Form approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response, Including time for reviewing instructions, searching existng data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection ol information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Blank) September 1996

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Ecology of Buzzards Bay: An Estuarine Profile

6. AUTHOR(S) B.L. Howes and D.D. Goehringer

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Biological Department Coastal Ecological Research Institute Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution at Woods Hole Woods Hole, MA 02543 Woods Hole, MA 02543

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES 10. SPONSORING, MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of the Interior National Biological Service Biological Report 31 Washington, DC 20240

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Errata sheet added.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Release unlimited. NTIS.DoDD

13, ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) Buzzards Bay remains one of the few relatively pristine bays in the metropolitan corridor from Washington to Boston The bay and its surrounding marshes and uplands have provided a variety of biotic resources not only to European settlers over nearly 400 years but also to the Native Americans who relied on this estuary for thousands of years before them Today the uplands are divided between 18 communities, and while the bay is still exploited for its biotic resources, its aesthetic and recreational values add to the growing concern to preserve its environmental quality At the same time, it has become clear that the health of the Buzzards Bay ecosystem, like almost all estuarine systems, is controlled not just by processes within the bay waters themselves but also by inputs from the surrounding uplands as well Therefore, to properly understand and manage this system, it is important to detail activities and land use patterns within the watershed as well as within the tidal reach of the bay waters This combined watershed-bay system is referred to as the "Buzzards Bay Ecosystem" and is the necessary frame of reference for understanding the biotic structure of the bay and for managing and conserving its resources This community profile provides an overview of the ecology of the Buzzards Bay ecosystem It is not intended to represent an all-inclusive review of the literature; instead it is an attempt to present key features of the bay in a readily accessible form and to summarize the dominant ecological processes that structure the bay environment Because the current and future environmental health of these types of embayments can be directly influenced by activities within contributing watersheds, understanding the interactions between land and sea is an important component to understanding the ecosystem as a whole The subjects addressed in this profile, therefore, focus not only on the open bay waters but also on the ecology of Buzzards Bay within its watershed including management issues and the difficulties in balancing demands for access and development while protecting water quality

14. SUBJECT TERMS (Keywords) 15. NUMBER OF PAGES vi + 141 pp. Buzzards Bay, estuarine ecology, ecosystem, watershed 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT THIS PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

aanoard Forni 298 (rev 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 Snperfun, ecocdsXenter SITE:

SDMS DocID 518509 National Biological Service Technical Report Series This report is the last item to be published in the National Biological Service's Biological Report series. Future reports of this nature will be published in one of the series listed below. Questions regarding these series should be mailed electronically to [email protected].

Biological Science Reports ISSN 1081-292X Information and Technology Reports ISSN 1081-2911 Papers published in this series record the significant find­ ings resulting from USGS/NBS-sponsored and cospon­ These reports are intended for the publication of book- sored research programs. They may include extensive data length-monographs; synthesis documents; compilations or theoretical analyses. These papers are the in-house coun­ of conference and workshop papers; important planning terpart to peer-reviewed journal articles, but with less strin­ and reference materials such as strategic plans, standard gent restrictions on length, tables, or raw data, for example. operating procedures, protocols, handbooks, and manu­ We encourage authors to publish their findings in the most als; and data compilations such as tables and bibliogra­ appropriate Journal possible. However, the Biological Sci­ phies. Papers in this series are held to the same peer-review ence Reports represent an outlet in which BRD authors and high quality standards as their journal counterparts may publish papers that are difficult to publish elsewhere due to the formatting and length restrictions of journals. At the same time, papers in this series are held to the same peer-review and high quality standards as their journal counterparts

Funding for printing this report was provided by the NBS National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette. LA. Production was also by the NBS National Wetlands Research Center. Lafayette. LA (sec inside back cover) L^

To purchase this report, contact the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (call toll free 1-800-553-6847). or the Defense Technical Information Center, 8725 Kingman Rd., Suite 0944. Fort Belvoir. VA 22060-6218.

Preceding PageS Blank

pfH

^fA^SArt.uiiy j ,! mS'*<&0 -*•-i -S-S. '* i ''''"' A-' y

1 .„•. ,(«' • ms ms:

rSprirlSfflO'

my'SA msi v ^Bc4,i^r ,. ,.,' Wr*y y*. ±z

"^ . y. <•< ?-y-s

.. _ y y n: y 0 .;• \. • '1 n ^ : *v i _ , .y:-: .';,-•«.• \ r • A )ii sst-.­ i s xy^ ' .-'r . Ji : . ,r\ - k •0 -s: & ­,s ­ -'' / i*. 1 . ' •" _' *y

V v \ v i

Vt:­

s - i 1-S" v> NatJonal Biological Service SQ^yrTQ] \ >, •• V -i irnr-1 immlliirT rn ¥TT n~f- " ~ i • ii TBT m In ~ - - - - «tpTm^t™jm>™^^~. ¥~1 f\ X -^»_' 1 ^ J r^gk^l/S-:-^­ U.S. Department of the lnterlo!cg2a^r^_'~--» Biological Report 31 September 1996

U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE

Ecology of Buzzards Bay: An Estuarine Profile

Brian L. Howes and Dale D. Goehringer Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543

| and

Center for Marine Science and Technology University of Massachusetts New Bedford, Massachusetts 02744

Project Officer Rebecca J. Howard National Biological Service National Wetlands Research Center 700 Cajundome Boulevard Lafayette, Louisiana 70506

ro

U.S. Department of the Interior National Biological Service Washington, D.C. 20240

m c QUAixrr INSPECTED I i -^f!^^^^"'^^^*^^*^^* ,75r"-v3* -^^^^Ss^^fwt^^. •••"^•^ ••"; -..>»h. fv.. -\ &*•. . ^

Errata Sheet for: Howes, B.L., and D.D Goehringer.1996. Ecology of Buzzards Bay: an estuarine profile.

The correct number for this report is Biological Report 33.

The front cover, title page, and spine copy should read Biological Report 33

The suggested citation on page ii should read' Howes, B.L., and D.D. Goehringer.1996. Ecology of Buzzards Bay: an estuarine profile. National Biological Service Biological Report 33 vi+141 pp.

The headers on even-numbered pages should read Biological Report 33

Block 10 of the Report Documentation Page (SF298) should read Biological Report 33

ooY

•V V Suggested citation: Howes, B.L., and D.D. Goehringer. 1996. Ecology of Buzzards Bay: an estuarine profile. Na­ tional Biological Service Biological Report 31. vi +141 pp.

n Contents Page Preface 1 Abstract 3 Chapter 1. Introduction to the Watershed-Bay Ecosystem 5 1.1. Description 7 1.2. History 11 1.3. PresentDay 13 Chapter!. Geology 17 2.1. Formation 19 2.2. AMarineBay 22 2.3. Sediments of Buzzards Bay 24 Chapters. Physical Environment 27 3.1. FreshWater: Rain, Surface, and Groundwater Flows 29 3.2. Salinity, Temperature, and Density 31 3.3. Circulation/Currents and the Tidal and Wind Regime 33 Chapter 4. Buzzards Bay Natural Resources 39 4.1. Open Water and Embayments 41 4.1.1. Fauna 41 4.1.2. Flora andAquatic Primary Productivity 55 4.2. Intertidal 59 4.2.1. SaltMarshes 59 4.2.2. TidalFlats 66 4.3. Terrestrial 67 4.4. Unique and Threatened Environments 68 4.4.1. Anadromous Fish Runs 68 4.4.2. Endangered Species 70 Chapters. Land Use, Economy, and Fisheries 77 5.1. LandUse 79 5.2. Economy 79 5.2.1. Towns within the Watershed ". 79 5.2.2. Economic Resources and Water Quality 82 5.3. Fisheries 88 Chapter 6. A Changing Buzzards Bay 95 6.1. Humanlmpacts 97 6.1.1. Cape Cod Canal 97 6.1.2. (>erfishing 98 6.1.3. Bacterial Contamination 100 6.1.4. Toxic Pollutants 100 6.1.5. Nutrients and Cultural Eutrophication 104 6.2. Natural Modification 109 6.2.1. Relative Sea-level Rise 109 6.2.2. Storms 117 Chapter?. Management 121 7.1. Toxic Pollutants 123 7.2. Coliform Contamination and Shellfish Closures 124 7.3. Nutrient Loading 126 7.4. Relative Sea-level Rise 129 Acknowledgments 130 References 131

iii Tables 1.1. Physiographic features ofthe Buzzards Bay system 10 1.2. Comparison of representative North American bays 10 1.3. Dimensions ofthe maj or embayments of Buzzards Bay 10 3.1. Estimatedfreshwaterflowst o Buzzards Bay 29 4.1. Dominant soft-bottom, hard-bottom, and rocky intertidal communities in Buzzards Bay 42 4.2. Dominant commercially valuablefish species in Buzzards Bay in order of post-1960 abundance and their food preferences 49 4.3. Dates of "First Catch" for various species of finfish in Buzzards Bay, recorded by a weirfisheryfo r 1880 50 4.4. Birds of Buzzards Bay 54 4.5. Annual primary production ofthe aquatic resources of Buzzards Bay 55 4.6. Eelgrass {Zostera marina) potential habitat versus present area colonized inBuzzardsBay 58 4.7. Occurrence and abundance ofresident and nonresident salt marsh fishes 63 4.8. Mean total length and average percent increase in length/month of resident and nonresident salt marsh fishes 63 4.9. Average gut fullness, percentfish with empty guts, and percent camivory, herbivory, and detritivory in diets ofresident and nonresident fishes 64 4.10. Average biomass and release of ammonia into marsh waters during summer by major marsh organisms 65 4.11. Anadromousfish nmswithin the Buzzards Bay watershed 69 4.12. Rare plants and wildlife identified for the Cape Cod region including the Buzzards Bay watershed 71 5.1. Recreational versus commercial shellfish landings for Buzzards Bay by year 91 5.2. Commercial lobster landings for Buzzards Bayfrom 1981 to 1991 93 6.1. Nitrogen inputs to Buzzards Bayfrom sewage treatment plants 106 6.2. Annual inputs of nitrogen to Buzzards Bay waters 108 6.3. Projected losses ofupland acreage in Buzzards Bay coastal towns 113 7.1. Land use within the Buzzards Bay watershed 128

Figures

1.1. Satellite photograph of Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod 7 1.2. Aerial photograph of research institutions in the village of Woods Hole, Falmouth, Massachusetts 8 1.3. Towns ofthe Buzzards Bay watershed region 8 1.4. Rivers and harbors ofthe Buzzards Bay system 9 1.5. Urban and nonurban population growth in the Buzzards Bay watershed 15 2.1. Map of southeastern New England showing the direction of flow of ice of the Wisconsin Stage 19 2.2. Glacial geologic maps showing end moraines and sandurs ofthe Plymouth- Buzzards Bay area of southeastern Massachusetts 21

iv 2.3. Age of peat at depths relative to the 4000-year B.P. datum 22 2.4. Bathymetric contours of Buzzards Bay adjusted to mean low water datum 23 2.5. Textural distribution ofBuzzards Bay sediments 26 3.1. Drainage basins and location ofmajor streams emptying into Buzzards Bay 29 3.2. A Precipitatio. n and mean monthly discharge ofthe Westport River, normalized by its drainage area B. Comparison of normalized dischargefrom 2 years of datafromth e Westport and Weweantic Rivers 30 3.3. Temperature and salinity profilesfrom the northern end ofBuzzards Bay through the Cape Cod Canal and to Cape Cod Bay 32 3.4. Composite seasonal water column temperature in Buzzards Bay and New Bedford Outer Harbor 33 3.5. Map ofthe southern New England Bight 34 3.6. Buzzards Bay tidal current chart showing flood currents 4 hours after slack tide 35 3.7. Wind rosesfrom 35 years of data at Otis Air Force Base, Bourne, Massachusetts 37 4.1. Method of feeding and reworking of sediments by Yoldia limatula 44 4.2. Alterations in benthic communities and relation to sediment oxidation/ reduction state under varying levels of physical disturbance, or nutrient and organic matter pollution 45 4.3. Photograph of quahogs {Mercenaria mercenaria) and soft-shelled clams (Mya arenarid) 46 4.4. Photograph of scallops Aequipectin irradians 47 4.5. The general morphology ofthe edgrassZostera marina 57 4.6. Maximum depth (meters mean low water) of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in different parts ofBuzzards Bay 58 4.7. Aerial photograph ofthe Great Sippewissett Salt Marsh, West Falmouth, Massachusetts 59 4.8. Photograph of the great egret (Casmerodius albus) 61 4.9. Photograph ofthe silversides (Menidiamenidia) 62 4.10. Photograph of the mxmamchog (Fundulus heteroclitus) 62 4.11. Photograph ofthe piping plover (Charadrius melodus) 74 5.1. Aerial photograph of a cranberry bog within the Buzzards Bay watershed 85 5.2. Location ofmajor cranberry bogs around Buzzards Bay 87 5.3. Photograph of spray irrigation on cranberry bogs, the primary method for application of fertilizer and pesticides, although flooding is also used for pest control 88 5.4. Changes in reportedfish catches for Buzzards Bay 89 6.1. Population versus shellfish bed closures for the Buzzards Bay watershed 100 6.2. Oil spillfromth e barge Florida, 1969 101 6.3. Average PCB concentrations for lobsters and winterflounder collected at various stations around Buzzards Bay 104 6.4. Relative sources ofnitrogen inputs to Buzzards Bay waters 106 6.5. Mean annual and changes in relative land levels at tide-gauge stations in Long Island Sound and vicinity Ill 6.6. Hypsometric curves for the upland areas ofthe Buzzards Bay towns of New Bedford and Wareham 112 6.7. Future sea level projections by various authors 112 6.8. Upland retreat rates for Massachusetts coastal communities 114 6.9. Vertical range ofSpartina alterniflora in relation to the range ofthe tide 114 6.10. Response ofthe current barrier dune/marsh system torisingse a level under unrestricted and restricted conditions at the marsh-upland interface 115 6.11. Photograph of dune overwash and remains of an old salt marsh 115 6.12. Cyclone activity affecting the area of Cape Codfrom 1885 to 1981 and compilation of annual stormfrequencyfrom180 0 to 1980 117 6.13. NOAA satellite photograph of Hurricane Bob, August 19,1991 118

VI ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 1

Preface

Buzzards Bay, described by Gabriel Archer in an account of Bartholomew Gosnold's discovery in 1602 as "the stateliest sound I was ever in," remains one ofthe few relatively pristine bays in the metropolitan corridorfromWashingto n to Boston. The bay and its surrounding marshes and uplands have provided a variety of biotic resources not only to European settlers over nearly 400 years but also to the Native Americans who relied on this estuary for thousands of years before them. Today the uplands are divided between 18 communities and although the bay is still exploited for its biotic resources, its aesthetic and recreational values add to the growing concern to preserve its environ­ mental quality. At the same time, the health ofthe Buzzards Bay ecosystem, like that of almost all estuarine systems, is clearly controlled not just by processes within the bay waters themselves but also by inputs from the surrounding uplands as well. Therefore, to properly understand and manage this system, it is important to describe in detail activities and land use patterns within the watershed as well as within the tidal reach ofthe bay waters. This combined watershed-bay system is referred to as the "Buzzards Bay Ecosystem" and is the necessary frame of reference for understanding the biotic structure ofthe bay and for managing and conserving its resources. Located in southeastern Massachusetts, Buzzards Bay and its watershed have long been of inter­ est to biologists because of their geographical positioning between several major water masses along the North Atlantic coast ofthe United States. This led to the establishment of several major marine research centers, the U.S. Fish Commission in 1871 (now the National Marine Fisheries Service), the Marine Biological Laboratory in 1888, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in 1930. Buzzards Bay's undulating shoreline contains numerous natural harbors and coves, which support diverse floral and faunal communities as well as commercial and recreational resources. The port of New Bedford, located on the southwestern shore, is the major industrial and business center within the Buzzards Bay watershed. Well known historically as a hub ofthe whaling industry in the early 1800's, New Bedford remains an activefishing port (coastal and offshore) for the region and represents the largest revenue-producing fishing port on the east coast ofthe United States (Weaver 1984). The problems facing Buzzards Bay fisheries more than 100 years ago (e.g., overfishing and restriction of inland waterways; Baird 1873) still exist; however, the problem of coastal pollution has been revived as a potential factor in the apparent decline ofthe area's fisheries. In addition to the historic pollutants (urban runoff, heavy metals), the discovery of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) pollution in the waters and sediments of New Bedford Harbor in 1976 (Farrington et al. 1984; Weaver 1984) and the rapid human population growth within the Buzzards Bay watershed have refocused attention and resulted in a renewed scientific interest in the bay and its environs. In 1984, Buzzards Bay became one of four estuaries then making up the National Estuary Program. In 1985, through a joint effort ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, the Buzzards Bay Project was established to develop strategies for pro­ tecting the bay's natural resources. The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Buz­ zards Bay, released in 1991, focused on three priority problems: closure of shellfish beds, contamination of fish and shellfish by toxic metals and organic compounds, and potential water quality degradation resulting from excessive nutrient loading. Both the Buzzards Bay Project and the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan are aimed at developing recommendations for regional water quality management based on sound information, defining the regulatory and management structure necessary to implement the 2 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 recommendations, and educating and involving the public in the formulation and implementation of these recommendations. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview ofthe ecology ofthe Buzzards Bay ecosystem. It is not intended to represent an inclusive review ofthe literature, but instead is an attempt to present key features ofthe bay in a readily accessible form and to summarize the dominant ecological processes structuring the bay environment. Because the current and future environmental health of these types of embayments can be directly influenced by activities within contributing watersheds, understanding the interactions between land and sea is important to understanding the ecosystem as a whole. The subjects addressed in this profile, therefore, focus not only on the open bay waters but also on the ecology of Buzzards Bay within its watershed. After a general introduction to the system, the formation ofthe bay is discussed in Chapter 2, followed by descriptions ofthe physical (Chapter 3) and biological (Chapter 4) components ofthe system and their interaction. Chapter 5 addresses watershed land use and water quality issues within the bay proper and its circulation-restricted coastal embayments, while natural and anthropogenic influences responsible for present and future changes to bay systems are the focus of Chap­ ter 6. We conclude with a summary of management issues and the difficulties in balancing demands for access and development while protecting water quality (Chapter 7). Although Buzzards Bay is an important environmental and economic resource for New England, eco­ system level information is still rather limited in some areas. We hope that this monograph will not only act as a reference for researchers, managers, and citizens interested in the bay but may also serve to point out major gaps in our knowledge of this system. Two previous community profiles (Nixon 1982; Teal 1986) may be particularly useful companion texts providing more detailed information on saltwater wetlands in southeastern Massachusetts, including Buzzards Bay. While Bartholomew Gosnold would certainly be taken aback by the alterations wrought within his stately sound's watershed, areas ofthe bay itself remain much as when he sailed them almost 400 years ago. However, many activities and the increasing pressures of development are beginning to significantly alter this system, and only managementfroma whole system perspective will be effective in protecting this resource that attracts so many. This estuarine profile was originally intended to be one in a series originally coordinated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Research Center, now part ofthe National Biological Ser­ vice. Questions or comments concerning this publication or others in the community and estuarine profile series should be directed to: Center Director National Biological Service National Wetlands Research Center 700 Cajundome Boulevard Lafayette, LA 70506 ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY' An Estuarine Profile

