COONAMESSETT RIVER RESTORATION WORKING GROUP
ANNUAL REPORT to the
FALMOUTH BOARD OF SELECTMEN Outline -- November 1, 2004 Full Report -- February 14, 2005
Virginia Valiela, Chair Jeff Williams, Vice-Chair MaryKay Fox Katie Lund Joe Netto Greg Pinto David Smith
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and Goals
Maps of Cranberry Bogs along the Coonamessett River
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Charter of the Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group 1.2 Meetings and Public Involvement 1.3 Brief History of the Town-Owned Cranberry Bogs, 1971-2003
2.0 History and Resource Inventory of the Coonamessett River 2.1 Geologic History and Watershed Features 2.2 Physical Characteristics 2.3 Biological Community and Riparian Habitats 2.3.1 Riparian Habitats 2.3.2 Aquatic Community 2.3.3 Fish Habitat 2.3.4 Fisheries 2.4 History of Human Development and Uses
3.0 Natural Resource Management Issues 3.1 Fisheries 3.1.1 Fish Habitat 3.1.2 Aquatic Community Health 3.2 Water Quality 3.2.1 Temperature 3.2.2 Nutrients 3.2.3 Oxygen Capacity of the River 3.3 Hydrology 3.4 Riparian Buffers 3.5 Bog Soil & Peat Measurements 3.6 Wildlife 3.7 Cranberry Farming 3.7.1 Water Management 3.7.1.1 Flood Management: Frost & Pest Protection, Leaf Litter & Trash Removal 3.7.1.2 Water Control Structures
2 3.7.1.3 Irrigation Management 3.7.1.4 Water Resource Protection and Enhancement 3.7.2 Insect Management and Intergrated Pest Management 3.7.2.1 Disease Management: Chemigation/Pesticide Application, Mixing, Loading and Storage 3.7.3 Nutrient Management for Nitrogen and Phosphorus 3.7.4 Wildlife Habitat Management 3.7.5 Sanding and Composting Cranberry Leaves 3.7.6 Weed Management 3.7.7 Renovating Cranberry Bogs 3.8 Invasive Vegetation
4.0 State/Federal Coordination and Technical Assistance 4.1 Background 4.2 U. S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service 4.3 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management/Wetlands Restoration Program(WRP) 4.4 Information Meeting with Regulators, July 9, 2004
5.0 Recommendations 5.1 Proposals for Improvements to the Coonamessett River 5.1.1 Proposals for structural Improvements 5.1.2 Proposals for Restoration of Wetlands along the River 5.1.3 Proposals for Berms along the River or Move the River 5.1.4 Input from the General Public: Local Residents and Private Growers 5.2 Working Group Goals and Recommendations 5.2.1 Goals 5.2.2 Recommendations for Each Bog & Section of the River 5.2.3 Discussion of the Two Demonstration Projects 5.2.4 Recommendations to the Selectmen
6.0 Implementation 6.1 Feasibility Study for Demonstration Projects on Hold
3 Attachments Executive Summary Working Group Goals Chapter 1 1.1 Working Group Charter Mission Statement 1.2 Article 61 of 1971 Annual Town Meeting 1.3 Conservation Commission Management Plan 1972 Chapter 3 3.1 S. Hurley River Temperatures: Comparison of Coonamessett River with Unaltered Cape Cod Rivers 3.2 S. Hurley River Temperatures: Comparison of Coonamessett River Lower Bogs to Upper Bogs 3.3 Coonamessett River Baseline Nutrient Data 3.4 Coonamessett River Baseline Groundwater Upwelling in Perimeter ditches (USGS) 3.5 Coonamessett River Depth Profile (1200 ft) Comparison Between Lower Bog and River Section Below Catch Area Flume 3.6 Coonamessett River Channel Depth Comparison of Lower Bog and River Section Below Catch Area Flume. 3.7 Cranberry Bog Yield Totals (1993-2004) 3.8 Water Control Structures throughout the Coonamessett River
Chapter 5 5.1 Final Matrix Tables 5.2 R. Charles Martinsen’s River Recommendations Letter 5.3 “Principles and Specific Recommendations”-April 26, 2004 Working Group Report #1 to the Board of Selectmen 5.4 Bog Preservationist Group Berming Recommendations in the Working Group’s 1st Report to the Board of Selectmen, April 26, 2004 5.5 USDA NRCS updated calculations of Tailwater Recovery Ponds 5.6 Working Group Goals 5.7 Coonamessett River Bog acreage: Total and Percentage for each Demonstration Project 5.8 Working Group Recommendations to the Board of Selectmen
Map: 5.1 Map of Demonstration Projects
4 Appendices 1. Summary of Meeting Dates and Presentations 2. Contents of the Working Group Library 3. Dennis LeBlanc Power Point Presentation 4. Chuck Katuska Power Point Presentation 5. Woods Hole Group Report 2003 6. Horsley Witten Group Report 2004 7. Bog Soil and Peat Measurements USDA 2004
Plans included in the Binder*
*The Binder is on file in the Selectmen’s Office, Reference Desk of the Falmouth Public Library East Falmouth Public Library, and the Working Group Library at the Conservation Commission.
1. “Fisheries Recommendations: Improving Habitat in the Coonamessett River” by Chuck Martinsen, Assistant Director, Dept. of Natural Resources Presentation 10/21/04 2. “A Restoration Plan for the Coonamessett River: Options for the demonstration project in the lower Coonamessett River” developed by the Coonamessett River Park Coalition, Mass Wetland Restoration Program, Falmouth Dept. of Natural Resources, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service Presentation 10/10/04 3. “A Demonstration Plan for the Middle Bog: A Plan for Co-existence” and “Management Plan for Flax Pond Bog 1+2” by The Bog Preservation Group, the Handy Cranberry Trust, and Natural Resource Conservation Service 10/28/04
5 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Charter of the Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group
The Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group (Working Group) was created in October 2003 by the Falmouth Board of Selectmen. Our charter was “to begin the development of a conservation, restoration and management plan for town-owned land on the Coonamessett River” (Attachment 1.1). Our task was to prepare and present to the Falmouth Board of Selectmen “a range of options for the phased restoration of the Coonamessett River” from its headwaters on the Coonamessett Pond south to the Great Pond estuary.
The Selectmen interviewed fifteen applicants and selected five citizens with diverse backgrounds. A member of the Board of Selectmen and a member of the Conservation Commission rounded out the group. These two members were elected as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively. As required in the charter, the Working Group has provided the Selectmen with three status reports within the one-year timeframe. This Annual Report completes the work outlined to the Selectmen on November 1, 2004.
The Full Report is contained in a binder that will be placed on file in the Selectmen’s Office, the Reference Desk of the Falmouth Public Library, the East Falmouth Public Library, and the Working Group Library in the Conservation Commission offices. Also included in the binder are: Two maps (Lower, Middle, & Reservoir bogs and the Flax Pond bogs; and the Upper Bogs) Matrix (2 pages) dated 11/1/04 prepared by the Working Group, which summarizes all of the options presented to the Working Group and the compromise option recommended by the Working Group. Fisheries Recommendations: Improving Habitat in the Coonamessett River” by Chuck Martinsen, Assistant Director, Dept. of Natural Resources “A Restoration Plan for the Coonamessett River” by the Coonamessett River Park Coalition, Mass Wetland Restoration Program, Falmouth Dept. of Natural Resources, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service “A Demonstration Plan for the Middle Bog: A Plan for Co-existence” and “Management Plan for Flax Pond Bog 1+2” by the Bog Preservation Group, the Handy Cranberry Trust, and Natural Resource Conservation Service
Copies of the Executive Summary and Goals will be sent to all Town Meeting Members and posted on the Working Group’s website http://www.town.falmouth.ma.us/depart.php?depkey= coonamesse.
1.2 Meetings and Public Involvement
The Working Group decided to meet twice a month, on Thursdays, because of the complexity of the issues involving land uses along the Coonamessett River, the sheer volume of technical information that needed to be processed, and the large number of interested citizens and stakeholders. In total there were 26 meetings, site visits and workshops, plus three major presentations (Status Reports) to the Selectmen (see Appendix 1 for a list of meeting dates and speakers). A summary report was given to the November 8, 2004 Annual Town Meeting. The Conservation Commission members have also been provided with regular updates and materials developed by the Working Group.
6 The very first meeting of the Working Group was a public hearing where all citizens interested in any aspect of the River were invited to speak. This was followed by a publicly-advertised and well-attended site visit and on-foot inspection of all 56 acres of town-owned cranberry bogs from Lower Bog north to the Baptiste Bogs, and the Flax Pond bogs on the east side of John Parker Road. Since that tour, two members of the Working Group have also waded down the entire five miles of the River.
The Working Group has made a diligent effort to be open and accessible, and to provide the public with useful information in a variety of ways. At all meetings, an hour or more was available for Public Comment on any or all topics. All meetings were televised and replayed on Falmouth cable TV. A webpage was set up on the Town of Falmouth’s web site at www.town.falmouth.ma.us with postings for agenda, minutes, many power point presentations, and an inventory of information located at the Working Group Library. As key documents were developed and approved – such as the Goals, Status Reports, and later the Recommendations – these were also posted on the webpage. The Conservation Commission provided space in their offices for a Working Group Library which houses copies of the tapes, power point presentations, reports, pertinent data, and technical literature. See Appendix 2 for a current listing of the contents of the Library.
1.3 Brief History of the Town-Owned Cranberry Bogs, 1971-2003
The Town purchased 110 acres of bogs and upland along the Coonamessett River “for conservation purposes” pursuant to Article 61 of the 1971 Annual Town Meeting (Attachment 1.2). The Town paid the Cranberry Corporation of America $187,500. At that time the bogs along John Parker Road and Flax Pond were 70 years old. The Swift Brother’s had constructed the larger bogs in the 1890’s out of the mill ponds of two defunct woolen mills. The purchase also included the Thompson bogs on Thomas Landers Road.
The Conservation Commission prepared a “Conservation Management Policy for the Coonamessett River Property of the Town of Falmouth (Attachment 1.3). The Policy encompassed five components including “Cool-Water River”, “Wetland Thickets along the River”, and “Cranberry Bogs under Cultivation”. The cranberry component was accomplished by leasing the bogs to Handy Cranberry Trust, which has farmed the land ever since. The objectives outlined in the “Cool-Water River” and “Wetland Thickets” components have not been achieved even though the Policy stated “…fishery management is considered to be the primary use of the river.”
In 1978 the Town purchased 22 acres of bogs and upland located south of Hatchville Road from Amelia Baptiste. These bogs were also leased to Handy Cranberry Trust, making a total of approximately 56 acres of Town-owned cranberry bogs along the Coonamessett River. There are also eleven acres of private bogs north of Sandwich Road; three parcels are also farmed by Handy Cranberry Trust and one bog is organically grown.
Over the ensuing thirty years since the original purchase, the concerns of citizens, Conservation Commission members, and the Herring Warden began to mount as the fisheries and river habitat declined. There was dissatisfaction with the terms of the lease, some management practices of the grower, insufficient oversight by the Town, and a fish kill in the River in May 1985 due to an accidental spill of the pesticide Diazinon.
In 1996 the Selectmen appointed a sub-committee of the Conservation Commission to monitor operations of the town-owned cranberry bogs, compliance with conditions in the lease, and payments to the Town. The Cranberry Bog Sub-committee was formed in response to a letter
7 written by the League of Women Voters in 1995. At that time, the League was concerned about pesticide use on town-owned bogs and called for establishment of a review committee in accordance with the terms of the lease. In August 1996 when contamination from a fuel spill at Massachusetts Military Reservation was found to be upwelling in the Baptiste bogs, the Bog Sub- committee also began tracking the contamination and containment efforts of the military contractor, the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence. All the town bogs on the River were taken out of production until 2000 when data showed that EDB was non-detect.
