.
• “…sedimentation and erosion downstream of the dike in Herring River and
Wellfleet Harbor could pose some adverse impacts to shellfish.” (FEIR, page 254)
• “Oysters are sedentary and would be susceptible to burial by excessive
sedimentation… but these sediment accumulations would likely be
temporary.” (FEIR, page 251)
• The Woods Hole preliminary analysis “revealed the potential for altered sediment
transport patterns”. The WHG stated that because of the importance of sediment
transport to the “valuable nearby shellfish resources…a more detailed sediment
transport evaluation was warranted.” [Woods Hole Model, Page 180]
o Was this more detailed analysis performed? What were the findings?
Other risks to shellfish beds in Wellfleet Harbor include excess nutrient export,
transport of fecal coliform bacteria, algal blooms, and sediment deposition. [FEIR,
page C-15]
• Renewed tidal flushing of acid sulfate soils would allow ammonium-nitrogen to be
released into receiving waters, and would likely be short-lived, “probably
months” (FEIR, page 200)
• “Potential wetland resource area impacts include 31,484 square feet of land
containing shellfish designated as a permanent impact area” (FEIR Certificate, page
12)
o How will this affect the shellfish beds?
• Permit applications must include plans to test for metals and pesticides potentially
mobilized during the project (FEIR Certificate, page 23)
• Construction of the new dike poses risks due to time-of-year restrictions (FEIR
Certificate, page 37)
There is no insurance to cover temporary or permanent loss of income
due to disruption to the shellfish beds
ATTACHMENT 3
FRIENDS/HERRING RIVER RESTORATION COMMITTEE
FACT SHEET: HERBICIDE RISKS
Friends/HRRC public statements on herbicide use have been contradictory and
ambiguous since public pressure against herbicides appeared in the fall.
• “Project representatives have consistently and accurately stated that no decision
has been made about the use of herbicides in the Herring River
Restoration.” (Email 12-22-16)
• “There currently is no formal plan or proposal for any sort of phragmites
management in the Herring River project area, despite what you may have read in
recent news articles. Perhaps it should have been written more explicitly, but the
language within the EIS was intended to imply the potential use of herbicide as
one of a number of control techniques that could be considered in the future, not
that any such decision has already been made.” [Email, 11-30-17)
• “The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stated…that
the Restoration Project must demonstrate a significant improvement in wetland
habitat by expansion of wetland, particularly salt marsh, through control of
invasive species (phragmites) in order to obtain the necessary permits. (Email
1-22-17)
The Final Environmental Impact Report states that herbicides will be used.
• “Overall, there could be 150-250 acres of brackish habitat that may be susceptible
to invasion by common reed (phragmites). It is expected that high salinity levels
in some areas and repeated herbicide applications in other areas…will be effective
for controlling common reed.” [FEIR, page 245]
In 2012, The Cape Cod National Seashore sprayed Glyphosate at Herring Pond to
control phragmites. https://www.nps.gov/caco/learn/nature/phragmites-control.htm
• The glyphosate was applied using backpack sprayers. There is no evidence of
water quality monitoring for herbicides, effects on off-target species or the
effectiveness of the spraying
Herbicide (glyphosate) is the primary method for controlling phragmites.
• Two prominent scientists surveyed 285 land managers and learned that “The vast
majority of organizations used herbicide as their primary P. australis (phragmites)
control method. Other methods were less common”. [The Runaway Weed: Costs
and Failures of Phragmites australis Management in the USA. Estuaries and
Coasts (2013) 36:626-632]
Using herbicides to control phragmites is costly, toxic and ineffective.
• In this same study the scientists state that herbicides should not be used. “…
invasive management programs often focus on the invader, and in doing so, lose
sight of the invaded ecosystem—the real object of concern. The prevalence of
herbicide application is also troubling given the lack of evidence that such
management is effective. It is imperative to quantify effects of large-scale
herbicide use…only quantitative evidence for beneficial effects of control efforts
can justify continuation of such treatments.”
The herbicide of choice to control phragmites is Rodeo, an herbicide made by
Monsanto that generates billions of dollars in sales each year.
• Rodeo contains glyphosate, deemed a probable human carcinogen by the World
Health Organization (WHO) in 2015.
• The independent WHO scientists are “among the elite, routinely seen as
independent experts, pulled from top institutions around the world.”1
• Monsanto and its lobbyists are attacking these scientists and demanding that the
EPA deny this classification and permit the continued use of glyphosate
herbicides.
Glyphosate poses a risk to wetland creatures because of its affects on the delicate
ecosystem that supports aquatic and terrestrial life. 2
• Glyphosate kills vegetation by binding minerals needed for survival
• Once these minerals are bound by glyphosate they are not available for birds, fish,
amphibians and mammals so they are also affected
1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/iarc-scientists-defend-gl_b_1...
2 Tao Orion, Beyond the war on invasive species: a Permaculture Approach to Ecosystem Restoration
(2014)
• Glyphosate can interfere with soil-based organisms vital to healthy immune
systems in humans, insects, birds, amphibians and mammals
ATTACHMENT 4
THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHAT DOES IT MEAN? HOW WILL IT REDUCE THE RISKS?
An adaptive management plan (AMP) is required because the project poses risks for
humans as well as the aquatic and terrestrial ecosytem.
• Despite extensive modeling efforts and data gathering, it is uncertain how specific
ecological processes will respond over the short-term and long-term. [FEIR
Certificate, page 8]
An adaptive management plan is a reactive not a proactive planning process.
• An AMP helps to identify problems by monitoring what is occurring. For
example, what can be observed about how sediments affect the shellfish? The
monitoring helps to identify problems and develop plans for solving them. [See
FEIR Certificate, page 9 for technical explanations]
Adaptive management plans are enormously complicated and are unique to each
restoration project. The HRRC has been working on the adaptive management
plan at least as far back as 2013.
• “…The National Park Service contracted with the Woods Hole Group and the
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies to conduct the workshop on adaptive
management models. Several meetings are planned over the coming
months.” [HRRC Minutes 11/07/13]
Adaptive management planning is an evolving and imperfect science.
• “Adaptive management has been defined and redefined in the context of natural
resource management, yet there are few examples of its successful application in
ecological restoration.” 3
• “A common conceptual basis of ecological restoration is restoring an ecosystem
to its historical trajectory, a process that is inextricable from the human context in
which a restoration project is situated.”1
3 Nagarkar, M., and K. Raulund-Rasmussen. 2016. Ecology and Society 212 (2):43
• “Each restoration project operates within a social-ecological system, and the
growing vulnerability of these systems, as well as failures in management, have
led to calls for more adaptive governance regimes that can deal with uncertainty
and change.”1