Abstract. Buzzards Bay remains one of the few relatively pristine bays in the metropolitan corridor from Washington to Boston. The bay and its surrounding marshes and uplands have provided a variety of biotic resources not only to European settlers over nearly 400 years but also to the Native Americans who relied on this estuary for thousands of years before them. Today the uplands are divided between 18 communities, and while the bay is still exploited for its biotic resources, its aesthetic and recreational values add to the growing concern to preserve its environmental quality. At the same time, it has become clear that the health ofthe Buzzards Bay ecosystem, like almost all estuarine systems, is controlled not just by processes within the bay waters themselves but also by inputs from the surrounding uplands as well Therefore, to properly understand and manage this system, it is important to detail activities and land use patterns within the watershed as well as within the tidal reach of the bay waters. This combined watershed-bay system is referred to as the "Buzzards Bay Ecosystem" and is the necessary frame of reference for understanding the biotic structure ofthe bay and for managing and conserving its resources. This community profile provides an overview ofthe ecology ofthe Buzzards Bay ecosystem. It is not intended to represent an all-inclusive review ofthe literature; instead it is an attempt to present key features ofthe bay in a readily accessible form and to summarize the dominant ecological processes that structure the bay environment. Because the current and future environmental health of these types of embayments can be directly influenced by activities within contributing watersheds, understanding the interactions between land and sea is an important component to understanding the ecosystem as a whole. The subjects addressed in this profile, therefore, focus not only on the open bay waters but also on the ecology of Buzzards Bay within its watershed including management issues and the difficulties in balancing demands for access and development while protecting water quality

Key words; Buzzards Bay, estuarine ecology, ecosystem, watershed h .•.„., nini». i»n'""jn. n";iiM5tJiiJiii' • ^ ^ T — — — III " iji r . L ••••• ii^MW ttflJ.•'J!!J—• m m Tl?"!! UMII II , ..-'.I TLI jjMjma-'pmw'atn

/- -f;'*-'. • : • '• iry .

f;M.l!H«JK'S f|,V|

nmvrimr.i/TKmoil nm iytTKnn vr.tm r/u>T we . tCOKCt tHWBEiSSUaVlrt

IM.t.-b-(|tv«t(HI;!

fish populations, both resident and migratory, with 1.1. Description over 200 recorded species and productive coastal fisheries. In fact, even the name "Buzzards Bay" Buzzards Bay, which separates most of Cape indirectly reflects thefisheries resource, as it was Cod from the mainland, is located at a strategic ostensibly named after the osprey or fish-hawk transition point for habitat distribution of many [Pandion haliaetus) (Strother 1860; Kimball marine species, being proximate to and exchang­ 1892). Feeding exclusively onfish, the osprey was ing with three very different marine systems, the known in early natural history as the buzzardet (little Atlantic Ocean to the south. Vineyard Sound to buzzard) and was common around the bay (in fact, the east, and Cape Cod Bay to the north (Fig. even noted in Gosnolds voyage). Whether due to 1.1). At its northeastern end, Buzzards Bay is the buzzardetor simply the misidentification ofosprey connected to Cape Cod Bay by the Cape Cod as buzzards, the name Buzzards Bay has supplanted Canal. The construction of this canal in 1914 al­ the original "Gosnolds Hope." With the recovery of lowed ships navigating along a popular trade osprey populations stimulated by the banning of routefrom northern to mid-Atlantic and southern dichlorodiphenyltrichlo- roethane (DDT) and the ports to avoid approximately 105 to 161 km of expansion of safe nesting platforms (most notably treacherous waters off of the outer coast of Cape along the Westport River and Martha's Vineyard; Cod. Poole 1989), Buzzards Bay may again warrant the The mouth ofBuzzards Bay opens up to the name. continental shelf east of Rhode Island and Rhode The long axis ofthe bay runs northeast to south­ Island Sound, providing access to some of the west, encompassed primarily by the Massachusetts world's most productive offshore fishing mainland to the west, Cape Cod to the east and grounds, notably George's Bank. New Bedford, northeast, and the Elizabeth Islands (Cuttyhunk, the primary port on Buzzards Bay, still ranks as a majorfishing center, registering the second most Nashawena, Pasque, Penekise and Naushon) to valuablefisheries landings in the United States the southeast. The bay is approximately 45 km long in the 1980's. Buzzards Bay itself supports varied and 12 km wide. The bay was formed as a result of the last ice age and the retreat ofthe glaciers (about 16,000-18,000 years before present (B.P.); Kaye 1964; Oldale 1992), and the geologic processes generated lasting differences in the contours ofthe western versus the eastern shores. The northwest- em and northern shores ofBuzzards Bay are physi­ cally more irregular, creating more embayments than on the eastern and southeastern shores. This undu­ lating coastline encompasses about 336 km after taking into account all the irregularities (Massachu­ setts Department of Environmental Quality Engi­ neering 1975). The northwestern shore has elon­ gated inlets formedfrom drowned valleys cut into outwash plain, while the southwestern shore is rela­ tively smooth, consisting primarily of glacial till as part ofthe Buzzards Bay recessional moraine. The bay itself is relatively shallow; depths rangefrom5 to 10 m at mean low water (MLW) near the head Fig. 1.1. Satellite photograph of Buzzards Bay and to slightly over 20 m near the mouth, with a baywide Cape Cod. average of 11 m (Signell 1987). BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Buzzards Bay supports a wide variety of coastal The watershed area ofBuzzards Bay is divided habitats including tidal wetlands, eelgrass beds, tidal among 10 coastal towns locatedfromWestpor t on flats, barrier beaches, rocky shores, and tidal rivers the west to Gosnold on the east (Figs. 1.3 and 1.4) and streams. In addition, the joining ofBuzzards and 8 noncoastal towns, which either completely Bay and Cape Cod Bay via the Cape Cod Canal (Carver, Rochester, Acushnet) or partially (Fall provides the potential for mixing of semi-tropical River, Freetown, Lakeville, Middleborough, Ply­ and arcadian species, making the bay a unique area mouth) lie within the watershed boundary. The for study of marine organisms. The ecological vari­ drainage basin encompasses 1,104 km2 compared ety ofthe bay itself as well as its proximity to a with 550 km2 of bay surface (Table 1.1). Buzzards number of different marine environments (bay, Bay is a moderate-sized estuary compared with sound, open ocean) inspired the location of several other systems such as Chesapeake Bay, San Fran­ major marine research institutions in the village of cisco Bay, or even Delaware Bay with watersheds Woods Hole, near the southeastern end ofthe bay 150,140, and 30 times the area, respectively, and (Fig. 1.2). The Woods Hole Oceanographic Insti­ 21,2.3, and 3.4 times the water surface, respec­ tution and Marine Biological Laboratory are well- tively, ofBuzzards Bay. Buzzards Bay differs some­ known marine research facilities that have taken ad­ whatfrom other major estuarine systems in that the vantage ofthe unique range of environments found water surface represents a large portion, almost one- in this region, as have branches ofthe National Ma­ third, ofthe total area ofthe bay plus watershed. rine Fisheries Service ofthe National Oceanographic This potentially decreases the role of in­ and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the puts from the watershed compared with other U.S. Geological Survey. Near the head ofthe bay, large estuarine systems where the bay area is the Massachusetts Maritime Academy trains men generally less than 10% ofthe total system and women in the merchant marinefield.Th e qual­ ity ofthe marine waters led Spencer Baird in 1971 to seek establishment ofthe U.S. Fish Commission (now the National Marine Fisheries Service) in Woods Hole adjacent to Buzzards Bay, when many other mid and north Atlantic coastal areas were showing evidence of pollutionfromcitie s or high turbidityfromsedimen t input.

Fig. 1.2. Aerial photograph of research institutions in Fig. 1.3. Towns of the Buzzards Bay watershed the village of Woods Hole, Falmouth, Massachusetts. region. ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY- An Estuanne Profile

Kilometers Fig. 1.4. Rivers and harbors ofthe Buzzards Bay system.

(Table 1.2) and is a partial reason for the high deep. In fact, about 3% ofthe "water" portion of water quality ofthe bay. the bay is actually tidal flat. The bay itself is rela­ While Buzzards Bay has a water surface of tively shallow with a mean depth of 11 m and a about 550 km2 it is functionally divided be­ relatively uniform basin. tween open water (i.e., the central bay area, 476 The "terrestrial" portion ofthe system supports km2) and 27 major embayments (75 km2) (Table some significant salt marsh areas (for New England) 1.3). The embayments, because of their location primarily on the western shore. The overall ratio of and physical structure, are the areasfirstsubjec t to bay surface to salt marsh is about 25, but in the coastal eutrophication; embayments have restricted isolated embayments (e.g., Westport) the ratio is circulation and smaller volume for dilution of nutri­ less than 3. Most of these wetlands remain "healthy," ent inputsfrom land. Most ofthe eelgrass (Zostera fimctioning as nutrient transformers and spawning marina) beds and bivalve stocks are located in and nursery grounds for fish and shellfish nearshore areas and embayments less than 5 m populations. 10 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Table 1.1. Physiographic features of the Buzzards Table 1.3. Dimensions of the major embayments of Bay system. Buzzards Bay. Adapted from Costa et al. 1994. Area/ Surface Feature dimension Source* area Length Width 2 Watershed area (total) 1104.0 km2 1 Embayment (km ) (m) (m) Land surface 1048.5 km2 1 Water (lakes, ponds, etc.) 28 3 km2 1 Acushnet River 10.7 12,050 2,000 2 Barrier beach 6.3 km 2 Aliens Pond 0.8 3,740 180 Salt marsh 20 9 km2 2,3 Bay surface area (total) 550.0 km2 4 Apponagansett Bay 2 9 5,710 940 2 Open water 475.4 km AucootCove 1.3 1,280 1,020 Embayments 74.6 km2 5 Tidal flats" 17.9 km2 2,6 Brant Island Cove 0.3 1,340 360 Bay dimensions Buttermilk Bay 2 2 3,800 960 Length 45.0 km 4 ClarksCove 2.9 2,380 1,270 Width 12.0 km 4 Mean depth 11.0 km 4 Hens Cove 0.3 2,650 410 9 3 Volume 6.1 x 10 m 4 Marks Cove 0.4 1,230 410 "1 , SA1C 1991, 2, Hankm et al 1985, 3, Buzzards Bay Project 1990, 4, Signell 1987,5, Aubrey Consulting Inc 1991,6, modified for Falmouth Mattapoisett Harbor 4.3 5,690 1,880 area in watershed NasketucketBay 2.1 2,640 1,320 "Tidal flat area has not been subtracted from open water or embayment areas Onset Bay 2.4 3,910 760 Phinneys Harbor 2.2 2,770 1,220 Pocasset River 0.8 1,520 510 Quissett Harbor 0.5 1.170 410 Red Brook Harbor 0.6 2,140 810 Table 1.2. Watershed and surface area of Sippican Harbor 7.5 8,660 1,140 representative North American bays Slocums River 2.0 5,440 330 Watershed Surface Ratio: Squeteague Harbor 0.3 1,120 410 area area watershed/ Bay (km2) (km2) bay Wareham River 2.5 3,050 560 Chesapeake Bay" 166,000 11,400 15 West Falmouth Harbor 0.8 1,520 410 Westport River San Francisco Bay" 153,000 1,240 123 East Branch 8.0 14,630 1,070 Delaware Bay' 33,000 1,870 18 West Branch 5.3 8,350 810 Narragansett Bay= 4,613 427 11 Weweantic River 2 4 3,860 460 Buzzards Bay" 1,104 550 2 WidowsCove 0.5 1,170 510 •Bumpus 1973 'Conomos et al 1985 Wild Harbor 0.5 810 560 eN0AA/EPA1989 "Buzzards Bay Project 1989 Wings Cove 0 9 1,690 660

Eleven small primaryrivers empty into the bay; different watershed areas available for generating seven are found on the western shore: Agawam, freshwater flows as well as the effects of their dif­ Wankico, Weweantic, Mattapoisett, Acushnet, fering glacial history on surface versus groundwater Paskamanset, and Westport, and four on the east- flow. Inputs offreshwaterdischarge s directly into em shore: Pocassett, Back, Wild Harbor, and Her­ the bay are relatively small compared to the daily ring Brook (Fig. 1.4). All are tidal to some extent flushing of seawater, and subsequent minor dilution inlandfromthei r mouths, and the eastern shore riv­ of salinity results in bay water salinity concentra­ ers are primarily groundwater fed. Theriver dis­ tions approximating that of nearby oceanic waters. charges on different sides ofthe bay reflect the very The salinity resultsfrom the relatively small (2:1) ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 11

watershed versus bay area (Table 1.1) and height­ attracted many visitors and subsequently new set­ ens the contrast between the embayments, which tlers to the area. This post, situated near what is have more estuarine habitat, and the almost marine now the west end ofthe Cape Cod Canal, pro­ open bay. vided a station for trade of goods between the Like many ofthe developed areas ofthe east- Dutch, the settlers of New Plymouth, and the resi­ em seaboard, Buzzards Bay has experienced high dent Wampanoag Indians. rates of population growth with increases of more The first established town on Cape Cod, the than 50% over the past 50 years. As of 1990, Town of Sandwich (163 9), originally incorporated this watershed supported a population of what is now the coastal town of Bourne on Buz­ 233,000, or roughly 2.1 people per hectare. While zards Bay. West Falmouth, bordering the bay, was this is a moderate density, the recent increases have home to many Quakers who settled there to flee been dramatic. Some towns have grownfromsmal l persecution by the Plymouth Court. This area was rural communities to suburban communities for known at the time as "Suckanesset" (today called Boston or Providence; others have experienced Saconnesset), named by the Native Americans as continued growth in response to the demand for "where the black wampum is found" (Emery summer or retirement homes near the water. 1979:4). Beads made from quahogs were used as a form of currency, known as "wampum," and from this use the species name of quahog {Mercenaria) 1.2. History was derived. Wampumfrom the shells ofthe qua­ Buzzards Bay was highly regarded as a resource hog was twice as valuable as the wampum made to the early settlers ofthe region. In fact, many of from the shell of the periwinkle. Many Native Ameri­ the early uses ofthe watershed and bays remain: cans lived on the shore of West Falmouth as evi­ farming and cranberry agriculture, fishing, denced by the large number of Indian relics and shellfishing, and even some haying of salt marsh grave sites uncovered there in recent years. These grasses. Indians were generally cooperative and helped Colonists living in Plymouth saw Cape Cod as many settlers adapt to this new area, taking advan­ both a blessing and a hindrance: a blessing in that tage ofthe abundance of natural resources the bay it provided trade with the Native Americans who provided. inhabited the cape, but a formidable hindrance to Although the original settlers of this region were trade with the Dutch residing in New York (then primarily farmers, the abundance ofthe sea rapidly called New Amsterdam). Navigating the treacher­ encouraged a healthyfishing industry in the late ous waters around Cape Cod discouraged many 1600's. Even in the few days Gosnold spent on otherwise profitable voyages. Shortly after the es­ the bay in 1602, landing in present day Gosnold tablishment of a permanent colony at New Plymouth and then entering Buzzards Bay, which was then in 1620 and the Massachusetts Bay Colony in called "Gosnolds Hope," it was clear that "diverse 1628, a simpler route was discovered. This pas­ sorts of shellfish as scallops, mussels, cockles, lob­ sage utilized two nearly connectingriversan d a sters, crabs, oysters and wilks (sic. Mercenaria) portage across a narrow strip of land separating exceeding good and very great" were available the head of Cape Cod Bay from Buzzards Bay (a (Brereton 1602:29). In support, Capt. John Smith's passage long used by the Indians) and greatly fa­ Description of New England (1616), although cilitated trade among the colonists between Ply­ praising the soil and climate for agriculture, particu­ mouth, the Connecticut River, and New York. The larly noted the fishing. This still seemed the case establishment in 1627 of the Aptucxet Trading Post when Thoreau visited in 1849 and 1855, observing (or Manomet Trading Post, located on the river of "the inhabitants ofthe Cape are often at once the same name emptying into Buzzards Bay) farmers and sea rovers" (Thoreau 1966:162). This 12 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 statement represents the full system utilization that population grew. The uncut forested watershed ob­ continues, except that residential development be­ served by Gosnold survives only in isolated patches. gan supplanting farming as the major nonurban land Substantial amounts of wood were also cut to fuel use, and much ofthe farmland of Thoreau's day is fires for the production of salt through evaporation now reforested (currently 61% ofthe land is for­ of seawater, an important local industry providing ested). salt for the curing ofthe abundantfish coUected from In the 1600's and 1700's major uses ofthe bay- nearshore and offshore waters. In 1863 a fertilizer watershed were, as stated, related to farming and factory based on the use offishwa s established in fishing. The bay not only provided harvest but was Woods Hole, with Buzzards Bay to supply much of also the major mode of transport, especially given the required menhaden {Brevoortia tyranms) (the the sandy roads ofthe region. Farming was on a 9,0721 annually required was more than could be relatively small scale, primarily for subsistence, caught from the bay alone, however, so it was through the 18th century. Com was the principal supplemented by catchfromothe r waters) (Fawsett crop and served not only as a source of food but 1990). also as currency. Wheat was not prevalent as it did Unlike in Cape Cod Bay, there are no reports not grow well and sufferedfrom mildew; however, ofthe occasional pilot whale beachings on Buzzards rye was successfully grown along with onions and Bay shores, which provided a safer and easier beans. Sheep were especially important during this source of whale products for the local residents. early period as they provided both mutton and wool The larger-scale commercial whaling industry from for clothing that "made up in durability what they the early to late 1800's, however, was a bay-wide lacked in grace" (Kitteridge 1930). enterprise with whaling ships being built in or sailing Standing at the land and sea interface, the salt from New Bedford on the west. Woods Hole on marshes ofBuzzards Bay provided for major ex­ the east, and Wareham at the head ofthe bay. The ploitations of farming andfishing. These marshes substantial profit to be gainedfrom whaling encour­ were used throughout New England as a source of aged many sea captains to settle in the towns around the salt marsh hay, Spartinapatens. Marsh haying the bay. Baleen, being strong but elastic, was a valu­ was important to early settlers as the economy of able commodity for corsets,fishing poles, and the the region was largely dependent on animals. The like. Even more important was the harvest of all abundance of salt hay provided a ready source of species of whales for their oil. Whale oil was highly food and fodder for oxen, horses, cattle, and sheep. prized for lamps, and the waxy residuefrompro ­ Salt hay was also used as packing material and in­ cessing of this oil, known as "spermacetti" (sperm sulation for the "ice houses." After years of com­ whales supply the purest and largest quantities of mon ownership, the marshes were divided up into oil), was equally valuable for making wax candles. private ownership, bought and sold much like house These candles burned twice as long as traditional or wood lots. Salt haying along Buzzards Bay pro­ candles madefrom mutton, beef, bear, or deer fat; gressively diminished with increased availability of in fact, the pure flame given off by spermacetti cultivated hayfrom inland areas and largely stopped candles was long used as a standard measure for after the "Portland Storm" in 1898. Ice rafting during artificial light. "One candle-power" was identified this major winter storm destroyed most ofthe posts, as the amount of light given off by one pure known as hay staddles, upon which salt hay was spermacetti candle weighing 28 g. set to dry above thefloodingtides . In recent times The demand for spermacetti resulted in the con­ the high quality of salt hay as a garden mulch, struction of a candle house in Woods Hole in 1836, relativelyfree of weed seeds, has renewed demand. at the height ofthe whaling industry. Woods Hole, a The watershed was deforested by the 18th cen­ village of Falmouth, was already an important sea­ tury by the combined effects of agriculture and the port, and although much smaller than the other sea­ need for wood for cooking and heating as the ports of New Bedford, Provincetown, Truro, and ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuanne Profile 13