Uncertainties associated with the EDB contamination led the Bog Sub-committee to begin a broader discussion of the health of the River, long-term effects of chemical contamination on the ecosystem, and the future of cranberry growing on “flow-through” bogs that did not meet recommended Best Management Practices. In May 1999, the Town held a workshop that included experts in agriculture (conventional and organic), wetland ecology, hydrology, aquatic ecology, and fisheries biology. Following the workshop, the Bog Sub- committee developed a set of recommendations/goals. The goals were presented to the Conservation Commission in January 2000. No further action was taken. In the fall of 2001, the ConCom voted to disband the Bog Sub-committee and establish a committee to restore the River, but no further action was taken.
Beginning in 2002, the Board of Selectmen took the lead. They held two public forums, similar to the earlier workshop, with invited speakers/experts on important aspects of fisheries, habitat improvement, and cranberry production. Specifications for the operation of the bogs were re- written and clarified in 2003. Reporting requirements were tightened, the leases where changed to licenses (Article 43, 11/17/03), the terms of the licenses were shortened from ten years to 2-4 years, an annual review provision was added, and supervision by a Bog Manager was funded with $10,000 (Article 19, 4/13/04). In 2003 the Handy Cranberry Trust was again the only bidder. A four-year license (2004-2007) was awarded for the bogs north of Sandwich Road, and a two-year license (2004-2005) was awarded for the bogs south of Sandwich Road. All licenses are subject to an annual review and extension on a year by year basis.
Meanwhile, several petition articles were presented to Town Meeting by various groups supporting either wetlands restoration or cranberry farming:
4/8/03 Special Town Meeting Article 17 Plan for conservation & restoration of Town-owned bogs on Coonamessett River. Passed 147 to 54 11/17/03 Annual Town Meeting Article 47 Affirm support for agriculture & cranberry cultivation on Lower, Middle and Reservoir bogs. Passed 126 to 74 11/17/03 Annual Town Meeting Article 48 Use bog receipts to fund a management plan for Lower, Middle & Reservoir bogs. Indefinitely postponed. 11/8/04 Annual Town Meeting Article 68 John Parker/Old Barnstable Neighborhood Assoc. concerning Lower Bog. Withdrawn by the petitioners and indefinitely postponed
In order to establish a clear process for reviewing the concerns, issues, and factual information relating to the town-owned bogs, the Selectmen created a seven-member citizen study group in the Fall of 2003. The Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group (Working Group) was given one year to study the problems, prepare options, and make recommendations on phased implementation and funding to restore the Coonamessett River.
The report is structured as follows:
8 Section 2 discusses the Resource Inventory that has been collected to date on the Coonamessett River watershed. Many of the documents are in the Working Group’s Library in the Conservation Commission offices in Town Hall. Section 3 identifies specific Resource Management Issues that came forward during the public meetings. Section 4 describes Inter-Agency Coordination which will be very important as the Demonstration Projects move forward through the permitting and funding phases. Section 5 contains the Working Group’s Recommendations based on the options provided by interested parties and the technical data reviewed by the Working Group. Section 6 discusses Implementation of those Recommendations and next steps as to how the two Demonstration Projects would be carried out.
The Working Group will recommend that the Board of Selectmen place an article on the April 2005 Special Town Meeting warrant in support of the two Demonstration Projects: berms for Middle Bog and Flax Pond Bog #1; wetlands restoration for Lower Bog and Flax Pond Bog #2.
9 2.0 HISTORY AND RESOURCE INVENTORY OF COONAMESSETT RIVER
2.1 Geologic History and Watershed Features
The straight and relatively narrow Coonamessett River valley, like many others in Falmouth and Mashpee, is geologically an unusual river-wetland system extending about six miles from Route 151 south through the Coonamessett Pond to the Great Pond estuary. River valleys in other parts of the country form wide flood plains by periodic river flooding and erosion of the banks and uplands. The origins of the Coonamessett valley floodplain, however, are very different. It was formed by groundwater upwelling and spring-sapping processes that started as the Ice Age was coming to an end about 15,000 yrs ago. Massive continental glaciers occupied Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay, sea level was 400ft lower, and large volumes of melt water ran off the glaciers as the climate warmed. These spring sapping processes dominated by large volumes of groundwater flow are still active in Falmouth and the rest of Cape Cod today. Great Pond, an extension of the Coonamessett valley, was flooded and evolved into an estuary as sea level rose over the past 5,000 years.
A presentation by Denis LeBlanc of the USGS to the Working Group emphasized that geologic studies show that very large volumes of subsurface groundwater flow from recharge areas on the Mass Military Reservation (MMR) southward down gradient under gravity-driven hydraulic head pressure. Groundwater flow rates are fairly slow (~1 to 2 ft/day). Flow rates are normally higher near the river and ditches where groundwater upwelling occurs. Ultimately the groundwater discharges to Great Pond and to near shore areas of Vineyard Sound all along the south coast (Appendix 3).
The Coonamessett Pond, Coonamessett River and the network of bog drainage ditches are depressions where the land surface intersects the groundwater table. Coonamessett Pond and Flax Pond are kettle holes left in the outwash plain by stranded ice blocks from the retreating glaciers. All of these filled ponds, river and ditches are surface expressions of the massive body of groundwater that fills the entire length and width of the Coonamessett valley from the MMR to the Vineyard Sound coast.
The Coonamessett River is described by geologists as a classic “gaining stream”, meaning that the river is directly connected with and intersects the water table and groundwater flow. The result is that the river is dominated by high groundwater flow that progressively increases from north to south at rates of about 0.5 million gallons per day at Coonamessett Pond to more than 7 million gallons per day at Lower Bog near Route 28. Since groundwater is the main source of surface water in the river, the volume of flow varies directly with groundwater levels that rise and fall depending mainly on precipitation. The Coonamessett is the third largest groundwater fed river system on Cape Cod, below the Mashpee and Quashnet River systems (Appendix 3).
2.2 Physical Characteristics
The Coonamessett River valley is approximately six miles long, one-quarter mile wide and exhibits a drop in altitude of 40 feet from Coonamessett Pond to the Great Pond. It is underlain by thick deposits of glacial outwash sand and gravel sediments (~150 feet thick). These sediments are highly porous and permeable to groundwater flowing down gradient. Exact details about the river and associated wetlands prior to topographic maps from 1858 are lacking, but based on other information the river likely followed a somewhat meandering path across the width of the floodplain. However, it has been fixed in place as a relatively straight and shallow channel for more than the past century. The surface water flow regime throughout the entire river is also highly controlled by means of engineered structures (i.e. dams, weirs, and dredged
10 ditches/channels) for purposes of actively managing the river and bogs for conventional cranberry farming.
2.3 Biological Community and Riparian Habitats
2.3.1 Riparian Habitats
In the past, the Coonamessett River valley had a diverse riparian habitat. Near the river’s edge, where wet conditions persisted for most of the year, grew trees that tolerated these conditions such as White Cedars, Red Maples, and alders. In such wet conditions, many species of mosses prospered and spread throughout the wetland. Over time, sphagnum moss, the most prevalent of the mosses in wetlands, slowly created the thick layers of peat present in the Coonamessett River valley today. To develop baseline information on historical and current cultural and natural resources, the Working Group received technical assistance from the Mass. Wetlands Restoration Program (MWRP) which hired Mr. Charles Katuska (Appendix 4). His tasks were:
Provide summary ecological information to the stakeholders To the extent possible, compare current conditions to historical conditions
2.3.2 Aquatic Community
Having a diversity of vegetation types near the river’s edge is important for healthy habitats for a variety of aquatic life. On a seasonal basis, different vegetation produces litter which enters into the stream and supplies nutrients, food and structure for the aquatic insects. This structure provides places for insects to hide and rest. The more insects present the more food available for the fish. The more food for the fish to eat, as they expend energy migrating or spawning, the healthier and better fit the fish are to reproduce and supply enough energy to the eggs which increases their chance for survival. Ecologically and hydrologically, the uplands, wetlands, and the river are interconnected.
Today, the bogs are a highly managed wetland area. The channel is cleared out of structure and vegetation; pesticides and herbicides are applied; and the river is highly exposed in large sections as it flows south into Great Pond. This type of environment effectively eliminates aquatic insects or minimizes their chance of survival. These reduced environments then become less desirable for the “good species” which are good fish food, such as caddisflys, Stoneflys and Mayflys, and eventually the less desirable species or the “bad species” such as blackflies take over the aquatic environment. If more than enough pesticides get into the river by runoff or by excess spraying then very few insects can survive under these conditions. The flow-through bogs along the Coonamessett River have a high potential for these kinds of interactions.
2.3.3 Fish Habitat
Fish need the same things all living creatures need: food, a good sustaining environment (i.e. oxygen, temperature, nontoxic, etc.), quality habitats for resting, avoiding predators, and sites for reproduction. Habitat is the key and links all life dependent on that type of environment. Insects need food, which comes from the vegetation near the river’s edge or grows within the stream channel. The diversity, species and nutrient content of the vegetation determine whether the insects grow fast, slow or reproduce because of the chemical make up of the plant material. Insects need stable places to hide from predators such as a mixture of cobbles, rocks and woody debris that lands in the stream or accumulates into piles at bends of rivers. The insects in turn
11 provide food for the fish, which need the same diversity of stable substrate of cobbles and rock for depositing their eggs, hiding in the piles of woody debris or under an eroded bank.
The flow of the river, seasonally changing, alters the river channel and determines what type of habitat will exist within the channel. How fast the river water flows also determines the composition of the river bottom. Slow flowing sections accumulate fine sediments, little twigs, sands; faster river sections scour the bottom and expose boulders, cobble, and small rocks or can deposit large or numerous pieces of woody debris. These alternating areas of fast and slower waters within the river then in turn provide diverse habitats. Some fish and insect species can only thrive in fast-flowing water (Stoneflys, trout); others need slower water flow areas (Mayflys, darters); others move only during slow flow, such as the American eel, moving into different habitats as their life histories change.
2.3.4 Fisheries
Historically, the Coonamessett River had diverse and important fisheries. Several species of game and nongame fish were present in the river. Game fish such as the river herring which includes the alewife and the blueback herring, and Sea-run Brook Trout “salters” were present. Nongame fish species include the Tessellated Darter, Banded Killifish, Mummichog, Chain Pickerel, Johnny Darter, and the Fourspine Stickleback. Later, non-native fish, either through stocking by the state or by good-intentioned citizens, introduced other fish species such as the Brown Trout, suckers, catfish, bullheads, etc.
The Mass. Fish and Wildlife Department has conducted several fish studies within the Coonamessett River valley. In a 1984 fish study, American Eel (Abundant), Pumpkinseed sunfish, Brown Bullhead, Tessellated Darter, Chain Pickerel, Largemouth Bass were observed. Another study in 1994 within the river found American Eel (Abundant), Tessellated Darter, River Herring present. Pond 14 was studied in 1997 with numerous fish species present, some native; some introduced to the river system. The fish caught were Largemouth bass, yellow perch, chain pickerel, white sucker, and American eel. Alewives and blueback herring both utilize and need the river but for different reasons. The alewife migrates through the river system to reach coastal freshwater ponds where it spawns then returns back to the ocean after a month or so in the ponds. The blueback utilized the river as its only spawning area, never venturing into up into the ponds. The Sea-run Brook Trout were present in the Coonamessett River until the late 1800’s.
2.4 History of Human Development and Uses
The Coonamessett River has a long and rich history that is integral to the overall history and culture of Falmouth and Upper Cape Cod. The valley and adjacent tributary valleys and uplands were home to native Wampanoag Indians for several thousand years. These valleys have been altered and modified for more than 300 years, since European settlement, by a variety of human factors (i.e. water-powered grist mills, agriculture, residential land use). The river’s fisheries, especially herring (Alewives), were the main attraction to the Indians. Herring were important not only as food, but also as fertilizer for crops. Possibly the Wampanoags were the first to dig the channel that connects Coonamessett Pond to the River, now known as Dutchman’s Ditch. European settlers first arrived in 1660. The Coonamessett River, initially known as the Five Mile River, marked the early eastern edge of Falmouth. Philip Dexter located the first grist mill at the mouth of the river around 1700, as the Coonamessett was one of the few rivers with enough flow to power a waterwheel. Construction of the mill caused the first major alteration to the natural river system. The river was dammed and trees and other vegetation were removed for the mill pond.