Wellfleet, its deep waters were attractive as a home With the growth of whaling andfishingcam e a port to many whaling ships. Even at its height, how­ large increase in supporting maritime trade indus­ ever, Woods Hole was not nearly as important as tries. Farming gave way to marine-based econo­ New Bedford to the whaling industry. Not only re­ mies in towns like New Bedford, Woods Hole, gionally prominent, New Bedford was known as Fairhaven, and Padanaram (a village of Dartmouth), the "Whaling Capital ofthe World'' and the country's and they experienced a surge in the growth of trades greatest whaling portfrom182 0 until the Civil War. to support the sea-based industry. Boat builders, In 1845 alone, 150,000 barrels of sperm oil, blacksmiths, coopers, sail makers, carpenters, and 272,000 barrels of whale oil, and three million so forth settled in these areas along with a large pounds of whalebone were brought in by the 10,000 number of unskilled laborers. However, the avail­ seamen on New Bedford ships (Fawsett 1990). ability of kerosene in the 1860's brought about a Coincident with the growth in whaling was a swift decline in the whaling industry. Coincident with growth in commercialfishing in Buzzards Bay, no­ this decline was the development ofthe cotton tably for menhaden and mackerel {Scomber manufacturing industry in the northeast, taking ad­ scombrus) during spring and summer months. By vantage ofthe availability of workers and water the late 1800's commercialfishingan d catch infor­ power and shifting the maj or industry toward manu­ mation were entering the "modem" era with opera­ facturing (Fawsett 1990). New Bedford and Fall tions ofthe U.S. Fish Commission and advance­ River, with their protected waters, proximity to off­ ments infishingtechnology . Buzzards Bay fisheries shore fishing grounds, and extensive growth, have have changed significantly, with Atlantic mackerel continued to be the industrial centers within the (pre-1920) and scup {Stenotomus chrysos; post­ Buzzards Bay watershed. Early this century large 1960) accounting for about half the total commer­ urban populations forced New Bedford and adja­ cial catch (Buzzards Bay Project 1987). cent Fairhaven to handle sewage through central­ ized wastewater treatment plants and to construct In the early 1900's weirs (fish traps) were used outfalls into Buzzards Bay. Hence, the inner and along the shores ofBuzzards Bay. The weirs were outer harbor regions ofNew Bedford represent the used for catching species not typically caught by major industrial and nutrient point sources ofpollu ­ draggers like bonito {Sarda sarda), scup, and but­ tion for the entire bay, with most ofthe remainder terfish {Peprilus triacanthus; Bowles and ofthe region having farming, light industry, and Livingston 1981). Weirs were made by sinking nonpoint (septic) disposal ofwastewate r as the main numerous upright poles into the sediment and string­ pollution concerns. This pattern continues today. ing them with netting, making a long, wide extended Historically, the primary toxic pollutants were from opening to guidefishint o the base or bowl ofthe textile (dyes), metal fabrication and jewelry (met­ trap. After the disruption to industry as a result of als), and (more recently) electronics industries the Civil War, weirfishingbega n to grow in popu­ (PCB's) (Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. 1990; larity as it enabled many fishermen to work the lo­ Terklaetal. 1990). cal shallow waters without the hazards of deep sea fishing. Catch by weirfishingi s generally quite vari­ able with no guarantee of marketable catch; how­ 1.3. Present Day ever, many localfishermen during this period were able to switchfrom deep sea to local waters with­ Thefishingindustr y continues to be an important out serious loss in income (Fawsett 1990). Also economic resource for Buzzards Bay. Although during this time, attention turned toward the shal­ commercialfinfishingha s been prohibited in the bay low shellfisheries, which provided areliable source since the late 1800's, arelatively largefishingflee t sup­ of income with a smaller investment in equipment. ported by ports such as New Bedford and Woods Lobstering and clamming grew in popularity along Hole fishes George's Bank for Atlantic cod {Gadus with the seasonal scallop industry. morhua), mackerel, haddock {Melanogrammus 14 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 aeglefinus), striped bass {Morone saxatilis), winter carrying over 17.2 million t of commercial cargo flounder {Pleuronectes americanus), and the like as and much ofthe refined oil for New England. More well as ocean scallops {Placopectin megellanicus). than 6,300 large cargo vessels pass through the More locally, shellfishing (primarily bay scallop canal each year, as well as more than 25,000 smaller {Aequipectin irradians) and quahog) was and con­ vessels, includingfishing and pleasure boats, many tinues to be animportant industry throughout the of which would be ill-equipped for the long and bay ($4.5 million in 1988), with additional dangerous voyage around Cape Cod (Parson commercial and recreational harvest of soft- 1993). shelled clams {Mya arenaria) and lobster One ofthe primary uses ofBuzzards Bay to­ {Homarus americanus). However, overfishing day is as an aesthetic and recreational resource. and the ever-increasing shellfish bed closures because The many small coves, inlets, and harbors around of coliform contamination put a growing strain on this the perimeter ofthe bay provide shelter for nu­ industry as an economic resource (S. Cadrin, Massa­ merous boat moorings and many types of recre­ chusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, personal com­ ational activities,fromboating ,fishing,sailing , and munication). swimming to other water sports such as scuba div­ The exception to the modem day decline in ag­ ing and water skiing. The high level of water quality riculture within the watershed is cranberry growing. generally found within the bay attracts a large num­ Cranberries were harvested around Buzzards Bay ber of tourists each year to its shores, providing an by Native Americans and later by European colo­ important economic resource to many ofthe local nists. With the cultivation of cranberries and devel­ communities. The active recreationalfishery in Buz­ opment of cranberry agriculture came both in­ zards Bay provides both direct income to the local creased yields and the construction of extensive marine industries and indirect support for the tour­ cranberry bogs, usually by converting freshwater ist industry. wetlands (Thomas 1990). At present, cranberry The major alteration in land use within the Buz­ agriculture yields 30 times more revenue than the zards Bay watershed over the past century has been second most important agricultural industry, dairy the shiftfrom farming to residential housing, prima­ farming, and employs 12 times the workers (Terkla rily post-World War II. The major urban center, et al. 1990). Many ofthe bogs within the Buzzards greater New Bedford, has maintained a nearly con­ Bay watershed were originally under cultivationmore stant population since 1930, a result ofthe major than a century ago when the watershed accounted expansion in population due to the whaling industry for about 25% ofthe total cranberry production in in the 1800's and the city's growth as a manufac­ the United States. The wetland nature of many of turing center (Terkla et al. 1990). In recent years, the bogs, which are located on streams and rivers regional changes have been primarily related to sub­ emptying into Buzzards Bay, makes management urban growth, particularly in the tourism and retire­ of this fertilized agriculture potentially significant to ment populations (Fig. 1.5). The result is that the managing the nutrient-related water quality ofthe nonurban population has now surpassed the urban bay (Howes and Teal 1992). population, as was the case 200 years ago. The value ofBuzzards Bay and the Cape Cod After almost 400 years of recorded develop­ Canal to the shipping industry is almost incalcu­ ment, many ofthe activities within the bay-water­ lable, not only for the direct economics of shed system remain essentially the same although, transport in shortening the circuitous route around of course, technologically advanced in practice. Cape Cod but also for the savings in countless Fisheries and agriculture remain essential resource lives and ships. As in the colonial era, the bay uses, but, as in many other systems, the fisheries continues to serve as a major transportation sys­ yields have diminished due either to overfishing or tem. Traffic through the bay today consists pri­ alterations in habitat. The major shift of emphasis marily of oil tankers, freighters, and barges has been from farming to residential and tourist ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY' An Estuanne Profile 15

300 ­ related development, and the increased population and its concomitant increase in nutrient loading to 250 : In" ^ ^ bay waters may for thefirsttim e represent a signifi­ I 200- idi^y cant threat to the productivity and diversity of this O ecosystem. c 150­ o Urban +^-* « i |ioo : _^^y^^ Non-urban 50­

: 0 —i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—\—i—i—i—i— 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Fig. 1.5. Urban and non-urban population growth in the Buzzards Bay watershed 1 /-^Wiimi y

f.uii!mws r(,Al{,r -.V.MO. •jrxf^A'ffitoaiaix mtarrut, r.vnnn trmtoran/ crofst rioaiisisswwY:

itOVIti \ ll. ',

•\;..; - -g

".'* v' • W^-fr- IYSS-^0\- ^ ^r^*v • r- JiN^-i. - ^^fe#-: -QSS^'S Tr>-'„"-i-r5^' • . ••'>-•' ' --{A • •-• ••• y-S*.'. -.-"'"A' ^•r^-It'^t'

VT- • Ji - ' -W'f..«r. - I" / •> \ *i-. '• .7) i? / rOS^M- I*r H • - " \ S- • ' "' v ,

/ 'i' ,\\ \ S- i " " ' *>i . t 'i

II .sC

, , . —r—-^ssjGt"&i ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 19

Buzzards Bay and its surrounding uplands rep­ or Wisconsin Stage of the Pleistocene Epoch, resent a relatively young coastal feature in New started some 50,000-70,000 years B.P. Before the England. While the basic structure ofthe system was Cape Cod region was glaciated, there was an ex­ created by glacial transport and subsequent ero­ tensive coastal plain consisting of Tertiary and Cre­ sion of sediments during glacial melting and retreat, taceous rocks that extended seaward to the ap­ secondary processes of relative sea-levelrise,wav e proximate location of present day Nantucket, andtidalerosion , and sorting and transport of sedi­ Martha's Vineyard, and Block Island. The land sur­ ments continue to transform both the land-sea mar­ face graded downwards toward the ancient shore­ gin and the subaerial portion ofthe bay. line (Hough 1940). Pleistocene glaciation, specifi­ cally the Buzzards Bay, Cape Cod Bay, and South Channel lobes (Fig. 2.1), modified this surface and 2.1. Formation to a lesser extent the adjacent and underlying New Buzzards Bay was formed by processes asso­ England Oldland. The advance and retreat of these ciated with the Laurentide Ice Sheet which, cen­ three lobes, formed because of variations in the tered on Labrador and Hudson Bay during the final speed and movement ofthe edge ofthe Laurentide

Atlantic Ocean

10 20 30 Miles Fig. 2.1. Southern New England showing the directions of flow of ice of the Wisconsin Stage (by arrows) and the two positions of ice standstill (dashed lines). From Strahler (1966). 20 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Ice Sheet, were responsible for the formation of lobe to the location of the Sandwich moraine Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and (Larson 1980). This secondary position ofthe ice Buzzards Bay and its watershed. margin was held for a period, and moraines were The structure ofthe Buzzards Bay estuarine sys­ formed by glacio-tectonic processes and, to a lesser tem is most closely linked to the Buzzards Bay lobe extent, glacialtillfrom the continual inflow and melt­ (as it was modified by the Cape Cod Bay and South ing of ice (Strahler 1966; Oldale 1992). Thus the Channel lobes). The Buzzards Bay lobe initially relatively large Buzzards Bay (and similarly the Sand­ spread across the area ofBuzzards Bay to its far­ wich) moraine was formed, 1.6-3.2 km wide and thest extent at western Martha's Vineyard. At this extending within the watershedfrom the Elizabeth point the advance halted for a period of more than Islands to the head ofthe bay. The Cape Cod por­ 1,000 years during which glacialtillwa s deposited tion is surrounded by outwash on both sides in its as ice continuously arrived but melted or evapo­ northern parts and is relatively high at 30.5-61 m. rated before it could advance the perimeter. This The Elizabeth Islands portion is of relatively low till consisted not only of soil and decomposed rock relief, generally less than 12.2mwithamaximumof but also of bedrock collected by the ice as it flowed southward across New England. During this sta­ 36.6 m. These islands consist entirely of glacial de­ tionary phase a portion ofthe terminal moraine of bris with eroded bouldersfrom the moraine form­ the Buzzards Bay lobe was deposited (Fig. 2.1). A ing a natural rip-rap in the face of advancing sea series of events followed that made the formation level (Moore 1963) and providing a rocky sub­ ofthe moraines ofthe Cape Cod and Islands re­ strate for colonization by biotic communities. Be­ gion different than most moraine formations through­ tween the Buzzards Bay and Sandwich moraines, out the United States (Oldale 1992). After the pe­ the Mashpee pitted outwash plain was formed, riod of melting and retreat, the glacier readvanced making up much of this portion of Cape Cod (Fig. over the heavier deposits nearest the glacier face 2.2). and acted like a bulldozer, lifting layers ofthe gla­ Further retreat ofthe Buzzards Bay lobe across cial deposits and some previous surface material and thrusting them forward in a process called current Buzzards Bay to approximately the west­ "glacio-tectonics." In thefinal phase, the margin of ern watershed margin, coupled with minor the Buzzards Bay lobe overrode the thrusted de­ readvances, led to smaller moraines, outwash plains, posits and when it melted left a thin veneer of gla­ and glacial till deposits on the western shore. The cial till covering the thrusted deposits that form the elevation ofthe terminal and recessional moraines terminal moraine (Oldale 1992). with outwash plain sloping away helped to deter­ Sloping away from the moraine is an outwash mine the watershed ofthe existing bay. The melt- plain deposited as thefinermaterial s were carried water eroded the outwash plain and generated awayfrom the ice edge in meltwaterflows. Sloping outwash channels that were laterfloodedb y rising led to a gradation in sediment sorting and elevation sea level to create the many embayments on the moving awayfrom the moraine. Indeed, today the western side ofthe bay and similarly outside the highest elevations in the Buzzards Bay watershed watershed on the southern shore of Cape Cod on and Martha's Vineyard (30.5-61 m) are associated the Mashpee pitted plain (Fig. 2.2). In addition, the with the Buzzards Bay lobe morainal deposits. Ra­ presence of outwash adjacent to the shorefront tends diocarbon dating (Kaye 1964) suggests that some­ to result in sandy-orfine-grainedsedimen t bottoms time after 15,300 - 800 years B.P. climatic warm­ whereas erosion of moraine leads to a rock- and ing caused the Buzzards Bay lobe to rapidly retreat boulder-strewn coast. These substrate conditions to what is approximately the eastern watershed laid down by glaciation thousands of years ago boundary for Buzzards Bay and the Cape Cod Bay continue to affect benthic biotic structure today. ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 21

Moraine Kame moraine Si'Si??! Karnes and Kame deltas tvfoyfol Glacio-fluvial deposits 1 Glacio-lacustrine deposit: Till deposits Contours in feet

Fig. 2.2. Glacial geologic map showing end moraines and sandurs of the Plymouth-Buzzards Bay area of southeastern Massachusetts. From Larson (1980). 22 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

The retreat ofthe two adjacent glacial lobes did the cause,risingse a level flooded current Buzzards not occur in concert. The Buzzards Bay lobe and Bay about 5,000-6,000 years B.P. the Cape Cod Bay lobe met approximately at the The historic rate of relative sea-level rise (the location ofthe Cape Cod Canal. The Buzzards Bay combination of eustatic or ocean surfacerise and lobe began retreating before the Cape Cod Bay changes in the land surface due to subsidence or lobe, uncovering a break in the moraine at the point uplift) can be ascertained by radiocarbon dating of where they joined. With the later melting ofthe Cape reefs, deltaic deposits, intertidal peats, and so forth. Cod Bay lobe, water was able toflow through the One such study using intertidal peats collected at break where the canal is now located, across the the peat/till contact was conducted in Barnstable outwash, and into Buzzards Bay. In later years, two Marsh only 10 km from Buzzards Bay. Since the streams with headwaters less than one kilometer peat was generated by salt marsh plants, which only apart inhabited the old glacier outlet, separated by grow in intertidal wetlands, it acts as a tracer for a sandyridge:th e Scusset Riverflowing northeast historic relative sea level. It appearsfrom this method into Cape Cod Bay and the Manamet (or Monu­ (Fig. 2.3) that the early rapid (0.003 m/year)rise in ment) Riverflowingsouthwes t into Buzzards Bay. relative sea level continued until about 3,500 years No more than 9.1 m above sea level, these valleys became a natural area for later construction ofthe Cape Cod Canal. -J I I I L_ • Southern group 20 < Eastern Massachusetts 2.2. A Marine Bay o Cape Cod-Virginia The rapid warming about 14,000 years B.P. that 10 caused the retreat, thinning, breakup, andfinaldis ­ o appearance ofthe ice sheets did not end the ice- driven morphological alterations ofthe New En­ gland surface. When the water trapped in that ice returned to the oceans a relatively rapidrise in sea level occurred. During the past 18,000 to 10,000 years ocean levels rose 60-120 m with levels about 7,000 years B.P. at 7-10 m below present (cf. Emery and Aubrey 1991). In the region of Cape Cod, thisrise in sea level resulted in the flooding by Atlantic Ocean waters of Cape Cod and Buzzards bays and Nantucket, Vineyard, and Long Island sounds. As relative sea levels rose, Martha's Vine­ yard and Nantucket became islands, and the lower deposition between the terminal and Buzzards Bay moraines became the sounds. The lower topogra­ phy of what became Buzzards Bay is probably a 12 10 8 36 result of a combination of events, starting with sub- Time (10 years BP) aerial erosion during a period of extremely low sea Fig. 2.3. Age of peat at depths relative to the 4000-year level in the late Tertiary (Veatch 1906), insufficient B P. datum Scale on nght shows assumed eustatic rise deposition (being at the margin ofthe Wareham pit­ in sea level. (Inset. Curve B is subsidence of coast of ted plain), and erosion due to meltwatersfromth e eastern Massachusetts, Curve C is subsidence from Cape Cod to Virginia. Curves A B, and C correspond to main later retreat ofthe Cape Cod Bay lobe. Whatever figure.) From Redfield (1967). ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY- An Estuarine Profile 23

B.P. when the rate ofriseslowe d markedly. During probably occurred relatively rapidly (over a few this initial period almost all ofthe current main basin thousand years). Flooding would necessarily have (and many ofthe current embayments) became followed the depth contours, which get shallower flooded with sea water. (Recent acceleration in the moving north toward the head ofthe bay and later­ rate of relative sea-level rise is discussed in ally along the axis toward the western shore. Current Chapter 6.) bathymetry is smoother than before flooding be­ Given the relatively uniform depth ofthe Buz­ cause of marine deposition in the valleys and zards Bay Basin (Fig. 2.4) the transitionfrom emer­ holes. Most ofthe current bay is less than 15.2-m gent upland to submerged bay bottom would have deep, with the exception of Quicks Hole (38.4 m)

^'^^ji^w^b^ls^^lo fit ^low|ea l_ev|i| t' '^f% ||"4 $ 111 If if'il?;« ffStS: ;'|-£ 41° 45*

yA^W'- 'A'~ %&& yVM&tofts??.*l/ y^yAfimmM/yA 41° 25'

ii'f3iw£3fc-£|*ft 35£ KPi,yi-f~'Ai

7Cfc5' TlftO' 70°4S' 70°4O'

Fig. 2.4. Bathymetric contours of Buzzards Bay adjusted to mean low water datum. From Moore (1963). 24 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 and the main channels in the bay mouth (30.5-42.7 northeastern Massachusetts. "Thus it would appear m). It has been suggested that the bottom topogra­ that ice moving southwardfrom southern Maine and phy reflects glaciation; deep channels in the bay southeastern New Hampshire across the eastern mouth extend into the bay (through shoaling) and margin of Massachusetts could have gathered all of continue into the 15.2-m contour and the greatly the diverse materials found in the Buzzards Bay Mo­ extended 12.2-m contour toward the bay head. This raine" (Mather et al. 1942:1143), and in the reces­ greater channel structure may reflect late glacial ero­ sional moraines as well. On the western shore, in sion (Hough 1940). To a lesser extent, the outwash addition to the glacial transport, Dedham grandiorite channels in the western shore (e.g.. New Bedford) can been seen in outcrops (Emerson 1917). The continue offshore (Driscoll and Brandon 1973) be­ glacial drift and to a much lesser extent this exposed cause of their drowning after formation. Once the granodiorite adjacent to the bay primarily consti­ flooding ofthe Buzzards Bay basin commenced, tute the source of "new" sediments to the bay the now subtidal sediments were subject to reworking bottom (Hough 1940; Moore 1963). and transport. The initial source ofbay sediments was the same as the surrounding upland untilfloodingb y the ocean, 2.3. Sediments of at which time biogenic and water-transported de­ Buzzards Bay posits began to form, and reworking and sorting of the sediments began to take place. A mineralogy The surficial deposits within the Buzzards Bay study (Hough 1940) found quartz to be the domi­ watershed appear to be predominately Pleistocene nant mineral in all samples, and feldspars were sec­ in origin. Although deposits of some pre-Pleis­ ond in abundance. The feldsparthic sands are di­ tocene sediments have been reported (Woodworth rectly related to the erosion ofBuzzards Bay sys­ and Wigglesworth 1934), these have not been con­ tem glacial debris. In the deeper waters there is an firmed. It is therefore thought that the earlier Ter­ abundance of clays, micas,fine-grained quartz, and tiary and Cretacean strata are not apparent (or ac­ feldspar. tive) in the present system (Moore 1963). The tex­ ture ofthe glacial drift is coarse with sand size par­ Tidal and wind-driven currents are the most im­ ticles most abundant and with little silt and clay portant source of energy for sediment transport and (Hough 1940), and gravels and rocks are common sorting within Buzzards Bay. These currents result vvithin the moraines. The thickness ofthe Pleistocene from the protection offered by Cape Cod and par­ deposits is of course variable, but appears to ex­ ticularly the Elizabeth Islands, which prevents long- tend to the bedrock (e.g., Dedham granodiorite). period ocean wavesfrom entering the bay (Moore Emery (1969) reported that a subtidal boring in 1963). In addition to providing a mechanism to al­ Woods Hole encountered granodiorite at 83 m be­ ter basin sediments, theflooding ofthe basin al­ low mean low water (under 81 m of clean sand and lowed for erosion of shoreline deposits by wave 2 m of water) although basement may be nearer to action. To date, erosion of headlands and island the surface (47 m) to the northeast (Oldale and Turtle shores has cut them back many meters. Coupled 1964). with longshore transport, the curvature ofthe coast The most abundant rocks in the Buzzards Bay has been somewhat reduced, and some embayment moraine exposed to bay waters in the southern por­ openings have been restricted by bay mouth bars tion are gneiss and granites (Hough 1940; Driscoll and, if shallow enough, have beenfilled with wet­ and Brandon 1973). The source of these granites lands (for example, Great Sippewissett Salt Marsh appears to be most likely the Dedham granodiorite in West Falmouth). Overall, however, the change and associated rocks from the region adjacent to in the shoreline has been modest due to the abun­ the Boston Basin with apparently some southern dant boulders in the glacial drift areas, which form a Maine diorite and possibly contributions from pavement and retard erosion (Hough 1940). ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 25

The subtidal basin topography has undergone as well as in the vicinity of rocky submarine expo­ alterations as well, mainly smoothing (Fig. 2.4) re­ sures around New Bedford Harbor, Nasketucket sultingfrom erosion of shoals and increased depo­ Bay, and the northeast shoal areas ofthe upper bay. sition in hollows. However, like the beaches, the Areas of coarser sand are swept by stronger cur­ shoals (formedfromth e same materials) also form rents that removefinersediment s (Moore 1963). a coarse surface layer slowing their erosion. The These physical features produced by glacial major alteration has been the deposition of fine­ transport and sorting of benthic sediment by tidal grained sediments in the central bay, producing a and wind-driven currents have created a textural gently sloping bottom (Hough 1940). and depositional environment that exerts a signifi­ Overall, Buzzards Bay is identified as a net depo­ cant effect on the distribution and composition of sitional area (Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. today's benthic plant and animal assemblages. The 1990), with a progression of silts and clays being communities inhabiting rocky versus sand/silt and transportedfrom the outer continental shelf into the clay bottoms are very different because organisms bay and subsequently into the smaller associated attach to a rock substrate and burrow into a fine­ embayments like New Bedford Harbor, Sediments grained one. Most ofBuzzards Bay consists of fine within the bay range from muds and silts in the sand to silt-sized sediments, and in these areas, sedi­ deeper regions to sands, gravels, and boulders in ment characteristics, including grain size and sedi­ shallower areas nearshore and near the eastern head ment composition, are major determinants ofthe ofthe bay (Fig. 2.5). Almost all ofthe deposited structure of bottom-dwelling communities. Larval sediments have terrestrial origins rather than ma­ stages of many benthic animals, particularly inver­ rine, indicative of depositionfromrunof f or glacial tebrates and bivalves, require certain sediment con­ activity. ditions for successful settlement. Grain size is a lim­ Silt is found in the deeper, central regions ofthe iting factor for young larvae that burrow into the bay generally belowthe 12.2-m contour (Figs. 2.4 bottom and become established. The result is that and 2.5), withfine sand along the nearshore depo­ given the relative stability ofthe sedimentary envi­ sitional areas ofthe north shore but medium sand ronment ofBuzzards Bay (Moore 1963), the geo­ close to shore on the south side. Coarse sand is logic history ofthe region has played a central role also associated with the sandy protuberances ex­ in the distribution of today's animal and plant tending out off Penikese, Pasque, and shoal areas, communities. 26 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

70°55' 70°50' 70°45' 70°40'

Fig. 2.5. Textural distribution of Buzzards Bay sediments From Moore (1963). J-.SSlifwia­ .

t'^5a-:« •{•••­ ->» #^' h,|im|l)BK'S VnM

vS'/M

fioMm/ttwrmti >zin& ia.nr Sw .. . -- ' ­ dtoiwc tioaiss-.'Siuiirvbrs kxi sy-'ir,;. IVHi.V.lfcTIUUi ,<'Ji\

-«•' «? l|-.>' &1

*^?.'rr.-.r.^-.-. -. I"" • -•' ' AAA ••••^\fc ""—9, CZ''"a Tc1 ' .' ' n V"1 - * '/ , • * ASKi ^f^i. . *.. f - , 11 -„' /. , •^*?

IIBOI'OK -A^.^jy-. (5*^1 f^t^Al; -f.^fc w * ,V„-,T...*/­ . V*1 -•v L-W'J St—.-rfrr^pSr*

SSI

.y^~Af iE? ««*•'» ­ 'mm Mi 5\ wmm m JS?!' m "fe; • /» . "K;A W ?v s^-.­ &•• •-. t , v,' AS!''..; "*»«3^

->*•* '.'&& . •.>.,•;; £Siii?S3ft< '> " »,i**-':' >«.'

f» S Fiff'< ^':

•'•Pf,*­

- « . . , R. • • . «J« *3—HSSS. •",«?" ^»

3*5iS ?r". iK

>*• ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 29

3.1. FreshWater: Rain, Surface, and Groundwater Flows The watershed ofBuzzards Bay is that region on which rainfallflowsove r the surface or through groundwater into the bay. In simplest terms, the fates of precipitation on the land surface are surface wa­ ter runoff throughriversan d streams, subsurface transport and discharges as groundwater, or return to the atmosphere via surface evaporation or up­ take and loss by plants as evapotranspiration. The partitioning of flow between these various pathways has important consequences for nutrient and pol­ 4f30­ lutant transport to and the salinity structure of bay waters. However, accurate partitioning for each embayment is complex and requires diverse long­ term data sets and therefore has yet to be performed 4i°ao' throughout this system. Measurements of ground­ 7flCT TrftO- TlftO1 water discharges are also very limited and are con­ Fig. 3.1. Drainage basins and location of major founded since many oftherivers and streams have streams emptying into Buzzards Bay. Westport River significant groundwater contributions. However, (A) has the only long-term stream gauge in the region rainfall has been measured over the long term at Numbers refer to rivers listed in Table 3 1. From several locations around the watershed and limited Signell(1987). river discharge data are available. Based on these data, it is possible to generate a general baywide picture offreshwater inputs. Given the highly per­ meable soils resultingfrom glacial outwash, signifi­ Table 3.1. Estimated freshwater flows to Buzzards Bay. Numbers refer to locations ofrivers on watershed cant amounts offresh water reach the bay directly map (Fig. 3.1). Adapted from Signell (1987). as groundwater discharge, and the rivers and Contri- streams around the bay have a significant baseflow Drainage Inferred tuition Map area basin flow of flow (groundwater) component to their discharges. Gla­ symbol River (km') (rrvVs) (%) ciation has also affected discharge, as the western A+A'Westport shore with its extensive outwash soils contains the (East+West) 216 4.3 19.6 1 Weweantic 145 2.9 13.2 major surface waterflows to the bay, primarily along 2. Sippican 73 1.4 6.6 outwash channels. In contrast, the smaller water­ 3. Paskamenet 68 1.3 6.1 shed area and different deposits on the eastern shore 4. Mattapoisett 62 1.2 5.6 yield an area dominated by smaller, generally ground- 5 Wankinko 53 1 1 4.8 water-fed streams and direct groundwater 6 Agawam 44 0.9 40 discharges (Fig. 3.1, Table 3.1). 7. Acushnet 43 08 3.8 Precipitation is relatively uniform throughout me 8 Red Brook 24 0.5 2.1 year with only a minor low during summer (Fig. 3.2A). However, this temporal uniformity in rain Groundwater + streams 377 7.5 34.2 input does not translate into a constant freshwater input to Buzzards Bay. The temporal lag between Bay watershed total 1105 21.9 100.0 30 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Westport and Weweanticrivers (Fig. 3.2B). Similar temporal variations caused by seasonal changes in hydraulic gradient were found in groundwater discharge into Buttermilk Bay (Weiskel 1991). The similar discharge rates per unit of water­ shed for the Westport and Weweantic rivers over the same period (Fig. 3.2B) support the use of a generalized ratio of discharge/subwatershed area

, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r— for each ofthe major rivers discharging to Buzzards Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Bay (Signell 1987). The ratiofrom the long-term 20­ 3 2 • Westport River Westport data is 0.0198 (m /s)/km , similar to a C3 Weweantic River study by Bue (1970) for a nearby Cape Cod River of 0.0191 (m3/s)/km2. The bay-wide total freshwa­ ter inflow estimatedfrom mis approach is 22 m3/s with the Westport and Weweantic rivers accounting for about one-third ofthe totalflow (Table 3.1). While this technique does not separate the contribution of runoffversu s groundwater inflow to total discharge, baseflow within this watershed is probably signifi­

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep cant based on the geology and Red Brook, where 1970-1971 approximately 69% ofthe totalflowi s baseflow Fig. 3.2. A. Precipitation and mean monthly discharge (Moog 1987). Because ofthe relatively small wa­ of the Westport River, normalized by its drainage area. tershed area versus bay area, thefreshwater inflow B. Comparison of normalized discharge from 2 years (22 mJ/s) is nearly equivalent to the direct rain input of data from the Westport and Weweantic Rivers. 3 From Signell (1987). to the bay surface (18 m /s), although evaporation of bay water must also be considered. Nonethe­ less, the importance of considering direct precipi­ tation is clear. Although direct precipitation leads to dilution of bay salinities, it is less important than inputs and discharges results primarilyfrom strong streamflow in producing salinity gradients within the seasonal shifts in recharge rates that are due to losses bay waters. via evapotranspiration and to a lesser extent the stor­ The apparent temporal variation in freshwater age of ice and snow during winter until spring melt. discharge through surface and groundwater path­ Annual return of rainwater within the watershed to ways and the nearly uniform monthly precipitation the atmosphere is about 65% (45% recharge; input directly to bay waters are consistent with the LeBlanc et al. 1986). The integrated result ofthe salinities observed in the open bay surface waters cycles of precipitation, temperature, and evapo­ near the mouth. Salinity measurements collected transpiration is a distinct seasonal variation in water over 14 years in Woods Hole, which receives a table elevation with resulting variations in discharge. mean mass flux of waterfrom Buzzards Bay and Althoughriver discharge data are limited, long­ has almost no nearbyfreshwaterdischarges , indi­ term measurements were conducted on the major cate a small annual range of less than 1 ppt, with a river system, the Westport River (Fig. 3.2B), with minimum in April, maximumfreshwater discharge smaller data sets available for the Weweantic River in February-April (Fig. 3.2), and a maximum of 31.9 (cf. Signell 1987) and Red Brook (Moog 1987). ppt in October at the end ofthe low discharge The seasonality of river discharge is clear in the period (cf. Signell 1987). ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY; An Estuarine Profile 31