12 By 1795, there were three mill ponds along the Coonamessett, causing a decline in the native fisheries. Herring and sea-run brook trout were abundant in the river prior to construction of the mill ponds. Cold groundwater upwelling into the river made it an ideal habitat for the trout, which perish at water temperatures above 70 degrees. Both fish need unimpeded access along the river to migrate to and from Coonamessett Pond and the Ocean. The grist and later woolen mill ponds greatly altered the fish habitat by constricting their river passage, increasing water temperatures, and adding sediment to the river. These cumulative alterations to the river resulted in severely reducing the native fish populations. Herring served a multipurpose role at that time in Falmouth. It was an essential source of protein in people’s diets. Farmers also still followed the Wampanoag method of using them as fertilizer for crops. Plus, herring supplied additional income. Herring were sold to offshore fisherman for bait or sold to be shipped to the West Indies. Herring were so important that early town laws mandated that they be reserved for use by all citizens. The reductions in the herring population along the Coonamessett sparked years of heated conflict, popularly known as the “Herring War.” It started in 1798 with a bylaw passed at Town Meeting. The bylaw gave an elected committee the right to remove any obstructions or open sluiceways in any dam to allow fish free passage from April 1st to June 10th. The Falmouth “pro-herring” forces petitioned the State Legislature in 1804 for an amendment, just for the Coonamessett river, to allow sufficient “passage way” for the fish to reach Coonamessett Pond. Tensions reached a peak in 1806 when the anti-herring group packed cannon on the Village Green with herring. Instead of shooting out fish, it exploded, killing Thomas Gifford. The controversy basically boiled down to the rights of the individual mill owners versus the rights of the public-at-large to use natural resources. In the 1820’s, tourist sport fishing began to flourish. Anglers from Boston were enticed to Cape Cod by sporting magazines extolling the excellence of its sea-run brook trout streams, like the Coonamessett. Vestiges of the herring war appeared again in 1865 with another bylaw to protect herring. In 1891, the Swift brothers purchased the old mill properties to convert the wetlands along the river into cranberry bogs. Cranberries were an increasingly important agricultural crop on Cape Cod. First commercially grown in the mid 1800s in Harwich, cranberry cultivation was an attractive source of income for retired fishermen and sea captains. This transformation of the wetlands along the river to cranberry bogs had major impacts on the river-wetland system. Cranberries prefer growing on coarse, sandy soil on top the rich natural peat. Therefore, old cedar swamps along rivers or drained mill ponds were especially desired sites for bogs. Cranberry farming also required a highly manipulated water system. The river was straightened, diked, dammed and channeled to regulate water supply. Aquatic plants important for fish habitat that interfered with bog operations were also removed. The once a meandering river was converted to a straighter channel or bog ditch. Lateral ditches were dug to intercept groundwater flow and keep the bogs drier. In 1971, concerned about the loss of open space and the possibility of development, the Town acquired 110 acres of uplands and bogs for conservation purposes. Half of the purchase price ($187,500) was paid by Massachusetts self-help funds, a program to assist Conservation Commissions in acquiring land for natural resource protection and passive outdoor recreational purposes. The Town also valued the cranberry growing traditions and decided to lease the bogs for income. From the beginning, the Conservation Commission realized the potential for conflict by having commercial cranberry farming on public conservation lands. Minutes from a June 2, 1971 meeting state: “It was generally agreed that the Commission was faced with a complex problem in attempting to have a productive cranberry bog in a public conservation area.” Concerns were raised about the use of pesticides in a flow-through bog system, its impact on the herring run, plus the potential long-term health effects on people living near the bogs. More recently concerns have been raised about chemicals and nutrients from a variety of sources polluting Upper Cape Cod’s groundwater and coastal ponds. Throughout history and as the priorities of the Town changed, the
13 Coonamessett River valley and its natural resources have been altered. As Falmouth moves into the 21st century, it is time to reevaluate the best public uses of the Coonamessett River to serve a broad range of needs for Falmouth’s citizens. Note: this summary of the history is from the Coonamessett River Park Coalition web site, with additional information from the Falmouth Historical Commission, and The Book of Falmouth (1986).
3.0 NATURAL RESOUCES MANAGEMENT ISSUES
14 There are many natural resource management problems associated with the Coonamessett River. When the issues are examined, summarized, and simplified into categories, the key issue is conflict between public use (primarily fishery resources) and private use (industry, agriculture), currently and reaching back into the past some 300 years. Mr. Katuska reports that wetland and aquatic biodiversity (vascular plants, some reptiles, most amphibians, and fish) within the overall Coonamessett watershed is suppressed by current and past land uses (Appendix 4). Past industrial uses (1700-1850) were responsible for the initial alteration of riverine and wetland habitats along the Coonamessett River. Agricultural water management and agrochemical uses have resulted in, and continue to result in, significant modifications to in-stream habitat use and value since 1850- 1870.
River herring are intensively impacted: 26 water structures are found along the five miles of river, each requiring hand labor, based on highly variable factors and human judgement to correctly raise or lower the boards. Each structure therefore becomes a possible object in restricting fish passage or trapping fish as they move up or down the river. In addition, and possibly adding to fish mortality, each bog with multiple ditches and groundwater upwelling confuses fish migration and can potentially trap young of the year (YOY) fish fry as they migrate down the river in the fall. The Working Group, during a site visit to the river and bogs, has seen hundreds of YOY in a private bog, trapped as fall flooding of the bog was carried out. It is hard to tell if this incident will affect fish populations, but with the numerous obstacles these fish encounter outside of the natal river system, reducing or eliminating as many potential causes of mortality here in our backyard can only help in boosting Falmouth’s present and future stocks of herring. Other native fish species will also benefit if we can improve water quality and vegetated habitats along the river.
There is rich collection of environmental baseline data from a variety of studies over the past decade on water chemistry, fish habitat, and aquatic community, all concluding that the Coonamessett River's overall health, its value and quality of life that it provides for wildlife and humans, is poor compared to qualities for a healthy river. The next section discusses the issues and problems within different components of the river and watershed.
3.1 Fisheries
Fisheries such as herring (Blue-black and Alewife), brook trout, sea run brook trout, and American eel were important to native Indians and have been an integral part of Falmouth’s culture for more than 300 years as described above. Prior to the construction of mill dams and other engineering works that slowed the river, increased water temperatures and reduced the wetland and aquatic habitats along the river (1700-1850) these native fish were in great abundance. Since the creation of bogs and water management for cranberry farming (1890- present) the fish populations have been greatly suppressed. It is estimated that the present herring run is just 10% of what it used to be prior to all of the alterations to the river system.
Dams on rivers also impede fish migration. The river’s water structures are highly dependent on human manipulation and control which demands many human hours to monitor and evaluate for a dependent group of fish species that migrate very seasonally and sporadically. Moving boards to accommodate cranberry management does not always coincide with spring or fall migrations, thus restricting fish movement or trapping fry as they descend the river towards the ocean in the fall. Timing and maintaining correct flow rates over the boards is very important; poor timing results in the significant loss of the number of fish and types of species found in the Coonamessett River.
15 Of central concern in managing the river for diverse fisheries is the longevity of these fish species and the in-stream environment/habitat that each requires. Alewives may live as long as 10 years and reach a length of 14 inches. Blue-black herring live for about 7 or 8 years and reach a maximum length of about 13 inches. Both return every year or up to every third year to spawn. They need deep, flowing water and unrestricted access to the river. Alewives needs access to the entire river system in order to reach the headwater ponds where they spawn; the blueback spawns only in the river, requiring a healthy river system with the correct type and size of cobbles and pebbles to lay its eggs. The alewife can tolerate less quality stream environments (lower oxygen, higher temperatures) because they use the river only for a brief time, as a link between the ocean environment and the freshwater ponds. However, the adult blueback and its fry are less tolerant of poor river conditions because the river is the only habitat used during the reproductive period in its life history. The Mass. Fisheries Department’s future management plans for the Coonamessett River include 1) improvement of Herring Runs, 2) increased Coldwater Habitats, 3) Salter Brook Trout Restoration.
3.1.1 Fish Habitat
The Coonamessett River in the Lower Bog section is very shallow, wide and has little fish cover in the river. There is very little woody debris within the river channel. Woody debris, which is important as hiding places and provides a stable substrate where insects can be found, is routinely removed in managing the river for cranberry bogs. By eliminating woody debris important fish resources for food and predation avoidance are removed.
Baseline information on Coonamessett River fish habitat has been collected in several research projects completed in 2004 that compared the Lower Bog river section to the river habitat below the catch basin, the restored Quashnet River, and the undisturbed Mashpee River (Attachment 3.1). Data on water depth, substrate (sand, mud, gravel, cobble etc.), aquatic vegetation, and algae were collected to provide a baseline for restoration efforts. Algal blooms of over a 150 grams of algae in a 12-inch square were documented in the Lower Coonamessett compared to less than 1 gram in the other rivers. Freshwater eelgrass (Vallisneria) is being smothered by algal growth. The high abundance of algae in the Coonamessett River is similar to the levels of algae in the local ponds that are stressed by nutrient inputs.
3.1.2 Aquatic Community Health
The fish community has been well studied over the years. The fish of the river were measured by Smith and herring by Belding early in the 1900’s. Smith stated that the River has a ‘cold water’ fish community, with brook trout as a key characteristic species. The river also historically had strong Alewife and Blueback herring, white perch and American eel fisheries. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, fish surveys conducted by the Mass. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife have documented the loss of brook trout and white perch from the river as well as the general decline of the overall fish community.
In 2003 and 2004, the fish and the aquatic insect communities were the focus of two studies that quantitatively compared the Coonamessett to the Mashpee River, the restored section of the Quashnet River, including site-specific data for Lower Bog. The fish community of the Coonamessett River has fewer species and is dominated by small fish. The aquatic insect studies show that the Coonamessett River has very few of the insects that are characteristic of healthy rivers. The juvenile herring run was quantitatively measured for several years in the late-1990’s by research projects conducted by the Dept. of Natural Resource Conservation at the University of Massachusetts. Monitoring of the adult herring run began in 2004 when citizens’ monitoring
16 program of the herring run was initiated using standardized observation protocols developed by the Mass. Riverways Program and Mass. Audubon.
3.2 Water Quality
Water quality within the river system is important for fisheries, insects, and aquatic plant survival but it also important for the estuaries that are the end point for the rivers. Temperature, nutrients, oxygen, sediments, and the chemical components of the water all affect what can survive and thrive in the aquatic environment within the river and in the estuaries. This affects our cherished traditions on the Cape such as shellfish harvesting, fishing, and safe and healthy water to recreate in. Bad water quality means diminished aquatic life and often can lead to human health issues. The dams on the Coonamessett River also affect water quality and fish habitat. Sediments are trapped behind the dams and within the ponds, followed by increases in temperatures and reduced oxygen exchange due to slower water flow. At first, fine sediments will cover and smother fish eggs, ultimately reducing oxygen available for the eggs. Eventually, over time, the accumulating sediments (mud and fine sand) will cover cobble and pebble substrates on the river bottom, reducing spawning grounds for trout and blue-black herring.
3.2.1 Temperature
Temperature is a key factor in metabolic functioning of all animals including fish. It affects the timing of when fish and insects grow, reproduce and/or migrate. The Coonamessett River has two species of Herring, alewives migrating up the river to the pond and Bluebacks found only within the River. Alewives spawn in the Coonamessett Pond when water temperatures are between 60.80 F and 66.20 F. Blueback herring spawn only in the River. Fish embryo survival requires water temps of 550 F. Short-term maximum for growth is around 750 F and the lethal limit for herring is 860 F. Sea-run Brook Trout prefer cold temperatures throughout the year with optimum water temperatures of 52-560 F; water temperatures greater than 700 F are lethal.
River temperature has been the specific focus of two years (2003, 2004) of continuously recorded temperature data at sites along the Coonamessett River, from the source near Coonamessett Pond to Lower Bog, as well as measurements during hydrologic studies over the past decade. With Thermographs within the river near Thomas Landers Road, another near Sandwich Road and the third below Lower Bog, this data shows that the river above Sandwich Road has temperatures suitable for brook trout (<65 0F). Below Sandwich Road the river is exposed to the sun, fluctuating from 67 0F to 78 0F which is too hot for brook trout to survive. Two years of temperature data shows that the River continues to heat up after Pond 14 as it passes through Reservoir, Middle and Lower Bog (Attachment 3.2). By the time the water reaches the end of Lower Bog it is hot enough to potentially stop adult herring migration. Coonamessett River, with such warm temperatures beyond Brook trout lethal thresholds and at river herring upper limits, is clearly becoming an undesirable river for important and historic fisheries.
3.2.2 Nutrients
Nutrients have been measured along the entire length of the Coonamessett River, in the groundwater and at the point of discharge into Great Pond by a number of studies in the last 5-10 years (AFCEE, Mass. Estuaries Project (MEP), research projects, and volunteer monitoring of water quality). These studies have shown that nutrients in the river increase downstream and that concentrations are very high compared to other rivers in the region. Site-specific data has been collected for 2003 and 2004 for the lower sections of the river, providing a baseline for restoration efforts. MEP measured nutrients in the river on a monthly basis for two years to estimate loading totals to Great Pond. This study has the most extensive nutrient data available on
17 the Coonamessett River to date. This study is currently being reviewed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and will be available March 2005.
The report includes options on reduction of nutrient loads prior to the river water reaching Great Pond. The Ashumet Plume study estimated nutrient loading to Great Pond based on land use. Great Pond’s nitrogen loading values in this study were 249 kilogram per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr). It has been estimated that the agriculture nitrogen inputs from cranberry bogs are approximately 0.5 to 1 percent of the total nitrogen loading to Great Pond. That would estimate the cranberry bog contribution between 1.25 kg/ha/yr and 2.49 kg/ha/yr respectfully. This is equivalent to 80-houses worth of nitrogen input to the watershed. In 2003, through a Falmouth Citizen volunteer, nutrients were taken along the Coonamessett River valley, which generally increased in value from the Coonamessett River Pond outlet (0.41 milligram per Liter (mg/L) Nitrogen) downstream to the Catchment area flume (1.6 mg/L Nitrogen) (Attachment 3.3). The report by the Woods Hole Group (November 2003) states, “Existing nutrient removal areas include the natural wetlands and bogs below the cranberry bogs, but in the future these areas might be expanded to include some of the lower-most bogs in the Coonamessett River if calculations indicate a significant reduction in nutrients is possible.”(Appendix 5).
3.2.3 Oxygen Capacity of the River
River oxygen levels determine rates of plant decay, and the number and diversity of aquatic insects and fish in each habitat. Aquatic plants are a good source of oxygen during the day but reabsorb it during the night during respiration. However, water oxygen values, usually reported in mg/L and referred as dissolved oxygen (DO), are a function of air oxygen values and water temperature with diurnal fluctuations. The higher the temperature, the lower the oxygen the water can hold. Colder temperatures have the opposite effect where more oxygen can be absorbed and held in the water. But there is a limit.
Each fish species has a tolerance level and a lethal level where they are excluded from the river habitat. Oxygen concentrations are good biological indicators of the health of a river or pond. Values of 0-2 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) are not enough oxygen to support life, 2-4mg/L supports a few kinds of fish and insects (bullheads, blackfly), 4-7 mg/L is a good concentration for most kinds of pond animals, acceptable for warm water fisheries (herring) but low for cold water fisheries (trout), and 7-11 mg/L is very good for most stream fish. The Coonamessett River generally falls into the last two categories of good to very good dissolved oxygen.
3.3 Hydrology
The geology and hydrology of Upper Cape Cod have been well studied by the US Geological Survey and other organizations over the past several decades and even more intensely over the past decade since the discovery of pollution from past activities at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). As described above (section 2.1 and 2.2), the Coonamessett River valley is dominated by groundwater flow that originates as rain and snow over the recharge or source area on the MMR, travels down gradient and is discharged to rivers, marine embayments, and ultimately Vineyard Sound. Groundwater moves constantly by gravity from areas of higher elevation to lower elevation and there is a balance between recharge and discharge.
While a general understanding of the groundwater hydrology of the Upper Cape has been available for several years, details for the Coonamessett valley system have been lacking until now. The Working Group and the Town of Falmouth benefited from technical assistance from the Horsley Witten Group (July 2004) under contract to the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. Horsley Witten installed 12 new groundwater monitoring stations including four
18 deep wells. Using data from these stations and USGS data, they developed a detailed water budget and map of the water-table surface of the Coonamessett River watershed (Appendix 6) Measurements were made of river flow, and the main sources of water to the Coonamessett River were identified. Their findings are summarized as follows:
69% of water input comes from groundwater recharge from more distant upgradient recharge areas on the MMR 28% of river water input comes from local groundwater discharge south of Coonamessett Pond 4% of water comes from land surface runoff from storms and rainfall Coonamessett River is a “gaining-stream”: 3.8 million gallons per day (mgd) at Thomas Landers Road, 5 mgd at Sandwich Road, and 7 mgd at the end of Lower Bog.
As part of a regional study, the USGS also measured the groundwater upwelling in the perimeter ditches of Lower, Middle and Reservoir bogs (Attachment 3.4). The results of these studies have provided critical facts for evaluating the various options considered for restoration and berms.
3.4 Riparian Buffers
River conditions are closely linked to the adjacent riparian vegetation and the surrounding uplands. This is especially so with the flow-through bogs that exist on the lower sections of the Coonamessett River. The more naturalized river sections along the Coonamessett River possess a good riparian buffer. Thick and healthy vegetation along the river channel helps reduce water temperatures, provides another source of food for fish as insects fall off the vegetation and into the water, and this vegetation also takes up nutrients as they flow down the river.
River channel dimensions (width and depth) have been measured from the headwaters to where the Coonamessett empties into Great Pond as part of the AFCEE and Wetland Restoration studies of hydrology. In comparing the river depth in Lower Bog with the healthier section below the Catchment area flume, the average river depth was deeper in the river below the catch basin flume (11.4-in.) than in Lower Bog (6.8 in.) (Attachment 3.5). Likewise, the channel width was narrower in the stream below the Catchment area flume (2ft.) and wider in Lower Bog (7ft.) (Attachment 3.6). In addition, site specific detailed measurements of over 15 cross-sections have been taken in the river as it runs through the Lower Bog and compared to the typical river cross- sections from the Quashnet and Mashpee Rivers.
All this information focuses attention on why the Coonamessett River in the lower bogs differs from a more natural section of the river or compared to other healthy river systems (Mashpee, Quashnet). Through the decades of land use along the river, specifically sanding of the bogs for cranberry production, this accumulation of sand eventually enters the river channel because of the close proximity of the bogs to the river’s edge. These detailed studies provide baseline data and a target for restoration of the river and wetlands.
3.5 Bog Soil and Peat Measurements
Following the Ice Age as the glaciers melted and sea level rose the Coonamessett River valley consisted of a floodplain containing fen-type wetlands bordered by red maple and white cedar swamps. Over the past centuries the vegetation deposited organic-rich peat soils ~ 2 to 6 ft thick over top the outwash sand and gravel. Recently completed soil boring investigations by the US Department of Agriculture (Appendix 7) demonstrate that all of the cranberry bogs south of Pond 14 are covered fairly uniformly with a 2-3 ft thick blanket of sandy deposits that overlie the natural organic wetland peat soils. The peat soils under the bogs range in thickness from 0 to 6ft
19 and average about 2 ft. According to the USDA and the commercial cranberry grower, the sand on top the peat was “placed” for agricultural purposes over the past century. Sanding of the bogs is done every couple of years and this 2-3 ft blanket is the cumulative long-term result of sanding practices. The sand overburden on the bogs is likely to have greater permeability than the underlying peat soils and thus groundwater flow rates are likely to be higher than rates for the natural peat soils. Soil structure has implications for limiting and controlling chemicals from entering the river from the commercial bogs. These soil conditions will also have to be considered during the design and construction of the earthen berms for the Berm Demonstration project.
3.6 Wildlife
A depressed but diverse population of wildlife still utilizes the Coonamessett River Valley area. As part of Mr. Katuska’s preliminary results(Appendix 4), he indicated that terrestrial biodiveristy (vascular plants, mammals, birds, some reptile and amphibians) within the overall Coonamessett watershed is at or near expected levels, with the exception of historic extinctions (wolf, passenger pigeon, heath hen, etc). He also reported that 20 rare species are present, consisting of fifteen plant species and five animal species, but no endangered species.
The Coonamessett River, like all river valleys, is an excellent wildlife corridor. Animals utilize the valley to move from one area to another. Wildlife tends to use the border of different habitats, the edge, for traveling, hunting. Aldo Leopold, a prominent wildlife biologist, used the term “edge habitat” to describe this high-value wildlife area. A report by the Woods Hole Group in November 2003 (Appendix 5) states that numerous mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish species were found in Massachusetts bog systems. David Graham, cited in this report, and Sissy Howard, both residents living near the bog, report having seen osprey, redtail hawks, barn and tree swallows, black and mallard ducks, geese, snapping turtles, painted turtles, coyote, fox, mice and many songbirds. However, the Woods Hole Group report also states that cranberry bogs do not represent good wildlife habitat. There is an abundance of wildlife species present in this area, but their utilization of the bogs and river habitat is limited, on a short-term, daily basis. If there is an increase in habitat diversity, more species can be present.
This further points to the need to diversify the Coonamessett River valley for wildlife habitat. If the river habitat is varied, with more curves to the River’s shape coupled with bushes and high grasses, this creates numerous isolated areas that will hold more of the same species and a diverse number of species within a small area. Aquatic insects are a high protein resource for young ducklings, later as they grow; they’ll shift their diets to small fish in late summer to gain weight for migration; both activities demand high energy from a fit animal. Chemical application, aimed at cranberry pests, is not species specific and will reduce or kill aquatic and terrestrial beneficial insects that are important wildlife food. With the river’s aquatic habitat in poor condition and beneficial insect populations minimized, this will limit the resources ducks and other wildlife need from the bogs and river system. To this end, more species could be encouraged to habituate the area and to remain and raise young.
To date, no documented habitat improvements for wildlife within the Coonamessett River valley on town-owned land have been undertaken. During a presentation with the Working Group, the Falmouth Park Department and the Department of Natural Resources Manager have stated that there are many options for improving wildlife habitats along the river and are willing to determine the best next move. Most activity would be directed at the uplands. The current bog vistas have a high intrinsic value for many Falmouth citizens. To this end, selected, low growing bushes will be planted to provide shade along the river and small amounts of woody debris. On the uplands, different plants that benefit songbirds and over-wintering wildlife could be planted.
20 Buying bushes in bulk through the Massachusetts Extension Service could help keep costs to a minimum yet achieve a goal of improving habitat along the river corridor for wildlife.
3.7 Cranberry Farming
Cranberries grow wild and have been a staple for native Indians for thousands of years. They were first cultivated on the Cape in Dennis in 1816 and reached Falmouth by 1850. For the next 100 years many of the natural wetlands in the spring sapping valleys like the Coonamessett were converted to bogs by ditching and altering the hydrology for commercial cultivation. Production increased until WWII. Following the War the emphasis on cranberries declined due to many factors. In 1900, Falmouth had 270 acres in cultivation, by 1970 this was down to 225 acres and by 2003 the bog acreage was 191. In 1971, the Falmouth Conservation Commission purchased the Lower, Middle and Reservoir bogs along the Coonamessett River valley, a total of 110 acres. Since that time the Town has leased the bogs to the Handy Cranberry Trust and received a percentage from the sale of the crops. Over the past several years the crop yields have declined sharply and payments to the Town have been declined (Attachment 3.7).
As with all farming activities, the use of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) helps preserve the positive benefits of cranberry farming and equips the farmer with expert advice to produce cranberries profitably and in concert with the environment. This requires a blending of economic, environmental, and social interests. Such a system requires that farming incorporate these standards for cranberry farming in the formulation of Farm Plans. There are many documents, predominately from the University of Massachusetts Extension Service and UMass Cranberry Experiment Station, and the Cranberry Institute about Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for cranberry bog management. It is beyond the scope of this document to list all the available literature and documentation on Cranberry BMP’s. These sources can be found in the Working Group Library or by contacting the above mentioned agencies. The main point is to utilize the information that is important for the Coonamessett River bog issues and to highlight those facts that would shed light on current management practices and those that would improve the management practices in the flow-through Coonamessett River bogs.