3.2. Salinity, Temperature, over an annual cyclefrom 0 to 22° C in the bottom waters (Fig. 3.4) with greater extremes near the and Density surface. The central bay typically remains ice free The salinity ofBuzzards Bay waters is the result during the winter; however, occasionally the entire of mixing of oceanic water withfreshwater inflow upper bay ices over. (and rain). The distribution of freshwater input is Water column stratification occurs when less consistent with the geology and watershed distri­ dense (warmer orfresher)surfac e water overlies bution and suggests that more than two-thirds of more dense (colder or more saline) bottom waters. the inflow is along the western shore with the most Periodic stratification occurs in Buzzards Bay (Fig. concentratedflows near the head ofthe bay (Table 3.3). The causes and level of stratification are not 3.1, Fig. 3.1). The distribution offreshwater flow the same throughout the year. Vertical temperature and the circulation pattern ofthe bay result in a gra­ gradients (Fig. 3.3), when they occur, are typically dient of decreasing salinity with increasing distance generated by radiative heating ofthe surface wa­ from the mouth ofthe bay (Fig. 3.3). The gradient ters and are the dominant cause of stratification in is found in each season, but the greatest dilution is the lower bay during summer (e.g.. Fig. 3.3 top). found in the April transect with surface waters at Thermal stratification generally has a diurnal com­ the head ofthe bay dipping to almost 28 ppt, con­ ponent and is readily broken down; however, be­ sistent with the period of maximumfreshwaterdis ­ cause it occurs during the warmest months, its ef­ charge (Fig. 3.2A). The greater dilution of surface fects on dissolved oxygen balance below the ther­ versus bottom water (Fig. 3.3) is typical of estuar­ mocline may be generally more significant than the ies where the less densefresh water enters near the typical salinity stratification. Salinity stratification, surface over denser, cold saline bay waters. while it can occur year-round in response to short- As is the case for most ofthe New England term meteorological events, is strongest in Buzzards coastal region, Buzzards Bay experiences great Bay in spring whenfreshwater inflow is greatest (Fig. extremes in seawater temperature. Cape Cod is situ­ 3.3). Fortunately, spring water temperatures are low ated at the transition between the cold waters of (Fig. 3.4), resulting in low oxygen demand and dis­ the Gulf of Maine and the warmer waters ofthe solved oxygen levels that remain high even during Mid-Atlantic Bight; however, because exchanges stratification. are with Rhode Island and Vineyard sounds, they For the most part water column stratification in are primarily with warmer water lying south of Cape the central region ofBuzzards Bay periodically ex­ Cod. Buzzards Bay is included in the American At­ ists during summer months predominately because lantic Temperate Region, which extendsfrom Cape of thermal density differences but occasionally due Cod south to Texas and is largely influenced by the to pulses offresh water, causing salinity effects as warm waters ofthe Gulf Stream generated by the well. Oxygen conditions in bottom waters ofthe westward flow ofthe North Equatorial Current central bay generally remain over 80% saturation through the West Indies and Mexico and northward (Howes and Taylor 1990; Howes 1993), and there­ along the east coast ofthe United States. At Cape fore the periodic stratification does not appear to sig­ Cod, the current turns east and becomes the North nificantly affect benthic communities. This condition Atlantic Drift, ultimately flowing to the British Isles is in strong contrast with the smaller embayments of and Europe. In contrast, Cape Cod and Massa­ the bay wherefreshwater inputs are most concen­ chusetts Bay are influenced by the Maine Current, trated. Even in the shallow waters of the a branch ofthe Labrador Currentflowingsout h from embayments, pulses offresh water following sum­ Greenland. The temperature differences between mer storms add to thermal stratification, and short- Cape Cod Bay and Buzzards Bay can be as much term hypoxia can occur. Similar embayments (1-2 as 5.5° C. Buzzards Bay water temperatures range m deep) on the southern shore of Falmouth have 32 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Buzzards Bay Stony Point Dike Cape Cod Bay ST 2 ST 3 ST 4 ST 5 ST. € ST 12 ST 13

ff.*,^^lgP.*.^.^'l-B^-^iP'^-~~~*^^ August 12, 1959 / West 1615 Tidal Currant Turns \ East 957 ' '

o o O^j - Near Bottom -

• ' Scale In Miles

Buzzards Bay Stony Point Dike Canal Proper Cape Cod Bay ST 2 ST 3 ST 4 ST B ST, 6 ST 7 ST • ST B ST. 10 ST 11 ST. 12 ST. 13

7.6 7 5 7 4 7 3

^rjS»P^^"^^~^l * n >'^# ^*V^H*-rv^Sis*.n Decemberr1' , 1959 f West 925 Tidal Currentent Turn' s \ East 1550 •

- Near Bottom

Scale In Miles

Buzzards Bay Stony Point Dike Canal Proper Cape Cod Bay ST 2 ST 3 ST 4 ST S ST « ST. • ST. 0 ST IO ST 11 ST. 12 ST 13

. < i i / •* •'''!' ^3^^Jr»Tv* •1* v*vui«.p.jl£.p«^rl J-#-W '.­ April 11. 1960 West 844 Tidal Current Turns East 1456 [ l I {

31 00 / — Near Bottom L~ -°­ ; ay MOO 00 1 ^^ ^ Ig —*sy Surface ' 2SOO

Scale in Miles Fig. 3.3. Temperature and salinity profiles from the northern end of Buzzards Bay through the Cape Cod Canal and to Cape Cod Bay for (a) 12 August 1959; (b) 1 December 1959; and (c) 11 April 1960. Three distinct water masses exist Cape Cod Bay water, "Cape Cod Canal water," and Buzzards Bay water. Transitional waterwithin canal forms a boundary that fluctuates back andforthwit h each reversal ofthe tidal current Anraku (1964a). ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 33

relatively smooth asymmetric bottom near the head, gradually becoming more irregular and convoluted nearthe mouth. The circulation patterns within Buz­ zards Bay are predominately tidal and wind-driven flows acting on a large-scale estuarine density driven flow of about 1 cm/s (Signell 1987). The location and semienclosed nature ofBuz­ zards Bay result in tidal parameters significantly dif­ ferent from those found in the nearby waters ofVine­

~i r yard Sound and Cape Cod Bay. To understand Aug Nov these differences, it is necessary to look at the New 1987 1987 England Bight as a whole,from Long Island Sound Fig. 3.4. Composite seasonal water column to Buzzards Bay (Fig. 3.5). Tides in Buzzards Bay temperature in Buzzards Bay (Station 1) and New Bedford Outer Harbor (Stations 2-5). Data from are predominately semidiurnal and dominated by Howes and Taylor (1990) the lunar cycle. The southern New England shelf tidal wavefirst reaches Rhode Island Sound in the "gap" between Block Island and Martha's Vine­ yard and then moves into the shallower basins of Vineyard Sound, Narragansett Bay, and Buzzards had water column anoxia andfish kills (from mid Bay. Due to the configuration ofBuzzards Bay, the 1980's to present) related to periodic summer strati­ tidal signal is amplified by the shoaling and narrow­ fication (Costa et al. 1992; Howes and Goehringer ing ofthe embayment toward the head, while the 1992). For most ofthe year higher winds produce wave moving through Vineyard Sound is diminished a well-mixed water column. It is unclear whether due to interference with the progressing wave en­ the low watershed-to-bay surface area ratio that tering Vineyard Sound from the Gulf of Maine results in the relatively low freshwater input also (Redfield 1953). The interaction of incident waves produces a lowerfrequency and/or weaker stratifi­ from the southern New England shelf and their re­ cation of bay waters or if these processes in part flection from the head ofthe bay dominate tidal maintain the stable benthic communities in the cen­ parameters in Buzzards Bay. tral basin ofthe bay. However, given the high oxy­ gen demand of central basin sediments (Howes and The tide range is approximately 1 m with little or Taylor 1989; Banta et al. 1990), prolonged stratifi­ no temporal lag throughout the bay, the headwa­ cation is likely to lead to low oxygen bottom wa­ ters lagging only 20 min behind the mouth (Signell ters. It appears then that the physical structure and 1987). m contrast, Vineyard Sound operates more the mixing processes ofthe Buzzards Bay system like a strait with tidal influencefromtw o sources: may be providing a potential buffer to biotic the Gulf of Maine wavefromth e east and the south- communities inhabiting the open bay. em New England shelf wavefromth e southwest. The effect is a decreased tidal amplitude and a sig­ 3.3. Circulation/Currents nificant temporal lag of roughly 2-4 h behind Buz­ and the Tidal and Wind zards Bay (Redfield 1953). The contrasting occur­ rence ofthe tidal wave within these two adjacent Regime water bodies causes large phase and amplitude dif­ Buzzards Bay is a relatively shallow estuary, with ferences between the bay and sound and generates mean low water depths ranging from 5 to 10 m at extremely swift currents between Buzzards Bay and the head to slightly over 20 m at the mouth. Depth Vineyard Sound (averaging 120-150 cm/s in Woods profiles in transects across the bay show a Hole and Robinsons Hole). These exchange 34 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

41° N

41°30'N

40 30' N

73° 30'W 73°W 72° 30'W 72° W 71° 30'W 71°W 70° 30'W

Fig 3.5. The southern New England Bight From Spaulding and Gordon (1982)

current speeds are many times higher than the av­ shallow water sands are directly related to tidal cur­ erage speeds within the central (20-30 cm/s), head rents, with accumulation of silts in deeper waters (<10 cm/s), or near the mouth (50 cm/s) ofBuz­ the result of bathymetric entrapment and less dy­ zards Bay (Fig. 3.6). With less important conse­ namic current activity (Moore 1963). Wind is also quences, differences in tidal phase andamplitude identified as a major factor in sediment composi­ create strong currents through the Cape Cod Ca­ tion because wind-driven wave activity creates high- nal joining Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay (Fig. energy waves in shallow areas ofthe bay, eroding 3.6). Mean tidal range in Cape Cod Bay is 2.8 m areas unprotected by headlands. This erosion is in­ and averages 1.2 m in Buzzards Bay. The estimated dicated by a general coarseness of sediments found turnovertimeo f water within Buzzards Bay is about in these areas and the presence of greater accumu­ 10 days (Sumner et al. 1913; Moore 1963; Signell lations offine sediments on the southwesterly than 1987). on the northwesterly margins of harbors and coves Tidal current is the most important factor influ­ (Driscoll and Brandon 1973). encing sediment pattern, and two major currents Although tidal forcing is the dominant factor in within the bay proper predominate during ebb and the circulation within Buzzards Bay, other param­ flood tides. One current, running parallel to Naushon eters influence localized currents, especially in the Island and terminating near Woods Hole, reaches more restricted area near the head and the more 0.6 to 0.8 knots; the second is about 1 1/2 km sheltered harbors and embayments ringing the bay. wide and runs along the northwest shore ofBuz­ Ofthe meteorological factors, local wind conditions zards Bay, with core velocities of about 0.6 knots. are the most significant; however, nonlocal winds Midbay surface currents are weak, generally less and atmospheric pressure are also important. Winds than 0.4 or 0.5 knots, with no defined directional in this region are generally northwesterly in winter flow (Fig. 3.6). Although currents running between and southwesterly in summer, with local sea breezes the islands do not extend far into the bay, they are often augmenting the southwesterly influence dur­ importanttobotto m sediments near the islands form­ ing summer months (Fig. 3.7). Major storms, how­ ing sand protuberances into the bay. The well-sorted ever, often blowfromth e north or northeast, roughly sediments found along the shore north of Woods along the long axis ofthe bay. In addition, varia­ Hole resultfrom strong currents in this area (Moore tions in nonlocal wind and atmospheric pressure can 1963). The distribution and sorting patterns of lead to a rise and fall of average bay level. The ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 35

Cuttyhunk Island

Fig. 3.6. Buzzards Bay tidal current chart showing flood currents 4 h after slack tide. Current speeds in knots. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tidal Current Chart. From Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc (1990) 36 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 currents resultingfrom this "pumping," however, are dominated by wind patterns such as a light south­ relatively small compared with those created by lo­ erly wind, which may stall surface movement cal winds (Signell 1987). Winds along the axis of (Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. 1990). At its the bay are most significant in influencing circulation boundary with Buzzards Bay, circulation in New and are importantto mixing, transport, and exchange Bedford Harbor is more tidally driven. Flushing of for the bay (Fig. 3.7). Because ofthe more com­ New Bedford Harbor and many ofthe other har­ plex bathymetry at the mouth ofthe bay (Fig. 2.4), bors and smaller embayments resultsfroma com­ tidally induced "residual currents," or currents bination of tidal influences, winds, runoff, and caused by the channeling of water as it moves across warming ofthe shallower waters and can be vari­ irregular surfaces, are of greater importance to able depending on the dominance of any one or subtidal circulation. Tidally induced eddies formed more of these parameters. Probably more impor­ near the mouth ofthe bay (Signell 1987) can affect tant than the effect of tidal and wind-driven flows the fate of transported material. on water exchange is their effect on vertical mix­ The effects of local winds on circulation are most ing. Although stratification is generally weak the pronounced in the smaller, shallowerfringinghar ­ tidal currents near the head ofthe bay are also bors and embayments. The circulation of New small. It appears that wind-driven mixing plays a Bedford Outer Harbor, for example, is controlled major role in vertical mixing, hence affecting oxy­ by its enclosed nature. Although a weak pattern of gen balance and biotic communities within this "out on top, in on bottom" exists, it can be system. ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY- An Estuarine Profile 37

\ MJ_/ • JAN V-"

/

Scale (%) 0 2 . 4 . 6 . 8 . 1.0 4-10 11-21 22-33 33KtS i—(—i—i i i i—i—i i i

Fig. 3.7. Wind roses from 35 years of data at Otis Air Force Base, Bourne, Massachusetts. Wind direction is from north (upwards), with speed in knots From Signell (1987).

ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 41

Buzzards Bay maintains a wide variety of habi­ fluctuations during winter months. Ice rafting often tats within its environs, representative of most eco­ leads to the scouring of many shallow water areas system types found along the mid-Atlantic coast of including tidal wetlands andflats. This scouring of­ the United States. Barrier beaches, tidal wetlands, ten results in the disturbance of bottom-dwelling tidalflats, rocky intertidal zones, and hard and soft communities or the dislocation and movement of sediment systems are found all along the perimeter large sections of wetland peat. As a result of their ofthe bay, as well as circulation-restricted coves structure, circulation, and proximity to nutrient in­ and embayments providing protected habitat for puts from the adjacent watershed, these shallow many plant and animal species. embayments tend to have higher rates of produc­ The somewhat unique positioning of Cape Cod tivity than the central bay region on an areal basis along the Atlantic coast has made it a zoogeographic and are more susceptible to periodic hypoxic or barrier making Buzzards Bay the northern limit for anoxic conditions in their bottom waters. The net many marine species. North of Cape Cod to La­ result is a relatively environmentally stable central brador (the American Atlantic Boreal Region), the bay region,fringedwit h embayments presenting not biota is more arctic in species composition com­ only a variety of physical habitats but also a greater pared with the more temperate species found from range in environmental conditions. In this chapter the south of Cape Cod to Texas (the American At­ we describe the maj or habitats within the Buzzards lantic Temperate Region). Cape Hatteras forms Bay estuarine system and the dominant plant and another boundary to the south, and the region be­ animal species that help to define them. tween Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras is known as the Virginian Province. Because ofthe influence of 4.1. Open Water and different currents (the Labrador and Maine currents from the north and the Gulf Streamfrom the south), Embayments water temperatures vary greatly between Cape Cod 4.1.1. Fauna Bay and Buzzards Bay, with many cold water spe­ cies ranging only as far south as Cape Cod, and Benthic. The composition and distribution of vice versa. The mixing of Cape Cod Bay water with benthic communities within Buzzards Bay are de­ that ofBuzzards Bay since the construction ofthe termined primarily by the sediment characteristics Cape Cod Canal has stimulated interest regarding ofthe bay bottom (Table 4.1). Composition and potential changes in distribution of various species grain size affect the ability of many benthic animals, as a result of this physical alteration. notably invertebrates and bivalves, to settle and The shallow water areas within Buzzards Bay burrow. The benthic community that evolves is sec­ are strongly influenced by meteorological conditions ondarily affected by the sediment organic content, and watershed inputs. Because they are shallow and which represents a carbon source for benthic de­ generally have limited tidal exchange, these areas posit feeders and heterotrophic microbial commu­ tend to have greater ranges of environmental con­ nities. For a benthic community under a vertically ditions than those in the central bay. For example, well-mixed water column a high sediment organic embayment watersfrequently warm more rapidly content is beneficial. In areas where periodic strati­ than the bay with approaching summer months and fication occurs, however, the concomitant high mi­ cool more rapidly with the onset of winter. In addi­ crobial respiration rates create low oxygen condi­ tion, as these nearshore waters are the immediate tions in bottom waters, which can result in lower recipient of freshwater inputs from terrestrial populations through reduced recruitment and larval sources, their salinity structure is more typical of survival or even shifts in benthic community struc­ estuaries. Another ecological stress in these ture towards lower diversity and more opportunis­ embayments is ice rafting, which resultsfrom tidal tic species. It is the interaction between grain size 42 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Table 4.1. Dominant soft-bottom, hard-bottom, and rocky intertidal communities in Buzzards Bay Soft- bottom species listed comprise 95% ofthe species present by number. Hard-bottom species are listed when found to comprise more than 1% of the population. Data on soft- and hard-bottom species from Sanders (1958,1960); rocky intertidal data from unpublished field surveys (Boston University Marine Program). Class or Class or Substrate Species phylum' Substrate Species phylum' Soft bottom Hard bottom (cont'd) Nuncula proxima Bivalvia Lumbrineris tenuis Polychaeta Nephthys mcisa Polychaeta Nepthys incisa Polychaeta Ninoe mgripes Polychaeta Molgula complanata Tunicata Cylichna orzya Gastropoda Unciola irrorata Crustacea Callocardia morrhuana Bivalvia Rocky intertidal Hutchmsomella macracantha Crustacea Semibalanus balanoides Crustacea Lumbrineris tenuis Polychaeta Balanus balanus Crustacea Turbonilla sp. Gastropoda Carcinus maenas Crustacea Spio filicomis Polychaeta Cancer irroratus Crustacea Retusa canaliculata Gastropoda Pagurus longicarpus Crustacea Stauronereis caecus Polychaeta Littonna littorea Gastropoda Hard bottom Littorina obtusata Gastropoda Ampelisca splnipes Crustacea Littonna saxatilis Gastropoda Byblis serrata Crustacea Mytilus edulis Bivalvia Cerastoderma nulatumf Bivalvia Modiolus modiolus Bivalvia Ampelisca macrocephala Crustacea Crepidula fomicata Gastropoda Glycera amencana Polychaeta Nereis virens Polychaeta Nephthys bucera Polychaeta Ascophyllum nodosum Phaeophyta Tellina tenera Bivalvia Fucus vesiculosus Phaeophyta Ninoe nignpes Polychaeata Chondrus cnspus Rhodophyta "Phyla are listed for seaweeds, classes for other species 'Because Cerastoderma populations are highly seasonal, it is not considered to be a good characterizing species for this community (Sanders 1958)

and organic matter and oxygen that appears to be and is made up mainly of filter feeders dominated structuring Buzzards Bay benthic communities by amphipods {Ampelisca spp.). The primary de­ today. terminant for distribution offilter feeders is not fully Sanders (1958,1960) characterized the benthic known, but their communities generally predomi­ communities in Buzzards Bay into two fauna! groups nate in areas of well-sorted fine sands indicative of or assemblages. The first is typified by deposit feed­ moderate, relatively constant currents that provide ers generally present in softer, muddier sediments sufficient food via suspension in the water column. and dominated by the polychaete Nephthys incisa Driscoll and Brandon (1973) further divided and the lamellibranch Nuncula proxima. The weak subtidal habitats within Buzzards Bay into four func­ currents that allow organic matter to settle out in tional groups: shallow protected, nearshore, open these areas provide a source of food for large num­ bay, and offshore. The shallow protected, nearshore, bers of these deposit feeders (average Nuncula and offshore areas are generally characterized as density 30-40,000/m2). Data from Sanders (1958, havingfine-grained sediments (mean grain diameter 1960) also indicate that the distribution of deposit of less than 0.18 mm), analogous to the Nuncula feeders is strongly correlated to the percentage of proxima - Nephthys incisa communities identified clay, with the smaller clay particles having more sur­ by Sanders (1958,1960). These three habitats have face area to bind organic matter. The second com­ distinctly different sediment characteristics and fau­ munity is primarily found offshore in sandy bottoms nal assemblages than the open bay areas (mean grain ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 43

diameter greater than 0.18 mm), more comparable bottoms, most likely because ofthe more stable to the Ampelisca assemblage (Sanders 1958, (less stressful) environmental conditions at these 1960). sites. The similarities in sediment type between the Overall the deeper parts ofBuzzards Bay have shallow protected and offshore sites are identified maintained a stable benthic community for several as the result of two sets of physical conditions. In decades. Nearshore areas that have been organi­ the shallow protected areas, eelgrass, which is of­ cally enriched (possibly by sewage), such as those ten prevalent, exerts a dampening effect on cur­ within New Bedford Harbor, are dominated by rents, resulting in deposits offine-grained,silt - and Mediomastus ambiseta; this species is an oppor­ clay-rich sand. Near the mouths of harbors sedi­ tunistic colonizer ofpollute d sediments or those sub­ ments are generallyfine-grainedbu t poorly sorted, ject to disturbances that limit recruitment of most due to stream inputs carrying little or no coarse de­ other benthic organisms. Monitoring of infaunal tritus and to deposition in a dynamic flowfieldwit h populations has been conducted at what is known variable wind and wave activity. The sediments in as the 301(h) Site offshore from New Bedford the deeper offshore areas also experience less wave Harbor (Howes and Taylor 1989), and populations energy and lower current velocities and are afforded have shown little change from what Sanders found some protection by the dendritic troughs ofthe Pleis­ in the late 1950's and early 1960's. It appears that tocene drainage system (Driscoll and Brandon benthic populations within the central bay remain 1973), resulting in the accumulation of fine-grained relatively "pristine," even in the region of New but less organicallyrichsediments . Offshore areas are generally characterized by water deeper than 9 Bedford, which contributes almost all ofthe sew­ m. The offshore molluscan macrofauna of north­ age to Buzzards Bay waters and almost half of the western Buzzards Bay is predominately represented total nitrogen load. Even in this region, the impact by two species (making up 90% of all collected), on benthic communities appears restricted to Nassarius trivittatus and Yoldia limatula. In con­ nearshore areas (Howes and Taylor 1989; Costa trast, the shallow, more protected areas are colo­ etal. 1992). nized by a variety of molluscan fauna, dominated Although sediment characteristics are important by Crepidula fornicata, Nuncula proxima, to structuring the infaunal assemblages in Buzzards Crepidula plana, Bittium alternatum, and Bay, the reverse is also true. Bioturbation and sedi­ Laevicardium mortoni. The most obvious differ­ ment reworking by benthic infauna are significant in ence in fauna is seen in the abundance of'Nuncul a structuring the biogeochemistry of these sediments. proxima in shallow, protected areas and its near In fact, Rhoads (1963) estimated that although one absence from other areas. species, Yoldia limatula, a deposit-feeding pele­ Nearshore sediments maintain greater relative cypod, represented less than 10% ofthe total bot­ abundance of Macoma tenia and Eupleura tom fauna, it was potentially capable of entirely re­ caudata, with few Nuncula proximo and relatively working the sediments within its range of distribu­ fewer Nassarius trivittatus than the offshore ar­ tion in the bay (Fig. 4.1). More than half buried, eas. Open-bay environments, on the other hand, this clam ingests sediment, extracting food and eject­ are substantially differentfrom the other three sub­ ing waste several centimeters into the water, which system types. Benthic communities ofthe open bay eventually settles into small mounds around the si­ are generally characterized by suspension feeders, phon. Typical of deposit feeders, this species acts carnivores, herbivores, or nonselective deposit feed­ to mix surface sedimentary layers, alters the char­ ers such as Nassarius trivittatus, Chaetopleura acteristics of some ofthe particles through aggre­ apiculata, and Anachis avara. Sanders (1958) gation into fecal pellets, and potentially increases suggested that the fauna of stable sand bottoms is the oxidation state ofthe surface sediments through probably inherently more diverse than that of mud the presence of its burrow. 44 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

alterations (Rhoads and Germano 1986) in benthic communities and sediment oxidation (Fig. 4.2) is occurring in Buzzards Bay today; the difficulty for ecologists and managers is to distinguish alterations driven by natural or physical forces from those driven by nutrients and organic matter. Buzzards Bay sediments also play an important role in the life stages of many pelagic species. For instance, studies ofthe eggs of marine planktonic copepods in the bottom sediments ofBuzzards Bay indicate that sediments may be part of an important V .VXFe«l|rigpilp "-irJ-J.:|?';' ] S pathway for recruitment of these organisms into the plankton community. The eggs, which have the -^~~Spe^mtn^fyifJ,^" .\'*y M jl ability to resist digestion when ingested by benthic predators, overwinter in the sediments and hatch in spring when water temperatures rise (Marcus 1984). In shallow coastal waters such as Buzzards Fig. 4.1. Method of feeding and reworking of sediments Bay, storm events, current flow, and bioturbation by Yoldia limatula. From Rhoads (1963) also influence the transport and hatching of these eggs. Marcus (1984) and others (Dale 1976; Anderson etal. 1982) indicated this mechanism may The state of oxidation or reduction ofthe benthic also be important for dinoflagellate bloom forma­ sediments at any one location is an integration of tion, whereby large numbers of cysts and fine­ the type of benthic community, rate of bioturbation, grained sediment particles accumulate on the sea and rate of delivery of organic-rich particles to the floor and are resuspended on a large scale by cer­ sediments. In areas with low organic matter deliv­ tain physical disturbances such as coastal storms. ery or deep burrowing, deposit-feeding communi­ Marcus and Fuller (1989) later determined that ties the sediments are generally oxidized, and con­ physical mechanisms affecting sedimentation and versely more reducing (sulfitic) where high rates of organic deposition and shallow burrowing commu­ transport can be used to predict the distribution and nities occur. In Buzzards Bay, physical disturbances abundance of recently spawned eggs on the bay can affect benthic communities and hence bottom. bioturbation by reducing the depth of bioturbation Meiofauna. Meiofauna represent infauna from and increasing the sulfitic zone ofthe sediments; with most marine phyla with the unifying trait that they sufficient time, the communities are reestablished. are animals, mostly metazoans, that can pass through Over the past 100 years, however, nutrient and or­ a 1.0-0.5 mm screen. Their role in organic matter ganic discharges to Buzzards Bay waters (e.g., New cycling in coastal sediments is still an area of active Bedford) have led to increased organic delivery to research, but it is clear that they play a role in sedi­ sediments in some areas, which appears to have ment microbial food chains and are consumed by resulted in the alteration of benthic communities. deposit feeders. Meiofauna! populations in Buzzards Whether the structuring factor is the rate of organic Bay are overwhelmingly dominated by nematodes matter delivery directly or secondary effects of water and kinorhynchs, composing between 89 and 99% column hypoxia or anoxia is unclear. The result is ofthe total numbers (Wieser 1960). Certain spe­ declining diversity and shallowing ofthe depth of cies of nematodes appear to be restricted to par­ bioturbation and therefore an increase in the sulfitic ticular sediment types; for instance Odontophora zone in those areas. This general scheme of and Leptonemella species dominate sandy ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 45

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Water - 0

1 i

r-3

- 0

- 2

- 3

Fig. 4.2. Alterations in benthic communities and relation to sediment oxidation/reduction state under varying levels of (a) physical disturbance, or (b) nutrient and organic matter pollution From Rhoads and Germane (1982).

sediments, whereas areas offinergrained , silty sedi­ suitable habitats for hard-and soft-shelled clams, ments are dominated by the nematode oysters, and scallops. Shellfish are also important Terschellingia spp. and kinorhynchs such as in coastal food chains with large numbers of eggs Trachydemus spp. Observations ofthe distribu­ and larvae entering the plankton during spring and tion of these dominant metazoans are comparable summer months providing a food source for juve­ to Sanders' (1958,1960) sand and silt distinctions nilefishan d crustaceans. Suitable habitat is impor­ for macro fauna, with combinations of spe­ tant to the production of shellfish in that the young cies determined by the relative amounts of sand of various species require specific types of substrates versus fine deposits present. or sediment grain sizes upon which to settle or bur­ Shellfish. Shellfish are benthic animals and in row. Various shellfish species have specific salinity most cases infauna; however, because they sup­ and temperature ranges for reproduction and port commercial and recreationalfisheries, they have growth. Water circulation also plays a role in main­ special conditions regulating their population densi­ taining temperature and oxygen conditions as well ties. Shellfish are relatively fast growing and easy to as in transporting planktonic food, since all ofthe harvest. Buzzards Bay, with its many protected harvested bivalve species arefilter feeders. Hard­ harbors and embayments, provides numerous shell clams or quahogs, soft-shell clams, scallops, 46 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 and oysters are the dominant shellfish species in the Soft-shelled clams, Mya arenaria (Fig. 4.3), bay, followed to a lesser extent by the edible blue generally occur in sandy or muddy sediments in pro­ mussel, which although easily gathered and delicious tected harbors and inlets and in salt marsh creeks, has not reached the popularity it has in Europe. burrowed in the sediment with siphons extending The most widespread shellfishery in Buzzards into the water column. Their fragile shells are less Bay is the hard-shelled clam or quahog, Mercenaria tolerant to disturbance and are more easily broken mercenaria (Fig. 4.3). Cape Cod is as the north- than those of most other species of clams in the em boundary to large-scale distribution ofthe spe­ Buzzards Bay region. Because their shells do not cies (Belding 1916), which is a warm water mol­ close tightly (a portion ofthe siphon protrudes from lusk. Quahogs grow in shallow and deep water; the shell), they have limited tolerance to anoxia and however, they were primarily harvested in shallower can suffer high mortalitiesfromsulfid e accumula­ waters until the advent in 1982 of a deep water tion under low oxygen conditions resultingfrom ei­ dredge fishery in the bay. Mercenaria populate ther natural or anthropogenic causes. Because these sandy to muddy sand bottoms generally in areas shellfish are more prevalent in soft, organic-rich sedi­ where salinity is above 15 ppt and can be found ments, occasional low oxygen conditions are likely virtually along the perimeter ofthe bay. They bur­ due to oxygen depletion in bottom waters that re­ row into the sediments and extend their siphons into sultsfrom microbial decomposition of this organic the water column to feed. These clams are quite matter. Intolerant of salinities less than 5 ppt, they tolerant to short-period stresses such as bottom wa­ frequently inhabit low-energy embayments where ter anoxia; they can also survive during harvest when organic matter can accumulate yet with sufficient they are out of water for long periods by "clamming flushing or limitedfreshwater inputs to maintain high up," remaining with their shells closed until condi­ enough salinity for reproduction and growth. The tions improve. Larger individuals are extremely combination of low-energy, high organic matter en­ hardy and can survive days of anoxia or emerge vironments and sensitivity to hypoxia can result in from deep burial (tens of centimeters) caused by mass mortalities of this species, as have occurred in shifting sands or overwash during storms. Although Cape Cod Bay (G.R. Hampson, Woods Hole these clams grow quickly and achieve marketable Oceanographic Institution, personal communica­ size in 3-4 years, they may live up to 25 years. tion). Because ofthe somewhat fragile nature of their shells, there has been recent interest in hydraulic dredging to decrease losses during harvest and in­ crease yields over traditional hand-tonging. In addition to infaunal bivalves, Buzzards Bay is recognized for its high productivity ofthe epibenthic bay scallop, Aequipecten irradians (Fig. 4.4; Outsell 1930). Cape Cod is considered the north- em limit for the scallop, which is less common in the colder waters to the north (Goode 1887; Davis 1989). The commercial scallopfisheryi n Buzzards Bay began in New Bedford in 1870, principally in the lower Acushnet River and Clarks Cove, and rapidly expanded to the upper regions ofthe bay (Davis 1989). Today, there are many areas around the bay where scallops still sustain an important com­ mercialfishery, primarily in the Westport River but Fig. 4.3. Quahogs {Mercenaria mercenaria), left, and also in the Acushnet River and Clarks Cove on the shoft-shelled clams {Mya arenaria), right Photo by D. Goehringer. western shore. West Falmouth and Wings Neck ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 47

'J*-* over longer periods than inshore populations (e.g., Wings Cove, 2-m depth). Although catches are less predictable in the offshore areas, the scallops ap­ J«I, >% V «& .V*^ A*' S#V «' pear to have 20-50% more muscle weight than specimens collected inshore (Capuzzo et al. 1982). Scallops arefilter feeders and as juveniles are sedentary, often attaching themselves by byssal threads to eelgrass {Zostera marina) blades above the sediment surface. The impacts of nutrient pollu­ tion—such as increasing epiphyte growth or tur­ bidity in the water column, which decreases light availability—can have serious consequences for eelgrass beds, hence scallop populations, by elimi­ nating an important substrate for the early growth of juveniles. Eelgrass blight or wasting disease, re­ sponsible for the loss of large expanses of eelgrass beds in various areas along the North Atlantic coast Fig. 4.4. Scallops Aequipectin irradians. Photo by D. (1931-32), has indirectly been identified as the Goehringer. cause of subsequent declines in scallop populations in these regions. The presence of toxic pollutants such as heavy metals may also affect scallop popu­ along the eastern shore, and the headwaters ofthe lations. The scallopfishery in Acushnet River and bay. Clarks Cove has declined in recent years, possibly as a result of exposure to the high levels of copper Adult bay scallops are highly mobile, propelling in New Bedford Inner Harbor and Outer Harbor themselves through the water by expelling water sediments. Copper in the water column has been through the rapid contraction of their shells by their shown to reduce growth in these shellfish adductor muscle. This muscle is highly prized for its (Sindermann 1979; Davis 1989). Whatever the delicateflavor and provides the main edible portion cause, scallop harvests have been low for the past ofthe scallop. Bay scallops grow quickly and rarely decade. live more than 2 years. Scallops have only one spawning season and environmental conditions can Crassostrea virginica, the common oyster, is cause unpredictable sets (Lee 1980; Capuzzo et not as abundant in Buzzards Bay as other harvested al. 1982). The combination of a short life span and bivalves. The entire eastern shore ofthe bay (Figs. limited spawning season is partially responsible for 1.4,3.1, and Table 3.1), the Agawam, Westport, the largefluctuationsi n clean populations that drive and Weweanticrivers, Wings Cove, and parts of the large annual variations in catch. Spawning gen­ Sippican Harbor (in Marion) all support oyster erally occurs during early summer when water tem­ beds. After going through initial juvenile stages, peratures approach the annual maximum (20-24° young oysters (known as "spat") require a hard C) and are coincident with phytoplankton blooms substrate upon which to settle and grow and are (Sastry 1966,1968). Although bay scallops are often found on rocks, pilings, or frequently other generally most abundant in shallow embayments, oysters. As in the case of other bivalve mollusks, they are also found, occasionally in large numbers, they are subject to a variety of natural predators at depths of 4.5-12 m in Buzzards Bay (Capuzzo (e.g., crabs, birds, sea stars, and oyster drills). 1984). Studies of bay scallop gonads taken from Oyster harvesting is not presently a large commer­ offshore stations in Buzzards Bay (9 m depth) cial industry around Buzzards Bay, but evidence of showed offshore populations spawned earlier and past oyster harvests exists in shell middens, or shell 48 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 piles, left by the Native Americans in areas around fall temperatures help to make it one ofthe more the bay shores. In these shell middens, as today, favorable areas for growth and spawning of lob­ quahogs were the dominant species, with fewer sters in New England. In fact. Buzzards Bay "ex­ oysters and soft-shelled clams (Kitteridge 1930; ports" significant numbers of larvae (10-20 million Emery 1979). per year) through the Cape Cod Canal (Collings et Other species of edible shellfish are also found al. 1983). The Buzzards Bay larvae and spawn from in Buzzards Bay waters but provide little recre­ lobsters residing in the rocky bottom ofthe canal ational or commercial harvest. Black clams, presumably help to support the lobster fishery in Arctica islandica, similar in appearance to qua­ Cape Cod Bay. hogs, can be found throughout the bay. Although Primarily noctumally active invertebrates, lob­ they generally inhabit deep waters, they are also sters generally hide during the daylight hours in rock found in shallow regions. Pilar morrhuanus or the or grass shelters, emerging during twilight hours to "duck clam" is also fairly common in soft bottom feed. Small lobstersfrequent shallow waters near areas but is generally not harvested because of its shore, while larger individuals (occasionally up to strong flavor and weak shell. The common razor or 22.7 kg) are more prevalent in deeper offshore Atlantic jacknife clam {Ensis directus) is abundant waters. Relatively slow moving in their four-legged in the lower intertidal to subtidal sandy and muddy walk, lobsters have the ability to rapidly propel regions. As the clam burrows deeply, the sharp edge themselves backward for short distances by the of its long slender shell can inflict a significant cut to contraction of their tails. The characteristic claws the unaware barefoot clammer. Although it supports ofthe lobster perform two functions: the larger of a recreational shellfishery, this clam's rapid escape the two, or "crusher," is designed for cracking hard into deep burrows limits the catch per unit effort in objects like the shells of snails or bivalves; the comparison to other species. smaller, sharper claw, or "cutter" is used for tearing The only major crustacean harvested is the lob­ apart prey (generallyfish)o r plant material. Lob­ ster {Homarus americanus). Lobstering represents sters are also known for their cannibalistic behav­ an important commercial resource for Buzzards Bay ior,frequentlyeatin g other lobsters in their soft-shell and supports a small recreational fishery. Buzzards (just past molting) stage and even their own young Bay is a spawning ground for lobsters. Larval lob­ (Meinkoth 1981; Davis 1989). sters hatch in Buzzards Bay beginning in late May, Fish. Only limited quantitative data are avail­ and the earliest larval stage is no longer found by able on thefish populations in Buzzards Bay be­ mid-July (Collingsetal. 1983). Significantly greater cause prohibition of netfishing in bay waters nearly numbers of gravid females as a proportion ofthe a century ago eliminated catch records available from total catch are typically observed in Buzzards Bay this source. There is, however, sufficient informa­ compared to regions north of Cape Cod. In 1987 tion to identify the prevalent species that make the the catch percentage of gravid females for Buzzards bay home for part or all of their life cycles. The Bay was 31 %, in strong contrast to the state aver­ fisheries ofBuzzards Bay are discussed in Chapter age of 9.2%, and about double the 19% reported 5. for the lobster fishery ofthe Outer Cape (Estrella Reviews ofthe available data on Buzzards Bay and McKiernan 1988, 1989). The higher larval fisheries identify 10 dominantfish species (exclud­ densities in Buzzards Bay compared to other Mas­ ing salt marshfish described in a following section) sachusetts and New England waters north of Cape currently found in bay waters (Table 4.2), with nu­ Cod are likely due to warmer temperatures, result­ merous other species occasionally present. As in ing in the more rapid maturation of females and en­ other embayments, these include residents and non­ hanced spawning stock levels (Lux et al. 1983). residents (migratory species), some commercially The bay's water residence time and warm spring to and recreationally valuable and others not. With its ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY An Estuanne Profile 49

Table 4.2. Dominant commercially valuable fish species in Buzzards Bay in order of post-1960 abundance and their food preferences (adapted from Davis 1989).