A Farm Conservation Plan was developed by the NRCS in 1998 “Outlining the Implementation of Best Management Practices for Cranberry Production on the Coonamessett River Bogs.” The NRCS plan was given to the Working Group in July 2004. Highlights of the BMP’s follow with recommendations by NRCS on the operation of the town-owned cranberry bogs. Facts that have been received by the Working Group will be added under the appropriate management issues. It is not the subject of this report to evaluate bog management practices of the current farmer but to list the critical management issues that have been raised during Working Group meetings that have an effect on the Coonamessett River fisheries and water quality.
3.7.1 Water Management
Water is important and its supply is critical for many cranberry bog management practices. The bogs are flooded periodically throughout the year for a variety of management options such as an integrated pest management program (IPM; disease and insect control), frost and heat protection, harvesting, removal of litter (IPM), sanding (IPM) and protection from winter desiccation and cold injury. In addition to storage ponds and sumps, other components for cranberry bog operations include irrigation systems, wells, floodgates and flumes, lift pumps, and drainage ditch and pipes. Many of the operations are interconnected and compliment each other in reaching the goals outlined by BMP’s .
21 3.7.0.1 Flood Management: Frost & Pest Protection, Leaf Litter & Trash Removal
The development of healthy, functional cranberry root systems require well-drained soils during most of the season. Flooding is a management tool to protect the plants from the cold, drying winds of winter, to harvest fruit and remove leaf litter and trash from the bogs, and to control pests. General good flood management includes: 1) to avoid causing erosion or discharging sediments into the rivers 2) fertilizers and pesticides should not be applied near or at flooding time, 3) during the winter flood snow reduces the amount of light reaching the plants, remove water from beneath the ice so injury to the plants is reduced. Historically, cranberry farmers did not hold water in the cranberry bogs for extended periods of months. Rather, they monitored the bogs in conjunction with the weather and made minor adjustments during winter months (“The History of Handy Cranberry Trust on Cape Cod”). Flooding is also used to control certain insect pests by drowning them and through the process of removing leaf litter that the insects utilize. Flooding has a secondary benefit of removing human trash .
3.7.1.2 Water Control Structures
Ditches, flumes and dikes within a bog/river system are used to convey water, control the direction of flow, or maintain a required water surface elevation. Recommended practices are: 1) consider aquatic life when planning a water control structure so the fish are protected by either passage or when discharging warm, oxygen poor waters after impoundment of chemicals. Recommendations from NRCS: Monitor flumes regularly for deterioration and leakage Manage water in accordance with recommendations made by the Falmouth Shellfish Warden Adhere to all recommendations made by the UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station and the Cranberry Chart book There are 26 water control structures on the five miles that make up the Coonamessett River (Attachment 3.8), an extensive amount for such a short distance. The past and current Herring Wardens have outlined immediate and future needs regarding these structures. These structures need manual manipulation and judgement based on river discharge, cranberry needs and foremost, when the herring are migrating in the river. Often there is conflict between cranberry farming and herring migration in the fall. Additionally, sometimes there is a lack of communication between the cranberry farmer and the Falmouth Herring Warden that results in the boards not being appropriately adjusted and one resource not adequately cared for.
3.7.1.3 Irrigation Management
A sprinkler irrigation system is a planned water delivery system that uses sprinkler heads under pressure to uniformly distribute water to maintain adequate soil moisture for optimum plant growth. It also provides protection of the crop from frost damage or heat damage and is the main system for delivering fertilizers and pesticides to the crop. Because cranberry culture typically is carried out in moist areas irrigation needs are limited averaging between 0.4 and 1.5 inches per week from rainfall and irrigation combined during the growing season. NRCS recommendations are: Utilize half heads along the river Monitor weather before applying agrochemicals Adhere to all restrictions posted on agrochemical labels Conduct dye tests annually to properly determine the wash out time and uniformity of the irrigation systems. This is important to do each season to identify any changes in the uniformity or rinse out times involved with pesticide applications.
22 3.7.1.4 Water Resource Protection and Enhancement
There are important environmental considerations related to water use and management that include: 1) conservation of fresh water supplies 2) preventing the contamination of surface and groundwater by farming chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers) and/or sediments 3) optimizing plant growth, yield, and resistance to pest and diseases. The UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station recommends: Make sure that your water supply is adequate for cranberry production needs Use tailwater recovery and holding ponds to conserve water. For maximum water conservation, the tailwater recovery and associated holding pond should be designed to hold, at minimum, enough water to flood the bog. It will also mitigate against heavy instantaneous water withdrawals that might impact sensitive water bodies or aquifers In flow-through bog systems, those containing a permanently flowing stream or constant water discharge, consider some strategy or method to segregate or isolate the stream flow from ditch water and protect external water bodies. Hold harvest water to allow sediment to settle prior to release from the bog system Hold water after pesticide applications for as long as practical and no less than the required holding time indicated on pesticide labels. If you have the capacity, hold water longer than the required label specified holding time to further reduce the likelihood of adverse environmental impact. When feasible, take additional steps to protect surface water bodies with the use of half-head sprinklers and guards, consider installing secondary containment for fuels stored adjacent to open water, impound water for at least 7 days following barge sanding. Protect public drinking water supplies Protect private wellheads Assure adequate drainage and maintain proper ditch drainage function Consider leaving some actively growing aquatic vegetation in the ditches during the growing season. Vegetation can be effective in removing nutrients and residues from the water. Take full advantage of aquatic vegetation potential for nutrient removal by delaying cleaning or removal until later in the season, preferably after harvest. Studies of constructed wetlands have shown them to be effective in filtering water flowing from agricultural land.
3.7.2 Insect Management and Integrated Pest Management
BMP’s are an integral part of insect management. The concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as an ecological approach to pest control is based upon sound biological principals and knowledge. It employs the use of pest control actions, strategies that ensure favorable economic, ecological and sociological consequences. It is based on dynamic principles rather than a set of rules and is adjustable for particular pest situations, a balance of cultural, chemical, and biological approaches. Cultural practices include late water floods, sanding, and the use of resistant varieties of plants. Pesticides are used with IPM and tempered by their compatibility with other control measures and how compatible with IPM philosophy. The use of IPM, pesticides and overall pest control is ultimately based upon monitoring techniques, which more accurately estimate current pest pressures and dictate an above average number of applications. IPM is a process that relies heavily on judgment, adaptability, and the necessity to incorporate change. Practicing IPM involves monitoring, making site-specific management choices. Generally, the overall vigor and nutrient status of cranberry vines play a critical role in the ability of the plant’s defense. Nutrient management along with insect, disease and weed management are important and interconnected components in cranberry IPM activities.
23 The UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station states that “Minimizing damage to the plants and crop by insect pests is one of the most important challenges in cranberry production. Failure to manage pest insects properly can result in severe crop loss, vine damage, or in extreme cases, the death of large areas of the bog.” The 2004 harvest records along with the past years harvest records indicate that the town-owned bog productivity may be related to a severe pest infestation (Attachment 3.7). In the bogs south of Sandwich road, which are the largest bogs, harvest rates have steadily declined or were not harvested at all for several years. The farmer is limited in the ability to control insect pests and other cranberry diseases in these lower bogs because they are flow-through bogs. The cranberry vines grow right down to the river edge, which means that many of the chemicals available today cannot be used. Insects can also become resistant to certain pesticides making future chemical applications less effective. Because of past fish kills, there is concern about pesticides getting into the river. To minimize ecological risk from pesticides, the experimental station recommends berms and tailwater recovery ponds.
3.7.2.1 Disease Management: Chemigation/Pesticide Application, Mixing, Loading and Storage
Control of plant diseases can be an essential management tool to improve crop productivity and to prevent other bog areas from diseases. Sanitation, proper irrigation schedules, resistant varieties, fungicides and various cultural techniques can be used in disease management. Any successful approach to disease management hinges upon the correct identification of the pathogen, understanding its life cycle, the symptoms and conditions that contribute to plant susceptibility. Recommended practices include: Scout for disease problems Obtain proper diagnosis of new disease problems Adopt cultural disease control practices by sanding on a regular basis to bury pathogen-infested litter, plant healthy vines, prune lush vines to promote good air circulation and dispose of trash piles following harvest to remove sources of fruit rot fungal spores Proper use of water is an important component to successful disease management Use practices that minimize plant stress or lush growth. Avoid promoting conditions which favor pathogen infections such as excessive nitrogen applications, oxygen deficiency, and improve bog drainage. Keep accurate records of fungicide, pesticide and fertilizer applications and any clinical diagnosis performed for quality control and future management efforts.
When an irrigation system is used to apply pesticides and fertilizers, every effort should be made to maximize the performance of the system. This includes reviewing the BMP guidelines for irrigation, and pesticide mixing, loading, application and storage. There are federal laws governing worker protection standards and requirements for a commercial pesticide license. To be in compliance, all irrigation systems used for chemigation must contain certain components and must conduct an annual dye test. Goals of a dye test are 1) determine how long to operate the chemigation application and 2) observe mixing and application performance. Additional suggestions for protecting water quality include: Water control structures should be in place and free of leaks to allow ditch water containing pesticides to be held for the required time specified on the pesticide label Determine the groundwater contamination susceptibility of the bog. The potential for contamination is influenced by soil characteristics, depth to bedrock and water table, type of bedrock, and characteristics of surface
24 deposits. Pesticide users need to know the potential for site contamination and include the risks to water resources as a criterion of pest management decisions. Drop the water level in your ditches prior to application Retain water containing pesticide residues for the required or recommended times Release water slowly after the retention period has expired Avoid direct spraying of ditches and waterways and surrounding non-bog areas Cap lateral ditches and divert surface runoff to perimeter ditches per USDA NRCS Barnstable field office recommendations.
Unfortunately, the Coonamessett River bogs are flow-through bogs, which means that containing the pesticides and fertilizers for the required timeframes has been severely limited. There was a peripheral ditch holding system put in place in the mid 1990’s that was installed to stop or limit the flow of chemical-laden water from draining directly into the river. This system was installed throughout the town-owned bog system on the river but it has not been maintained. Consequently this system for retaining and releasing pesticide/fertilizer contaminated water eventually failed and is no longer functional.
3.7.3 Nutrient Management for Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Nutrient management is concerned with the amount, form, placement, and timing of applications of plant nutrient fertilizers. Its purpose is to supply plant nutrients for optimum crop yields, minimize leaching of nutrients to surface and groundwater and to maintain or improve the chemical and biological conditions of the soil. While cranberries require the same nutrients as other plants, they are unique in that the amounts required are much smaller than for most crop plants. The UMASS Cranberry Stations states “ BMP for nutrient management recommends that growers use moderate application of nitrogen fertilizers. Using appropriate amounts of nitrogen limits overgrowth of vines that can encourage infection from fruit rot organisms. Secondly, lush vine growth can provide a suitable habitat for tipworm and flea beetle infestations. Growers can reduce these pest problems through judicious use of fertilizer.” The NRCS suggests that the operator adhere to the following standards: Base fertilizer dose on the properties of your bog. The average recommended seasonal dose of Nitrogen varies from 10 to 60 lbs./acre depending on plant vigor and variety. Likewise, Phosphorus average application should range from 20-80 lbs./acre. Monitoring/observation on the application based on age and history of beds, soil conditions, cropping records, weather and cultural practices. Close observation of individual beds and thorough knowledge of them, not mere calendar dates will be the deciding factors in application Record keeping of dates and times of applications, formulations used, results of soil and tissue tests over a period of years. Training/education Application of nutrient management guidelines set forth in the “Cranberry Chart Book” Take steps to minimize direct input of fertilizers into surface water. After sanding or a late water flood, reduce the nitrogen doses to be applied as sanded bogs are warmer. Warm soils release more native N so less should be added as fertilizer. Apply nitrogen in the ammonium-N form (NH4) Wait for soil temps to rise to 550 F before applying spring fertilizers
25 Calibrate fertilizer application equipment to ensure that the desired doses of fertilizer are applied. Submit annual application reports to Town of Falmouth
The UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station also states that the use of vegetation can be effective in removing nutrients and residues from the water “Take full advantage of aquatic vegetation potential for nutrient removal …. Studies of constructed wetlands have shown them to be effective in filtering water flowing from agricultural land.”