Common name Scientific name Food preference

Scup (or porgy) Stenotomus chtysops Assorted benthos, occasionally small fish

Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus Copepods, small fish, jellyfish, worms

Winter flounder Pleuronectes americanus Worms, gastropods, bivalves

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Copepods, shrimp, eggs, and larvae

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis Copepods, shrimp, eggs, and larvae

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Phytoplankton

Black sea bass Centropnstis stnata Mysids and other benthic organisms

Tautog Tautoga onitis Mollusks, crabs, worms, lobsters

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Fish, worms, shrimp, lobster, squid, crab

Striped bass Morone saxatilis Fish, worms, shrimp, lobster, squid, crab

many coves, smaller embayments, salt marshes, and Summer and early fall residents ofBuzzards Bay tidal flats, Buzzards Bay represents a significant waters, scup migrate to deeper warmer waters in spawning ground for southern New England, per­ winter. Spawning migrations to inshore regions oc­ haps the best area in all of New England (Davis cur in late spring, with June the month of peak re­ 1989). In conjunction with a larger spawning area, production (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Scup including Vineyard and Long Island sounds, large eggs are buoyant, and studies in the Weweantic numbers of American shad {Alosa sapidissima), River estuary indicate eggs are most abundant from striped bass, and alewives (Alosa pseudo­ May through June in water temperatures of 8.5° to harengus) migrate into the bay's tributaries during 23.7° C (Lebida 1969). Sudden temperature de­ spawning season, attracted by the shallow, warm creases occurring in late fall have been identified as waters and high productivity ofthe numerous smaller a major environmental cause of scup mortality in estuaries and rivers. These migrations have pro­ bays and estuaries such as Buzzards Bay (Clayton vided a seasonally dependable source offish for et al. 1978). Their main predators are other fish centuries (Table 4.3). The following is a brief natu­ such as cod, bluefish {Pomatomus saltatrix), and ral history ofthe commercially and recreationally weakfish {Cynoscion regalis). Scup are primarily important species dominant in the bay, with spe­ bottom feeders, consuming small crustaceans, cies information summarizedfrom Clayton et al. worms, mollusks, squid, and occasionally small fish. (1978), Meinkoth (1981), Davis (1989), and other The healthy benthic and bottom-living communi­ sources as identified. ties ofBuzzards Bay appear to provide highly suit­ Scup (Stenotomus chrysops). Also known able habitat for this species, as reflected by its con­ as "porgy," scup are the most abundantfishi n Buz­ tinuous occurrence from the earliest records to zards Bay. The variable populations of scup are present. generally attributed to varying abundances of suc­ Winter flounder (Pleuronectes ameri­ cessive year classes with recruitment influenced by canus). Winterflounder was a mainstay ofthe New environmental factors rather than stock size. England groundfish industry until the mid 1930's; 50 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Table 4.3. Dates of "first catch" for various species of fmfish in Buzzards Bay recorded by a weir fishery for 1880 Data from D W. Dean, as quoted in Goode (1887) Date Common name Scientific name Date Common name Scientific name

3/24 Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 4/26 Rock bass Centropnstis striata

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 4/27 Sea robin Pnonotus carolinus

Smelt Osmerus mordax 4/28 Squid Loligo opalescens

Tomcod Microgadus tomcod 5/8 Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus

4/1 Tautog Tautoga onitis Kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis

Skate Raja ennaceae 5/11 Squeteague Cynoscion regalis

Perch Morone americana 5/12 Flounder Paralichthys deutatus

4/6 Sea herring Clupea harengus 5/13 Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix

Eel Anguilla rostrata 6/7 Sand shark Carcharhinus plumbeus

4/14 Shad Alosa sapidissima 6/8 Stinging ray Dasuatis centroura

4/15 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 6/10 Shark (unknown species)

4/17 Scup Stenotomus chrysops 6/25 Bomto Sarda sarda

4/24 Dogfish Squalus acanthias 8/30 Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus

Mackerel Scomber scombrus 9/6 Goose fish Lophius americanus

however, after this time the populations suffered Winter flounders feed only during the day on a serious declines, the causes of which are as yet diet consisting primarily of polychaetes, bivalves, unclear. Winter flounders still support an important gastropods, and crustaceans. The winter flounder's fishery in the bay, utilizing the coves and embayments habit of burrowing into sediments increases its po­ for critical early stages ofthei r life cycle. The spawn­ tential exposure to many pollutants compared with ing season for winter flounder is February in Woods midwater species and results in a higher incidence Hole (Breder 1922) and February and March for offinro t and hepatic carcinomas in impacted areas the Weweantic River (Lebida 1969). Winter floun­ such as New Bedford (Ursin 1972). Pollution, over­ ders are believed to return to the estuaries of their fishing, and loss of important nursery grounds, par­ origin for spawning (Perlmutter 1939; Saila 1961), ticularly loss of wetlands, are all anthropogenic ac­ after which me nonbuoyant egg clusters remain on tivities attributed as factors leading to the decline in the bottom until hatching. Larvae are abundant from this resource. March through June in the bay waters (Lebida 1969; Alewife (Alosapseudoharengus). The rivers Fairbanks et al. 1971; Peterson 1975). The young and tributaries ofBuzzards Bay have historically winterfloundersten d to remain within embayments sustained significant populations of alewives. These during theirfirst year, moving out into more open fish were a staple in the diets of early settlers and bay waters during summer months and returning to their abundance was synonymous with the relative spawning areas late in fall. It is during the fall migra­ prosperity of coastal towns (Clayton et al. 1978). tion when the young of the species are most The abundance and regularity with which the vulnerable to predation and fishing. alewives returned each year resulted in dependence ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 51 on thesefish,especiall y when other fisheries suf­ Blueback herring {Alosa aestivalis). Often fered decline. The value ofthe alewife fishery is found with alewives (and commercially classified evidenced by the substantial number of early laws together with alewives as "river herring"), blueback and regulations in the statute books ofthe Com­ herrings are anadromousfishan d suffer similar de­ monwealth of Massachusetts protecting this re­ clining populations resultingfromobstruction s to source. However, alewives and other anadromous herring runs and the effects ofpollutant s on spawn­ fish around the bay have lost spawning habitat or ing stocks. These fish enter brackish waters to access to historic spawning grounds because of ob­ spawn in spring, usually by mid-May. Being more struction of their inland migration. Alewife popula­ salinity tolerant, they have a reproductive advan­ tions have declined sharply as a result. By 1913, tage over alewives in that the population is not so the alewife fishery in Massachusetts had declined dependent on the nursery potential of freshwater 75%from its original levels (Field 1913), and present areas (Chittenden 1972; Clayton et al. 1978). Ju­ levels are lower still. venile blueback herrings are common throughout Buzzards In northern waters such as those ofBuzzards Bay in late summer and fall. This species Bay, alewives return to their spawning grounds as feeds primarily on copepods, pelagic shrimp, fish many as three to five times to spawn, whereas in eggs, and larvae. Herrings and alewives provide an southern regions they may spawn only once. Spawn­ important prey resource for many other species of ing migrations tofreshwater ponds begin in late April fish, notably bluefish and striped bass. to early May depending on water temperature. Ale­ Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus). wife eggs are broadcast randomly at the spawning Accounting for the largest portion ofthe United site, and larvae spend only their early stages in the States catch, menhaden are primarily used for fish freshwater pond, migrating out to the estuaries be­ meal and oils rather than direct human consump­ ginning as early as July and continuing through fall tion. Menhaden populations are often variable; no (Cooper 1961). Although they do not overwinter commercial landings were recorded from 1963 to in the ponds, some do spend the rest of their first 1968 in New England (Moss and Hoff 1989). The year in the estuary before migrating to the sea variable populations observed in Buzzards Bay may (Clayton et al. 1978). More recently, alewives have be due in part to their speed and schooling behav­ also been found to spawn in the brackish (up to 8 ior, which make quantitative assessment difficult, ppt) waters of coastal salt ponds, increasing their especially since catches are generallyfromseines . spawning habitat over that previously reported They spawn at sea and in inshore waters, usually (Bourne 1983; Woods Hole Oceanographic between April and October, and are typically most Institution, personal communication). abundant in Buzzards Bay in late summer, whenju­ Although historically caught by a variety of meth­ veniles are prevalent. Juveniles and adults feed pri: ods including gill nets, seines, and weirs, the largest marily in the upper water column on phytoplankton numbers of alewives were caught in spring by throughfiltration.Smalle r crustaceans and various nearshore weirs or by directly intercepting the fish larvae are also consumed as the harvest of plank­ on their way upriver to spawn. Capture was ac­ ton is mainly size selective, similar to collection by complished by stretching nets acrossrivers and sim­ towing a plankton net. The inshore distribution of ply scooping the fish into barrels. The most fre­ menhaden is likely the result ofthe concentration of quently identifiedrivers in Buzzards Bay for alewife plankton in nutrient-rich coastal waters (Bigelow migrations are the Acushnet, Wareham, and Welsh 1924). Menhaden is considered an im­ Mattapoisett, Weweantic, and Agawam, referred portant prey species for most carnivorous marine fish, with a large population biomass seasonally to often in the historic literature for their seasonally concentrated in shallow waters. prolific alewife catch. Alewives are still actively fished today, primarily by nets as they enter the spillways Black sea bass {Centropnstis striata). This or streams tofreshwateran d coastal salt ponds. fish is a summer visitor to Buzzards Bay, migrating 52 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 inshore in spring and offshore to deeper waters in (Merluccius bilinearis), red hake (Urophycis late fall. The diet of adults consists of crustaceans, chuss), and striped bass. It is an important com­ fish, and mollusks. Juvenile black sea bass utilize mercial species all along the mid-Atlantic shelf and Buzzards Bay as a nursery ground and, as bottom is frequently identified in the historic literature as feeders, eat primarily mysids in the shallow areas. being an abundant and important species for Buz­ Sea bass are bom as females, transforming into zards Bay (Davis 1989). The schooling behavior males after theirfirst spawning. As a result females and therefore patchy distribution of thisfishresult s tend to predominate due to their high percentage in in variable year-to-year catch statistics. These varia­ young age classes. In contrast, recreational catch tions are thought to be due primarily to limitations in consists primarily of males, their larger size making catch rather than significant changes in the them sought after by sport fishermen. The selective population (Davis 1989). recreational catch may impact populations by al­ Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix). Seasonal tering sex ratios and decreasing the number of males migrations of bluefish represent an important recre­ available for reproduction (Davis 1989). ational and commercial fishery during summer Tautog {Tautoga onitis). Tautog is an impor­ months in Buzzards Bay. Although spawning off­ tant sport fish; moving in from offshore waters in shore, juveniles (known as "snapper blues") move spring, this species is abundant in bay waters from in large numbers into the warmer inshore waters of May through September. As it does for most ofthe the bay. These fish are voracious feeders, consum­ major species, the bay provides critical spawning ing a wide variety offish and invertebrates in the and nursery habitat for tautog. Tautog spawning in water column. Mackerels, menhadens, alewives, Buzzards Bay is noted in historical records (Davis herrings, and weakfish, as well as shrimp, lobsters, 1989) and the continued abundance of tautog is squid (Loligo opalescens), crabs, mysids, and an­ noted on species lists from 1620 to present. This nelid worms, are all part ofthe bluefish's diet. So species spawns in weedy, inshore areas, thus the efficient are they as predators, bluefish were fre­ many sub-embayments and coves, especially those quently blamed for decreases in other fish species with extensive eelgrass beds, are highly suitable for within Buzzards Bay waters (Baird 1873; Belding reproduction. The Weweantic River estuary is a fre­ 1916). The abundance of juveniles in shallow quent spawning ground fortius species (Clayton et nearshore waters also provides an important source al. 1978). The buoyant eggs and juveniles remain of prey for other predaceous species. Large fluc­ inshore, with juveniles overwintering within the es­ tuations in bluefish populations occurfrom year to tuary, particularly in vegetated areas. The primary year, but these fluctuations are attributed more to diet of tautogs consists of mollusks, blue and ribbed environmental factors than to human disturbances. mussels, crabs, worms, and lobsters. The tautog The value ofthe recreationalfishery, primarily surf- population in Buzzards Bay may be slowly increas­ casting, party boat, and individual hook and line ing based on the catch since 1980, which is prima­ fishing, is estimated to exceed that for the commer­ rily from recreational fishing and lobstering; how­ cialfisheryfo r bluefish along the mid-Atlantic (Saila ever, no quantitative assessment exists at present. and Pratt 1973). Bluefish has been a consistently important foodfisheryfo r at least the past 100 years Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus). Butterfish in Buzzards Bay. This species is also important in spawn during summer months in shallow waters estuarine food chains; juveniles exploit prey in wet­ throughout the mid-Atlantic Bight, and Buzzards lands and embayments, and adults feed on the Bay provides a nursery area for the species. Juve­ abundant larger prey species. nile butterfish grow quickly and migrate offshore to deeper waters in late fall, returning again in April. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Except The diet ofthe butterfish consists primarily of cope­ when migrating, striped bass, another anadromous pods, smallfish,jellyfish , and polychaetes; in turn, fish, is primarily a nearshore and brackish water butterfish are a prey source for bluefish, silver hake species. The young remain in their natal estuary ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 53 until about 2 years old, with Chesapeake Bay be­ the avian fauna. Marine and estuarine birds harvest ing the primary spawning ground for most ofthe the aquatic resources ofthe open bay waters as striped bass along the east coast. Striped bass are well as the bay's intertidal marshes and mudflats. not known to spawn in Buzzards Bay waters; how­ More than 50 resident and migrant species rely upon ever, smallfish(averagin g 3-5 years old out of a bay waters for food and nesting habitat (Table 4.4), potentially 20 year life span) arefrequently found in not including the various terrestrial species that op­ the Weweantic River estuary, New Bedford Har­ portunistically feed within intertidal areas. bor/Acushnet River, and throughout the bay itself Islands located around the bay (Ram, Bird, (Clayton et al. 1978). Although primarily a summer Gosnold, Nashauwena, Penekise, Pasque, and resident, some overwintering bass have been re­ Cuttyhunk) are important nesting habitats for sea­ ported in southern Massachusettsrivers. Like blue­ birds. For instance, as of 1984, Gosnold had over fish they are voracious feeders, consumingfish and 1,000 nesting pairs of double-crested cormorants invertebrates such as herring, smelt, hake, squid, {Phalacrocorax auritus) in addition to a signifi­ crabs, lobsters, and polychaetes. Striped bass rep­ cant number of herring {Larus argentatus; 658 resents one ofthe most important recreational spe­ pair) and great black-backed {Larus marinus; 130 cies in the bay. Overfishing and natural annual fluc­ pair) gulls; Nashauwena supported nesting pairs of tuations in populations have resulted in a recent 91 ­ snowy egrets {Egretta thula; 30 pair), black- cm size limit for this species in Massachusetts. crowned night herons {Nycticorax nycticorax; 20 Many species prevalent in Buzzards Bay depend pair), common terns {Sterna hirundo; 140 pair), on the brackish waters found in the many tidal wet­ least terns {Sterna antillarum; 68 pair), roseate lands bordering the bay for spawning areas and terns {Sterna dougallii; 2 pair), herring gulls (930 more often as nursery habitat and feeding areas. pair), and great black-backed gulls (200 pair) (B. Many ofthe species discussed above are preda­ Blodgett, Massachusetts Natural Heritage and En­ tory, exploitingfishan d animal populations in wet­ dangered Species Program, personal communica­ lands during early stages of growth. Shrimp and tion). Long-term studies of avian population dynam­ menhaden, although spawned at sea, often seek out ics are being conducted in this area by the Massa­ these brackish waters for nursery grounds during chusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species their developmental stages, growing on the abun­ Program and the Massachusetts Division of Fish dance of organic material provided in these sys­ and Wildlife. Of particular interest are Ram and Bird tems. Tidal wetlands are temporary or permanent islands (owned by the Massachusetts Natural Heri­ homes to many other species offish as well. Mum­ tage and Endangered Species Program), both of michog (Fundulus heteroclitus), striped killifish which are the subject of intensive bird recovery pro­ {Fundulus majalis), silversides {Menidia grams where attempts are being made to reestab­ menidia), and four-spined sticklebacks {Apeltes lish nesting colonies for roseate, least, and common quadracus) abound in Buzzards Bay salt marshes; terns. Increasing populations ofnestin g herring gulls other species, such as alewives, Atlantic menha­ and great black-backed gulls have diminished the den, tautog, sea bass, winter flounder, and three­ availability of nesting sites for these tems. In addi­ spined sticklebacks {Gasterostrus aculeatus), are tion, the gulls prey on tern eggs and young, increas­ only seasonal visitors, but their residence period in ing mortality. Attempts are being undertaken to in­ these marshes represents a very important stage in crease tern nesting populations by discouraging or their life cycles. More information on these tidal removing nesting gulls in formerly established tern marsh species is presented in the section on salt sites, encouraging recolonization by the tems in these marshes. as well as new areas. Bird Island, a primary nesting Avian Fauna. The diversity of marine habi­ site for the endangered roseate tern, is a prime tats within the Buzzards Bay system is reflected in example. 54 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Table 4.4. Birds of Buzzards Bay Common name Scientific name Status* Common name ­ Scientific name Status* Open Water Intertidal Common loon Gaw'a immer C/W Amencan Red-throated loon Gavia stellata U/W oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus NAJ Double-crested American cormorant Phalacrocorax auritusWC (Great) egret Casmerodius albus N/C Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbc U/W Snowy egret Egretta thula N/C American black duck Anas rubnpes N/C/W Great blue heron Ardea herodias N/C/W Mallard Anas platyrhynchos N/C/W Striated heron Butorides striatus N/C Brant Branta bermcla C/W Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax N/U Black scoter Melanitta nigra C/W American bittern Botarus lentiginosus U Surf scoter Melamtta perspicillataCW Northern harrier Circus cyaneus N/C/W White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca C/W Osprey Pandion hahaetus N/C Canada goose Branta canadensis N/C/W American kestrel Falco sparverius C/W Mute swan Cygnus olor N/C/W Killdeer Charadrius vociferus U Canvasback Aythya valisinena C/W Black-bellied Greater scaup Aythya marila C/W plover Pluvialis squatarola N/C Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula C/W Semipalmated Charadrius Common eider Somateria mollissima C/W plover semipalmatus N/C King eider Somatena spectabilis U/W Piping plover Charadrius melodus N/U Bufflehead Bucephala albeola C/W Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon C American wigeon Anas americana cm Willet Catoptrophorus Red-breasted semipalmatus N/C merganser Mergus senator C/W Sanderling Calidris alba C Common black- Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia N/C headed gull Larus ridibundus C Semipalmated Herring gull Larus argentatus N/C/W sandpiper Calidris pusilla C Great black- Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla C backed gull Larus marinus N/C/W Dunlin Calidris alpina U" Common tern Sterna hirundo N/C Sharp-tailed Ammodramus sparrow caudacutus N/U Least tern Sterna antillarum N/U Clapper rail Rallus longirostns N/U/W Roseate tern Sterna dougallii N/U Black rail Laterallus jamaicensisU Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis C/W King rail Rallus elegans u