3.7.4 Wildlife Habitat Management
The NRCS suggested establishing a field border/filter strip between the bog and the Coonamessett River. They recommended this filter strip be utilized in conjunction with the lateral ditch-capping plan in the 1999 Farm Conservation Plan outlined for the Coonamessett River. They recommended that the operator retain established brush and overgrown areas to provide wildlife habitat and to plant food patches near protective cover. They also suggested that “further wildlife enhancement information is available in the local NRCS field office” including the publication titled “Wildlife Utilization and Ecological Functions of Three Commercial Cranberry Wetland Systems in Eastern Massachusetts.”
Another study with wildlife use on commercial cranberry wetland systems that was published in the UMASS Extension/Cranberry Experiment Station Guide for Cranberry Production and titled “Wildlife Utilization on Commercial Cranberry Wetland Systems” states that the “cranberry beds themselves appear to be utilized by a relatively low number of species… the diversity and abundance of wildlife species utilizing both wetland and upland habitat is contributed and associated with the adjacent habitats (i.e. reservoirs, drainage channels, irrigation ditches, and low brush communities) that provides important breeding areas, cover habitats and feeding sites.” They described this “edge” effect as the main contribution to ecological diversity in the study.
3.7.5 Sanding and Composting Cranberry Leaves
Sanding is a commonly used cultural practice in cranberry farming in Massachusetts. Typically, a thin layer of sand is applied (1/2 to 2 inches) on the surface of producing bogs at 2 to 5 year intervals in order to promote growth, productivity reduce insect populations and suppress disease. Sanding helps cover and anchor cranberry vine runners. Sanding also covers the leaf litter on the bog surface. This has several benefits which include stimulation of organic matter decomposition, release of nitrogen and root congestion, limit the habitat of the cranberry girdler larvae which feed on the stem near the leaf litter layer, and suppression and spreading of fruit rot fungus. Sand also promotes soil drainage and accelerates warming in the spring and increases release of nitrogen and uptake for the plants. Recommendations include: Stockpile sand responsibly Ice sanding is the preferred method Use screened or washed sand with few “fines” (Fine sand, silt, clay) Choose coarse sand and apply the proper amount Know how sanding interacts with late water Know how sanding interacts with herbicides Avoid oxygen deficiency damage when ice sanding Cracks in the ice and uneven ice settling may be associated with uneven sand deposition Barge sanding: some bogs should not be barge sanded. This practice should not be used if discharge is to a sensitive water body or if water cannot be impounded to allow settling prior to discharge.
26 Dry sanding has been associated with more vine damage and crop reduction than other methods and associated with crop reduction in research plots.
The NRCS conducted peat coring during the summer of 2004 in response to the Working Group need to understand the depth of peat in the Coonamessett River valley, related to berming questions. This study found that there is a 2-3 foot layer of sand on top of the peat layers, from the edge of the bogs near the river and throughout the bogs.
From other baseline information, the Working Group leaned that the river has copious amounts of sand. The river’s depth both across the channel and along the river length has become shallower and wider over time from the century-long use of sanding the bogs in near proximity to the river. (Attachments 3.5 and 3.6).
3.7.6 Weed Management
In order to implement BMP’s for weed management, it is important to understand the dynamics involved in weed growth, how herbicides work, what is the effect of weeds on cranberry yields and the combined effects from integrated programs on weed control. Recommendations are: Obtain and use weed identification guides and plant biology references Scout for weeds and construct weed maps Prioritize weed problems and establish a long-term management plan Make every effort to keep weeds from spreading onto the bogs. Maintain and encourage healthy vine growth to compete with weeds Integrate different strategies for best possible dodder control. Minimize infestation by maintaining thick, healthy vines with few weeds and bare spots. Minimize herbicide use whenever possible. Consider environmental and horticultural impacts of long-term/high rate herbicide use Use cultural and non-chemical practices where possible. Sanding and hand weeding can be effective non-chemical alternatives for controlling some weeds and trees. Use techniques that will promote optimal application and performance Keep accurate records. Careful records are essential for farm planning and performance evaluation. Herbicide application dates, impacts and responses of weeds to implemented control practices should be recorded.
When compared to other local bogs, on a visual basis, the town-owned bogs have a “shaggy” appearance due to the presence of weeds. A survey in the fall of 2004 for woody plants found that on Lower Bog, 65 pine trees (of various heights from several inches to 18’) were growing in the upper northwest section. Another survey during the summer on the number of native wetland species reported to the Working Group that numerous native wetland species were present in Lower Bog and Flax Pond #2 in addition to large patches of poison ivy, a native plant. These quick and qualitative surveys point to the issue that little maintenance has occurred in the past 3 years. 3.7.7 Renovating Cranberry Bogs
Due to the increase of weeds and woody plants and the pervasive pests such as black-headed fireworm, cranberry bog productivity has drastically declined over the last few years(Attachment 3.7). Both the bog manager and the farmer have suggested that something has to be done to the bogs. One suggestion has been to renovate the bogs by re-cropping with new strains of cranberry vines that are resistant to the prevailing pests on the bogs. Renovation is a costly procedure in both time and money. The UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station warns that bog owners “thoroughly consider the implementation of all other available remedial activities before initiating
27 renovation of the bogs. If positive outcomes are not obtained within a reasonable time frame, then consider renovation.” Their suggestions are: Take the opportunity to improve water management when renovating a bog. That means upgrading the irrigation pipes and modifications that minimize rinse time as new pest control products work most effectively when applied with short rinse times. Conserve and re-use organic material removed from the bog during renovation Use coarse sand for the uppermost layer of the cranberry bog Bog sections should be as level as possible to facilitate drainage and allow flooding with minimal volume of water. Laser leveling to 6 inches within a diked section is recommended Obtain vines from a known reputable source. Consider planting varieties that show resistance to fruit rot. These include Black Veil, Foxboro Howes, Howe’s, Shaw’s, Success, Stevens, and Wilcox. If vines cannot be planted immediately, store them appropriately, check vines for viability prior to planting, and plant cuttings at high density to insure rapid growth to cover the soil surface. Poor water management is probably the leading cause of sparse vine growth in new bogs Protect new vines from cold injury in their first spring
3.8 Invasive vegetation
Throughout much of its early history the Coonamessett River valley has had diverse and varied riparian and wetland habitats (wooded cedar swamp, shrub swamp, wet meadow, wild cranberry bogs, peat bogs, etc). For the past 100 years, however, the emphasis has been on a monoculture of cultivated cranberries. Also during the past several decades a number of non-native alien plants have made their way to Falmouth as well as much of the US. In many cases these plants adapt well and spread quickly, often crowding out native vegetation. The rapid spread of invasive plants is the cause for much community concern. Methods for control need to be included in any plans for wetland restoration or berms. Such methods are available and consist of a variety of acceptable techniques (i.e. periodic flooding, hand cutting) that have been employed on restoration projects similar to the Coonamessett.
In 2004, the Conservation Commission and The 300 Committee co-sponsored the Wetlands Invasive Survey Committee. The Committee’s goal was to visually inspect the entire town for two aggressive invasive species – a wetland reed named Phragmites, and a wetland plant called “purple loosestrife”. That survey is now complete using fifty volunteers. The Coonamessett River property was examined in detail and not a single specimen of either plant was found, although both are present in other parts of town. The next phase of the study will begin in spring 2005. The committee will learn techniques of eradication and implement them in Falmouth. This knowledge will be a useful tool in the management plan for the Coonamessett River if these plants should be found in the future, or for other invasives as well.
The invasive species mentioned most by the public was Japanese Knotweed. Concern was also expressed about Russian Olive, Black Swallowwort, Yellow Jewelweed, Multi-flora Rose and Bittersweet, to name a few. For the most part, the Town bogs do not currently have a problem with invasive species. Some Black Swallowwort is reportedly in Lower and Middle Bogs, and Japanese Knotweed was seen in disturbed ground near Lower Bog. A large patch of Poison Ivy, which is a native plant but undesirable, is located on Lower Bog itself. Vigilance in detecting invasives is needed throughout the Town’s bogs. Currently the edges of the bog upland are mowed, which cuts back all plants, invasive or not. Likewise, the clearing of ditches is done for waterflow purposes, not plant species management per se. Regardless of the status of any given
28 bog, inspection for invasives on a regular basis should be part of the Coonamessett River management plan.
The public expressed concern that the restored bogs in particular would have problems with invasive species. At present, the problem of invasive species in the Coonamessett River system is minimal to none. There is a well-established native plant cover on and near all bogs. If the bog surface or ditches are disturbed during restoration, or when fill is added to construct the berms and soil is excavated for tailwater recovery ponds, the affected areas will have to be monitored carefully for invasive plants until desirable plant cover takes hold. In general, monitoring for and managing invasives should be part of an on-going, town-wide effort.
29 4.0 STATE/FEDERAL COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
4.1 Background
In developing a management plan for the town-owned lands along the Coonamessett River, it was recognized from the very beginning that there was a need to coordinate with State and Federal agencies. The efforts of the earlier Cranberry Bog Committee (1996-2001) and the two public meetings organized by the Selectmen in 2003 both drew on information and advice from Federal and State agencies. The key agencies and their associated programs are:
United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management: Wetlands Restoration Program Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife: Riverways Restoration Program Massachusetts Marine Fisheries U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Southeast Region U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District Cape Cod Commission U. S. Geological Survey – general technical information; not project specific Buzzards Bay Project (non-governmental agency but has experience with the National Estuary Program and restoration projects)
The Working Group made contact with all of these agencies in one form or another, and many of them made presentations in Falmouth during the last year. The three main interactions were: 1) technical assistance from U. S. Department of Agriculture on soils, berms and tailwater recovery ponds; 2) technical assistance from Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management on hydrology, existing biological conditions, and restoration concepts; and 3) informal conceptual discussion on July 9, 2004 with most of the above agencies concerning permit and regulations. Advice and information from these three efforts strongly influenced the recommendations that the Working Group ultimately brought forward to the Selectmen.
4.2 U. S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office in Barnstable has been involved with the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) for a number of years. This program provides funds to construct berms around cranberry bogs and tailwater recovery ponds for holding back chemigated water. In this manner, cranberry farmers can meet the industry’s Best Management Practices (BMP’s) by segregating their chemicals and farming activities from the river system. Cranberry bogs with a river flowing within the bog (so-called “flow-through bogs”) cannot meet the industry standards of BMP’s.
Throughout the course of the past year, the NRCS has provided frequent advice and calculations to the Working Group and the Bog Preservation Group for various bogs. At no cost to the Town or to the Grower, NRCS did 48 soil corings along both sides of the Coonamessett River in Reservoir, Middle and Lower Bogs. These corings showed the presence of a sand layer of one to two feet above a peat layer of one to five feet (Appendix 6.0). NRCS also provided preliminary costs to construct berms and tailwater recovery ponds, and then revised costs and dimensions for the pond after the volume of upwelling groundwater was determined by the U. S. Geological Survey. Much of this effort was “in kind”staff time. Identified expenses were $1730.
30 The EQIP program will pay 75% of the berm construction costs, and 50% of all other costs related to construction such as excavating the tailwater recovery ponds, installing inlet and outlet pipes, fish exclosures, etc. An application for a particular project must be made to NRCS by February 1st . Awards are made on a competitive basis.
4.3 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management/Wetlands Restoration Program(WRP)
As part of the Working Group’s effort to maintain an open dialogue with state and federal agencies, we began coordinating with the State’s Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) early in the project planning. The WRP “seeks to support restoration projects that offer the greatest social and ecological benefits to the Commonwealth while maximizing the value of available resources”. To achieve this goal, the WRP began soliciting “priority project” nominations in 2003. The Town of Falmouth and the Working Group pursued this as an option for receiving technical assistance.
Priority projects designated by the WRP are eligible to receive both internal program assistance and contracted technical services. These services may include, but are not limited to: wetland delineation, survey and mapping, site planning, hydraulic analyses, project design, impact assessments, permitting, and monitoring. The WRP supported the Coonamessett River as a priority project by funding the following studies:
“Preliminary Hydrologic Assessment of the Coonamessett River”, completed by the Horsley Witten Group in July 2004; A draft resource inventory and completed resource summary PowerPoint presentation of the Coonamessett River, conducted by Charles Katuska, July 2004 A conceptual design of the Coonamessett River restoration demonstration project on Lower Bog, completed by Horsley Witten Group, October 2004.
Overall, a total of $49,000 was contributed to the Coonamessett River project without any funding required on the part of the town. It is important to note that this funding may be identified as a match on future applications that the town may choose to submit to other grant programs.
In its presentation to the Working Group in January 2004, the U. S. Geological Survey pointed out that while they had extensive hydrological information on a regional level, namely the Upper Cape Sagamore lens, they did not have specific data on the Coonamessett River valley itself. Also, there were some specific data gaps regarding the location of this river’s watershed boundaries. The Working Group reasoned that this information would be useful knowledge for all possible future scenarios of land use along the Coonamessett River. The Wetlands Restoration Program hired Horsley Witten Group to do the work and install the groundwater monitoring wells. In similar fashion, an inventory of existing plants and animals of the river corridor would be helpful to all scenarios. The Wetlands Restoration Program hired Charles Katuska to develop that inventory. Lastly, because there were so many questions from the public about what a “restored wetland” would look like, the Horsley Witten Group developed a conceptual modal and chart to use in the public education process.
31 4.4 Information Meeting with Regulators, July 9, 2004
Throughout the months of study, many questions arose concerning what permits might be required, what activities were exempt, what coordination would be needed between regulatory agencies, where does the permitting process even start once a plan has been chosen. The Working Group decided to see if the various regulating agencies would meet for an informal discussion in Boston on these matters. A sub-committee was chosen to go to Boston, and Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management hosted the meeting. Most of the agencies did send representatives.
For the most part, the results of the meeting were inconclusive. There were no definitive answers on questions such as whether new berms were exempt from Mass. Department of Environmental Protection regulations, would mitigation be required for filling a wetland with a berm, would a permit be given to move the river, or what alternatives analysis would be required for any given action. On two points, the regulatory attendees were clear: 1) the Working Group should look at the whole river in laying out its plan, even if the project ultimately was constructed in phases; and 2) The Town must decide what it wants….and then the regulators will respond accordingly.
These two factors were key messages to the Working Group members as we continued our study of the issues and available data. Since the Working Group had already laid out the river in nine sections in the Matrix, and the Selectmen’s charge was a “phased approach”, there was no difficulty in planning for the whole river. Regarding the advice “the Town must decide”, it was logical for the regulators to make that statement since their agencies have been responding to questions about Falmouth’s cranberry bogs repeatedly for nearly a decade since the original Cranberry Bog Committee was formed in 1996! At a subsequent meeting, the Working Group decided to hold a special consensus-building workshop and see if the Group could “decide” and come up with a coherent plan and recommendations for all of the town-owned bogs.
32 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Proposals for Improvements to the Coonamessett River
During the year of study, the Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group (CRRWG) heard many suggestions for improvements in the Coonamessett River watershed from many speakers (Appendix 1). A description of the main proposals is summarized below. All of the essential information is compiled in a Matrix dated November 1, 2004 (Attachment 5.1). To make the discussion of the issues more manageable, the River was divided into nine sections. These sections are listed in the left column of the Matrix on Page One and on Page Two. An updated Matrix was provided to the Selectmen at each of the three Status Reports.
The Working Group received a very wide range of proposals from citizen groups and technical advisors. It is noteworthy that throughout the entire year, no one said that the status quo was adequate. There was a unanimous sentiment that measures must be taken, and could be taken, to improve the health of the River and the fisheries. The challenges facing the Working Group and ultimately the Town Meeting Members lie in selecting (1) which improvements are most appropriate and in what locations, (2) carried out by whom, (3) how funded, and (4) when. The main proposals received were: improvements to various existing water control structures; restoration of wetlands along the River; berms built parallel to the River with a tailwater recovery pond in each bog; or move the River to one side or the other of a bog into a separate channel.
This section of the report is divided into two parts: the first part (5.1.1-5.1.4) reviews the recommendations, suggestions and proposals received by the Working Group. The second part (5.2) discusses the process by which the Working Group reached its conclusions for this one year study, the Goals, and the nine Recommendations that have been forwarded to the Selectmen.
5.1.1 Proposals for Structural Improvements
The former Herring Warden, Paul Montague, and the current warden, Roy Charles Martinsen, both provided the Working Group with suggestions for improving the passageways for fish. Their suggestions are listed on Page Two of the Matrix. Some of the improvements can be performed with Town forces. Most improvements will require funding and would be folded into future planning for larger projects. It is worth noting that where these repairs are part of a restoration project, the funding would be partially if not completely covered by restoration grant money. Additional funding would be needed for the bermed sections to improve fisheries habitat because the EQUIP program does not cover such expenses. The Working Group endorsed the list of priorities stated in Mr. Martinsen’s letter of October 28, 2004 (Attachment 5.2). A copy of the Herring Warden’s presentation is included in the binder with this report.
5.1.2 Proposals for Restoration of Wetlands Along the River
To address issues of aquatic habitat, water quality, chemical inputs, and fisheries, the Coonamessett River Park Coalition provided the Working Group with a program of land uses for the entire 56 acres of Town-owned bogs on February 28, 2004. A copy of that presentation is in the Working Group Library. A summary of the Coalition’s “Principle and Specific Recommendations” was reported to the Selectmen on April 26, 2004 in a document approved by the Coalition (Attachment 5.3). These recommendations are also listed in the Matrix on Page Two. The Coalition proposed to continue commercial cranberry growing on West Thompson
33 Bog because it was totally off the River; to grow organic or wild cranberries on the Flax Pond Bogs; and to return the bogs on the main stem of the River to various wetland habitats, most notably emergent marshland and wet meadows. Within the river channel, improvements proposed included restoring a more natural flow regime by reducing the channel width and making the river deeper. These changes would help decrease the water temperature, increase oxygen and improve habitat while reducing predation to the three species of game fish (Blue-back and Alewife herring, and Sea-Run Brook Trout). As a side benefit to these restoration improvements, other native fish and eel species could also thrive within the Coonamessett River watershed.
On October 10, 2004 the Coalition provided the Working Group with “A Restoration Plan for the Coonamessett River: Options for the demonstration project in the lower Coonamessett River”. This information pertained specifically to restoration of Lower Bog and Flax Pond #2 Bog. Also submitted were cost estimates and possible funding agencies. This information was requested by the Working Group, which is recommending Lower Bog and Flax Bog #2 as a Phase 1 Demonstration Project for the restoration concept. A copy of that Plan is included in the binder with this report.
5.1.3 Proposals for Berms Along the River or to Move the River
During the course of the last year, the Bog Preservation Group and Handy Cranberry Trust have provided the Working Group with data on the bogs and several power point presentations. The first was on January 8, 2004(Attachment 5.4). Two options were shown: (1) two earthen berms running parallel along the river in Lower, Middle and Reservoir Bogs with five tailwater recovery ponds; or (2) move the main stem of the river to the west side of Reservoir Bog, and to the east side of Middle and Lower Bogs, and then construct one berm running parallel to the new channel. This channel would be dug into the upland. A copy of that power point presentation is in the Working Group Library. A summary of that presentation was reported to the Falmouth Selectmen on April 26, 2004 in a document approved by Mr. Handy.
The Bog Preservation Group presented “Recommendations for Possible Improvements to the River System” on July 22, 2004. The recommendations repeated the options discussed in January and made additional recommendations for all the remaining town-owned bogs. All of the suggestions were for berming or moving the river with the exception of the AFCEE bog (Upper Baptiste Bog), which should be “wild”. The AFCEE bog is slightly over one acre. This presentation is on file in the Working Group Library and is shown in the Matrix on Page Two.
Handy Cranberry Trust also provided the Working Group with important data about Lower, Middle and Reservoir Bogs: (1) a letter from the US Geological Survey with a Table with measurements of groundwater discharge rates (upwelling) in six peripheral drainage ditches (the east and west sides of Reservoir, Middle and Lower Bogs)(Attachment 3.4) and (2) a letter from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) with new calculations for the tailwater recovery ponds based on the new data on groundwater discharge rates was re-submitted (Attachment 5.5) and (3) an earlier important piece of data for Lower, Middle and Reservoir Bogs – measurements of the peat layer underneath two to three feet of sand along the River margins (Appendix 7).
On October 28, 2004 the Bog Preservation Group and Handy Cranberry Trust provided the Working Group with two more documents: “A Demonstration Plan for the Middle Bog: A Plan for Coexistence” and a “Management Plan for Flax Pond Bog 1+2”. This information pertained specifically to berming Middle Bog and Flax Pond #1 and constructing a tailwater recovery pond for Middle Bog. Costs of construction and the expected funding agency were also included. This
34 information was submitted on the request of the Working Group, which is recommending Middle bog, and Flax Pond #1 as a Phase 1 Demonstration Project for the berming and tailwater pond concept. Copies of those plans are included in the binder along with this report.
5.1.4 Input from the General Public: Local Residents and Private Growers
Members of the general public, particularly residents who lived in the area of the River including an informal group – the John Parker/Old Barnstable Road Association, often attended the Working Group meetings. Others have stated they have been following the CRRWG meetings on Cable TV, channel 14. The central concern of the residents was loss of the cranberry bog heritage and vistas, which they enjoyed on their daily walks. They worried that a red maple swamp would grow up and obscure the paths, making the area less safe. The Working Group recognized the importance of those concerns and incorporated into its Goals “Preserve and maintain bog vistas.”
The Coonamessett Pond Association –homeowners at the north end of the river and around the Pond-have also raised a number of concerns: mosquitoes, invasive plants, red maple swamps, all of which are found in old cranberry bogs in their area. The Working Group responded that the bogs with restored wetlands would have regular removal of woody plants so that a maple swamp did not take root. A monitoring plan would be developed to monitor for invasives and remove them, and lastly, a healthy emergent marsh would actually reduce mosquito populations rather than increase them by having diverse insect and fish populations in these shallow water areas.
Another concern raised consistently by residents was the impact that any changes to the River might have on the four private growers who abut the River north of Sandwich Road. At least one grower owns to the centerline of the River and does not want his property rights violated. The Working Group assured all small bog owners that their private property and water rights would be respected. No changes to the River north of Sandwich Road have been recommended for Phase 1 (see 5.2.2 below).
5.2 Working Group Goals and Recommendations
5.2.1 Goals
After taking input from a wide variety of sources for eight months, the Working Group decided to establish a series of goals that would help to guide future recommendations. The Goals recognize the natural habitat values of the River and the parallel importance of keeping a piece of Falmouth’s heritage – cranberry farming – in a manner that protects the natural habitat. The Working Group approved the Goals in July 2004 (Attachment 5.6) and presented them to the Selectmen along with Status Report #2 in August. The Selectmen unanimously adopted the Goals in September 2004.
During the same time period, the Goals were also forwarded to the Conservation Commission. After several months, the ConCom referred review of the Goals to the Land Management Sub- committee. In December the Sub-committee reported to the Conservation Commission that the Goals be accepted but that no vote was needed.
5.2.2 Recommendations for Each Bog and Section of the River
35 By August 2004, ten months after beginning this intense effort, listening to suggestions, gathering information on improving the Coonamessett River habitat, and use of Best Management Practices in cranberry farming, the Working Group decided it was time to develop a coherent plan. It was obvious from the comments made and information submitted by the Bog Preservation Group and the Coonamessett River Park Coalition that their visions of what was best for the River were widely divergent and strongly held. Each group was deeply skeptical that the other group’s plan would work at all, and even if a plan did have some degree of success, the end result was viewed as an “ugly berm” or an “ugly swamp”.
The Working Group decided to discuss each of the nine sections of the Coonamessett River in a factual, objective manner, using all of the data at hand and guided by the approved CRRWG Goals established in July. A Workshop setting was chosen on a Saturday morning, with a trained facilitator to run the meeting. Two representatives from the Bog Preservation Group and two from the Coonamessett River Park Coalition accepted the Working Group’s invitation to participate actively in the discussion, section by section. The public was invited to watch and listen, and comment at the end of the Workshop. The intent of the Workshop was for the Working Group to see IF there was any general agreement within the group itself (consensus), get feedback from the two stakeholder groups and the public, and to identify how to proceed with all the information the Working Group had collected.
In order to be as objective as possible, each Working Group member and stakeholder representative was asked to prepare a series of “post-its” for the Workshop – one for each of the nine sections of the River – stating what he/she thought should be done to better manage that section. The post-its were attached to a corresponding map of that section of the River on the wall of the meeting room. The facilitator read off all the post-its for a given section before the discussion began: in that way the full range of opinions was known up-front. By the end of the morning, the participants had discussed and debated all nine sections. The Working Group members reached a unanimous compromise to recommend to the Selectmen. The Coalition representatives were supportive of the compromise, the Bog representatives pointed out that this was the Working Group’s consensus, and the Grower objected to the consensus.
All of the recommendations from the Workshop are listed on Page One of the Matrix along with two columns of comments and reasons. A breakdown by acreage of which bogs would continue to be farmed and which would be restored to more natural wetlands is listed in the last two columns. These recommendations were reported to the Selectmen in Status Report #2 on August 30, 2004, with an emphasis on the proposed activities for Phase 1 of river restoration:
Berm the west side of Middle Bog with a buffer (width not yet determined) between the berm and the River, and construct a tailwater recovery pond of appropriate size; Naturalize the east side of Middle Bog into a wet meadow to improve the connection to Flax Pond stream and as possible mitigation for wetland area filled by the berm; Berm the north end of Flax Pond Bog #1 (the bog closest to John Parker Road); Restore to wet meadow Flax Pond Bog #2 (the bog closest to Flax Pond); Put Flax Pond Bog #3 (on the far east side of Flax Pond) out to bid as an organic bog; if there are no bidders, restore to a wet meadow. Restore Lower Bog to emergent marsh and wet meadow;
The Working Group prepared a map (Map 5.1) to show in graphic form which bogs were recommended for which demonstration project, and a table (Attachment 5.7) listing information about cranberry bog acreage in Falmouth. Given 191 acres of cranberry bogs in Falmouth, 7% have been recommended for berming (13 acres) and 7% for wetlands restoration (14 acres). In
36 terms of the town-owned cranberry bog acreage (56 acres) along the Coonamessett River, 23% will be bermed in Phase 1 and 25% will be restored to wetlands in Phase 1. The acreage for the two Demonstration Projects are as equal as could reasonably be achieved.
5.2.3 Discussion of the Two Demonstration Projects
The Working Group began its study in the midst of a long-standing, passionate, tensely discussed community issue, and outlined steps for improving the health of the Coonamessett River. The idea of two basically equal Demonstration Projects was developed in the Consensus Building Workshop. The projects would be an opportunity for the two citizen groups to move beyond talk and develop concrete plans that could be submitted for permitting and funding. The projects would also help to dispel community concerns about vistas, and show whether berms, tailwater recovery ponds, and restored riverine habitats would actually work. The Working Group suggested a timeframe of approximately five years for the Phase 1 demonstrations. At the end of that time, the Town could decide when and how it wanted to proceed to Phase 2.
Key factual information that the Working Group used in making choices as to where best to locate two Demonstration Projects included the following:
a. The rates of groundwater upwelling on the east and west sides of each bog b. Percent of non cranberry wetland plants already growing on the bog itself c. Proximity to healthier river habitat d. Improvement to in-stream habitat (more shade, better spawning ground) e. Impact of berm or restoration activity on perceived vistas f. Possible impact to land use downstream of the Demonstration Project
The bog with the lowest rate of groundwater upwelling in the perimeter ditch in this water-rich valley was definitely the west side of Middle Bog (9,000 gallons per day as compared to double that or ten times that in other bogs). Less groundwater upwelling means erosion/berm stability is less of a concern and will better insure that the tailwater retention pond, required for holding chemigated water for up to five days, will be successful. Since the water table is approximately one to two foot below the level of the bogs, and the fact that the retention pond has to be dug below the water table, creates a concern that the pond will either 1) overfill as groundwater percolates upward or 2) chemicals filter downward and escape into the groundwater flow. One of the main objectives of the berm demonstration project is to show that such a pond will work. The stability and permeability of the berm in such a dynamic groundwater and sand environment also needs to be demonstrated. The Working Group concluded that Middle Bog had the highest potential for success with the berming and tailwater recovery pond concept.
The two bogs chosen for berming, Middle Bog and Flax Pond Bog #1, are also the most visible bogs as one drives along John Parker Road. The Working Group felt it was important to continue the tradition of cranberry farming, and the visibility of that heritage as a vista. Because the planned height of the berm is two & one half feet, the berm will obscure some of Middle Bog just as the dike between Middle and Lower Bog obscures Lower Bog. However, after the five-year demonstration period is over, it is possible that the new berm may become another pathway around the bog, and hence local visibility will be enhanced.
Lower Bog and Flax Pond #2 were inspected by wetland specialists for the presence of wetland plants other than cranberries that have become established on these bogs. Flax Pond #2 was found to have greater than 60% wetland plants mixed in with cranberry vines. This bog is already well on its way to being a wet meadow. Based on harvest data, it appears that Flax Pond #2 has not been harvested for the last three years, and its harvest in 2001 was 24 barrels/acre. The State
37 average is 100 barrels/acre. This bog also has a major problem at its center where the peat is sinking and an enlarging pond has formed over the past twenty years.
The vegetation in Lower Bog is patchy, with a diverse and alternating pattern of cranberry vines and other wetland plants. Overall about 25% of this bog is not cranberries. Lower Bog also is reported to have a severe problem with black headed fireworm. Production has been falling steadily: 103 barrels/acre in 2000, 34 barrels/acre in 2001, no harvest in 2002 and 2003, and 15 barrels/acre in 2004. From a restoration point of view, Lower Bog is a favorable demonstration site: it is directly adjacent to a healthier river section and terrestrial habitat between the dam and Route 28 on the downstream side leading into Great Pond-one of our important coastal embayments, and it is very close to the stream to Flax Pond on the upstream side. There are no commercial cranberry bogs downstream of Lower Bog, so any restoration activities, such as working in the river channel, would not disturb farming. Both Lower Bog and Flax Pond Bog #2 sit back from and below the road so changes in these bogs were less likely to change perceived vistas. The Working Group concluded that Lower Bog and Flax Pond Bog #2 had the highest potential for success with the wetlands restoration concept.
A number of other factors played a role in deciding which bog for which Demonstration Project. The Projects had to be on separate bogs because funding agencies wouldn’t provide grants for two projects on the same bog for obvious reasons: logistics would be difficult (flooding regime for example), permitting would be complicated, and measuring success would be uncertain. A second factor was cranberry productivity: Middle Bog is the largest bog and had a good record of harvest until the EDB contamination occurred. Flax Pond Bog #1 is the largest of the Flax bogs and also had a good record of harvest. Berming these bogs would maximize cranberry farming. A third factor was geographical location along the River: the fact that Lower Bog was at the “end of the line” and down-river from all the commercial bogs meant that any restoration activities would not interfere with farming.
The Working Group recognizes that the proposed Demonstration Projects do not satisfy everyone. The Projects are a compromise. No citizens group got everything it wanted. The Working Group believes this compromise is the most workable combination of activities that has a reasonable chance of success and results in concrete progress towards a healthier habitat for fish in and along the Coonamessett River.
5.2.4 Recommendations to the Selectmen
On August 30, 2004 the Working Group provided the Selectmen with Status Report #2, the Goals, the Matrix with the results of the consensus of the Workshop with emphasis on the importance of doing two Demonstration Projects, a map showing which bogs would be part of Phase 1, and a summary of the advice from an informal meeting in July with most of the regulating agencies that will be involved in reviewing and/or permitting activities on the River and on the bogs. The regulators’ main theme was “The Town must decide what it wants.” Then permitting issues can be worked out. The Working Group re-iterated its intent to find ways to improve the health of the River and its fisheries while still maintaining commercial cranberry production as an important activity in Falmouth.
After two more months of effort focused on the two Demonstration Projects, including a rough costing out of the projects and possible funding partners, the Working Group made its Annual Report to the Selectmen on November 1, 2004. The results of the year’s work were embodied in eight recommendations regarding renewal or termination of the commercial farming licenses, bog by bog (Attachment 5.8). The licenses for bogs recommended for wetland restoration – Lower Bog and Flax Pond #2 Bog – would be terminated. The license for Flax Pond #3 bog would be
38 terminated and the specs re-written for organic farming only on this isolated bog. The Selectmen unanimously voted these recommendations on November 15th. The Conservation Commission concurred with these recommendations at a joint meeting with the Selectmen on December 22, 2004. Licenses on all other bogs were extended one year. At the request of representatives of the East Falmouth community, the Selectmen also unanimously agreed to flood Lower Bog and Flax #2 to protect the vines from winter kill until Spring Town Meeting takes a definitive vote on the Demonstration Projects. Lastly the Selectmen voted to extend the Charter of the CRRWG to December 2005.
Although the Conservation Commission concurred with the decisions on the licenses on December 22nd , the Commission has yet to vote on the Recommendations that underlie those licensing decisions, or to comment directly on the Demonstration Projects themselves. A discussion between the Working Group and the Land Use Sub-Committee of the Commission is scheduled for February 22nd. A decision by the full Commission may follow.
39 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 Feasibility Study for Demonstration Projects on Hold
If choices in land uses along the Coonamessett River were not such a controversial topic, the Working Group would have proceeded from an approved conceptual plan to a feasibility study for the two Demonstration Projects following the vote of the Selectmen and concurrence of the Conservation Commission in December 2004. A more detailed design for construction in each bog would be prepared. A plan for additional baseline monitoring data and follow-up monitoring data collection would be developed. The Projects would be priced out in greater detail. Funding partners would be approached with that cost information, and Contact would be made with Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM), Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP), Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection and others. A plan of coordination with the Falmouth Conservation Commission would be developed since these parcels are under the jurisdiction of the Commission, and all permits start with a Notice of Intent to the Commission. A plan to track performance would be developed.
However, because the future of the Town-owned bogs is controversial, the Working Group is preparing an article for the Selectmen to submit to the Special Spring Town Meeting on April 12, 2005. If Town Meeting supports the compromise plan with two Demonstration Projects as described in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4, the feasibility study can proceed. The Working Group expects to hold a series of public meetings to develop the specifics of each Demonstration Project, and then return to Fall Town Meeting 2005 or Spring Town Meeting 2006 with definitive information on costs, permits, and funding partners.
We recognize that there is opposition to this compromise, and that neither side got everything it wanted. The most important concern for all Town Meeting Members and citizens should be to take steps to improve the health of the Coonamessett River. We can begin to restore the River by (1) properly separating the cranberry growing operations from the river with impermeable berms, tailwater recovery ponds, and vegetative buffers; and (2) increasing the amount of more natural riverine habitat, fish cover, food supply, shade and cooler temperatures, and better spawning grounds.
If the April 2005 Special Town Meeting turns down the two Demonstration Projects as proposed by the Working Group and voted by the Selectmen, then the process of building another compromise will need to begin again. The timeline for accomplishing that process is unknown. Thirty years ago, the Conservation Commission developed a “Management Policy” for the Town- owned lands in 1972 that encompassed all of the natural resources. Only the cranberry farming portion was implemented. Five years ago, the Bog Committee developed recommendations but they were never implemented. The Working Group asks for your support for both Demonstration Projects in order to show the Town that improved river habitat and fisheries and cranberry farming can both work within the Coonamessett River system.
40