•N=nestor in Buzzards Bay, C=common, U=uncommon, W=winters in Buzzards Bay Sources B Blodgett, H Hausmann. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program, Camp, Dresser and McKee (1990), Peterson (1980), Trull (1991), Massachusetts Audubon Society (1989), unpublished species lists Many wintering birds are found year round

A complete synthesis ofthe voluminous infor­ devoted to the subject of birds on Cape Cod. Sev­ mation on avian resources in the Buzzards Bay eral worthy of note include Bailey (1968), system is well beyond the scope of this text. In fact, Massachusetts Audubon Society (1989), and Trull entire texts could be, and indeed have been, (1991). ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY- An Estuarine Profile 55

4.1.2. Flora and Aquatic Because secondary production and habitat qual­ Primary Productivity ity within Buzzards Bay depend directly on the amount and distribution of organic matter produced The aquaticflora ofBuzzards Bay reflects the by phototrophs, it is useful to compare the relative diversity of physical environments discussed previ­ amounts of organic matter produced by the differ­ ously (Table 1.1). The water column supports phy­ ent floral types. Although Buzzards Bay has been toplankton communities having a range of produc­ studied for more than a century, a quantitative bay- tivityfrom the nutrient-enriched embayments with wide assessment of each ofthefloralassemblage s chlorophyll-o concentrations over 10 mg/m3 to the is not available. However, enough data exist to make open waters near the mouth ofthe bay at 1 -2 mg/m3 relative comparisons (Table 4.5). (Roman and Tenore 1978; Howes and Taylor Phytoplankton production has been determined 1991). Areas ofthe bay bottom above the photo­ in moderately detailed annual studies on the west- synthetic compensation depth and intertidal flats em (Symada 1990) and eastern (Roman and Tenore support a variety of benthic floral types with di­ 1978) shores. It is likely that at least some ofthe verse species assemblages. Thesefloral types in­ three-fold higher carbon fixation along the western clude macroalgae, particularly in the areas of hard shore (360 g C nr2year ') versus eastern shore substrate (e.g., rocky shores ofthe Elizabeth Is­ (106 g C nr2 year"') resultsfrom the greater nutri­ lands) and in the shallow waters and intertidal ar­ ent enrichment from loading in the New Bedford- eas; periphyton, which colonize the surface layers Fairhaven area. Estimates of eelgrass and salt marsh of sandy and muddy bottoms and intertidal flats; production should be fairly accurate because ofthe and subtidal (eelgrass) and intertidal (salt marsh) availability of mapping studies (Hankin et al. 1985; rooted macrophyte communities with associated Costa 1988a) and site-specific productivity esti­ periphytic and epiphytic associations (e.g., on mates (Valiela and Teal 1979; Costa 1988b). Tidal eelgrass). exportfromsal t marshes is also included in studies

Table 4.5. Annual primary production of the aquatic resources of Buzzards Bay (adapted from Costa 1988b)

Total Production Area Production % of subtidal Ecosystem component (g C nr2 year1) (ha) (t C/year)" carbon cycle Phytoplanktonb 230 55,000 126,500 891 Benthic periphyton 45 2,076 930 07 Eelgrass-aboveground0 295 2,920 8,600 Total 334 9,800 6.9 Eelgrass epiphytes - - 1,960 1.4 Macroalgae 500 400 2,000 14 Salt marshes ­ aboveground 160 1,993 3,200 (Potential export)" 640 0.5 Subtidal Carbon cycle 141,830 100 0 •t = metric ton = I0*g. "Area from Signell 1987 Production from Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc 1990 (360 g C m 'year'. Western Shore) and Roman and Tenore 1978 (106 g C m2 year1, Eastern Shore) cArea currently colonized as mapped by Costa 1988a •"Area from Hankin et al 1985 Production and export extrapolated from Great Sippewissett Marsh (Valiela and Teal 1979) 56 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 since the effects of salt marsh organic matter pro­ light, and nutrient availability. The temperature ef­ duction on the open waters ofthe bay are based on fect is particularly noticeable in the shallow regions, detrital food chains. Periphyton, eelgrass epiphytes, which exhibit distinct seasonalfloras of winter and and macroalgae are estimatedfrom other systems early spring versus midsummer and fall (Davis and adjusted to approximate distribution within 1913). Buzzards Bay (Costa 1988a). Within the Buzzards Bay system there is a wide Although macrophytes have higher rates of pro­ range of macroalgal habitats, each habitat contain­ duction, Buzzards Bay supports essentially a phy­ ing a diversity of algal species. The shallow, high­ toplankton-based (89%) carbon cycle. Although light, nutrient-rich regions support the most luxuri­ macrophyte production is more concentrated, phy­ ous growth. Brackish pools and intertidal areas toplankton photosynthesize throughout most ofthe within salt marshes have algal mats dominated by water column ofthe bay and its embayments (Table Lyngbya and Microcoleus,floatingo r loosely at­ 4.5). In addition, the areal extent of phytoplankton tached growths of Enteromorpha species, and habitat is more than seven times that for all benthic patches of Ascophyllum along creek banks. The floral types. Historically this distribution has not shallow embayments and nearshore zone ofthe changed significantly given the relatively small con­ open bay support green algae, Cladophora, with tributionsfromwetland s and eelgrass beds. These C.flexuosaan d C. arcta abundant on hard sub­ latter plant communities, however, contribute more strates (rocks, piers) in spring and summer and C. than organic matter. Eelgrass beds and tidal wet­ gracilis forming dense accumulations in embayments lands provide habitats with ecological processes and in summer. niches very different from those ofthe open bay. Those areas of rock or cobble shores (south­ The concentration of organic matter production in eastern shore) support the most impressive these systems and the physical environment they macroalgal growth. The rockweeds, Ascophyllum create give them a disproportionate role in the nodosum and Fucus vesiculosus, abound on rocks secondary production ofBuzzards Bay. in the littoral zone. Other hard-bottom (sand, shells, Phytoplankton and Zooplankton. Buzzards or rock) species of note are Laminaria spp., Bay phytoplankton populations are generally re­ Condrus crispus and Polysiphonia (8 spp.) in ported as being dominated by Skeletonema deeper water and Sargassum and Codium in the costatum, Leptocylindrus minimus, and species shallower areas ofthe bay. Phyllophora is notable of Rhizosolenia. Zooplankton are dominated by as being found at the lower depths on substrate the copepods Acartia spp. and Paracalanus rangingfrom rock to sand to mud and is distributed crassirostris. Most ofthe phytoplankton produc­ throughout the bay (Davis 1913). tivity in Buzzards Bay is attributed to diatoms, with Macroalgae are of concern to resource manag­ dominant species consisting of a mix of estuarine ers because dense accumulations can result from and coastal species commonly found in New En­ excessive nutrient loading to shallow coastal water gland. Red tide blooms have not been significant in bodies (Valiela et al. 1990; Costa et al. 1992). When Buzzards Bay to date. Brown tides (Casper et al. they occur, these accumulations may have detrimen­ 1987), so detrimental tofilter-feeding communities tal impacts on benthic communities, both infauna and certainfish populations, have not been observed, and fish. At the more modest levels of production although these phytoplankton have been reported generally found in Buzzards Bay, attached in nearby Narragansett Bay. macroalgae can have the opposite effect, providing Macroalgae. The distribution of macroalgae habitat for animals and increasing secondary in Buzzards Bay appears to be controlled by tem­ productivity. perature (lower bay waters are colder than those in Eelgrass. Eelgrass, or Zostera marina, is a the shallow embayments and upper bay), substrate, rooted subtidal macrophyte that forms extensive ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 57 beds in areas where light penetration is sufficient to Buzzards Bay populations of Zostera appear support growth. Eelgrass is a perennial angiosperm to have generally recovered (Costa 1988b) from (Fig. 4.5) that is able tofloweran d undergo polli­ the catastrophic decline because of a "wasting" dis­ nation, seed dispersal, and growth completely un­ ease (Labarynthula), which decimated eelgrass beds derwater. Propagation of this species is primarily throughout New England from 1931 to 1933 by rhizome within existing beds and by seedlings in (Cottam 1933). Costa (1988b), using aerial pho­ new growth areas. tographs, determined that several years after the decline, eelgrass beds in Buzzards Bay covered less Eelgrass beds are important to the bay ecosys­ than 10% ofthe present area. Although epidemics tem as sources of organic matter production (Table of "wasting" disease have not reoccurred since the 4.5), as habitat for invertebrate and fish species I930's in Buzzards Bay, smaller outbreaks have (Adams 1976; Thayer et al. 1984), and as a food been found in New England (Short et al. 1986). source for geese (Buchsbaum and Valiela 1987). Eelgrass beds alter hydrodynamics and generate Zostera appears to colonize sandy and mud low-velocity zones, causing sediment and organic bottoms ofthe open bay and its embayments. The matter deposition that secondarily affect benthic ani­ major factor determining the upper limits of this subtidal species appears related to desiccation mal communities. The roots and rhizomes serve both in summer and ice scour in winter (Davis 1913; Costa for nutrient uptake and binding the substrate. The 1988b). While the lower limit is set by light pen­ plants themselves become a substrate for attach­ etration (Dennison and Alberte 1985,1986), the ment of epiphytic organisms and the eggs and level of light intensity is less important in determin­ larvae of various species. ing depth than the daily duration of intensity above a physiologically set level. Light penetration in simplest terms is a function of depth and the concentration of particles within the water column. The particles can be living (phy­ toplankton) or inert (sediments). Because Buzzards Bay has no largeriver discharging into it and rela­ tively coarse-grained sediments resultingfromit s formation, the major source of particles attenuating light is generally phytoplankton within the water Algal epiphyte^ column (and epiphytes on the eelgrass leaves). As Unfertilized a result, light attenuation relative to eelgrass growth flower in Buzzards Bay may be more directly related to factors controlling phytoplankton and epiphyte den­ Inflorescence with sity (e.g., nutrients) than in other systems with a mature seeds higher inorganic load. Shallow protected embayments support less than one-third ofthe eel­ grass ofBuzzards Bay. The nearshore zone ofthe open bay, with its greater circulation and water trans­ parency, contains beds as deep as 6 m, although 3­ m beds are much more common. Compared to the Root cluster on rhizome open water areas, eelgrass growth in the more tur­ node bid embayments is restricted, generally growing in depths of 0.6 to 1.8 m (Costa 1988b).

Fig. 4.5. The general morphology of the eelgrass Examination ofthe maximum depth ofZostera Zostera manna. From Costa (1988a). growth at sites throughout the bay (Fig. 4.6) 58 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

." ,,--s _ '•',",, ':" •^•r.^^-sns . ,; „„•- , . ^..v­ £• „ '. . '•- ;, , ,4 ".".,. •' «-•- j>rf --t~; <'; svsrs. ' *-;? v , , J - . O [. . X\ $ , ., M^ . ',K *.^K .,*V/' j^^.^.^ < \".j.' ' -,i>?v* - • . .1-5 f/ r ai \A ,^A?''^ ^.^.if.ci-*- ^S/..^y^'A-t.-r-..,S'! S*' A *yy yt...-my\Siw-\\ ,#.-•-> *"*-,, J •>«S ^9Si ^ "0-9 vHL # ; V % s T,-- 5gLSiS-*^ ;* \-rx J ^ *':is,'^* $s>Sy&^,*r* .^^ ;fc,Uj,:*|!~ %/X r?^fe^^ ^ ^ ^\p£ '* ^^0\o^^^ '

jk" •""•'^ ' •••:•/- •/•' "A.v. - " - «•;$'• ^y-^J/. |v, ^ j , ^ X? .. / f J j { , •< SS\. ^\l ^ ^

< ,L' ' , vf * *•' if-. *T , " •!••;•• ; v i -" M ? * J -*\ l/* •* "•'* ^-^ '-,.1 J ,,'\ 'j ^ f ' y ^ '• A- •; t.A~S' * ^»f^*. ^ { 1«- - - x- .4 n •« s*^* f>*w>' ^^v^ V>*.s-- t '-\ Z.4 A 5£sffCy .. ~- ,: A ' K\* y^S v -y^J V' ^ jgtrf^^'^^r \|pl ^afe -.=;: ^^v 4

s ,.^ ^.'••Ty^ y:4 ,*!« ¥ « ^ (^ s, •jf A IZrt ;/ rf^AX' ^ ^ 1 Tfc ^ ^ • J

^::/SA:y*'-'ySO^0yBtr{ \) i^x^% ^ ^0.9 , - ": ":.. 4.5 fF" Wjljfl 3-o; »yf "sSn«- }J\'-Ay^JAKXH ^y^ * J ' u v ^ o.o 5.3 \ t^ J2EJ Jr\^f Woods Hole

^-6. 0 Kilometers 0 10 ^pSf^^ " ••1T« cM2^_^ 6.0

Fig. 4.6. Maximum depth (meters mean lowwater) of eelgrass {Zostera marina) in different parts of Buzzards Bay From Costa (1988a)

Table 4.6. Eelgrass (Zosfera marina) potential habitat area versus present area colonized in Buzzards Bay (adapted from Costa 1988a).

Habitat area' Area of Area of Habitat 0-3.6 m depth Zostera beds Zostera cover" colonized by beds Town Jha) (ha) (ha) (%) Bourne 1,130 700 477 62 Dartmouth 823 151 104 18 Fairhaven 1,190 450 346 38 Falmouth 1,397 559 397 40 Manon 870 331 189 38 Mattapoisett 630 446 317 71 New Bedford 240 1 0.2 0.3 Wareham 1,480 914 564 62 Westport 1,420 389 265 27 Elizabeth ls.c n.d. 540 270 ­

Totals >9,180 4,481 2,929 2 •Almost all of current eelgrass beds are at or above 3 6m depth (Costa 1988) "Area of beds corrected for percent area colonized (% coverage) "All values estimated, not directly measured n d = not determined ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 59 suggests that the eastern shore, with its lower levels of nutrient loading andriverflow, may have higher transparency and possibly better water quality than the western shore. This finding is consistent with the significantly lower levels of nutrients and phy­ toplankton productivity (Table 4.5) near Woods Hole where Zostera grows to 5.5 m versus the maximum depth in the New Bedford-Fairhaven area of 0.9 to 3.0 m. In general, however, the 3.6-m contour encloses almost all ofthe potential inten­ sive growth area for Zostera in Buzzards Bay (Costa 1988 a,b). Zostera covers extensive areas ofthe nearshore ofBuzzards Bay and forms a nearly continuous band from Westport to Woods Hole. The area of exist­ ing beds is about 4,500 ha or about 8% of the subtidal area ofthe bay. Correcting the area ofthe beds for bare areas within the beds, the ac­ tual vegetated area is about 3000 ha (Table 4.6). As in the case for the maximum depth of growth, the extent of theoretically habitable bottom actually colonized appears to be related to anthropogenic Fig. 4.7. Aerial view of the Great Sippewissett Salt Marsh, West Falmouth, Massachusetts. Photo by impacts. This is particularly clear in the case ofNew B Howes Bedford Outer Harbor, Dartmouth, and to a lesser extent Fairhaven, where only 0.3%, 18%, and 38%, respectively, ofthe available area has beds (Table 4.6), and much ofthe total terrestrially derived nu­ Wareham, along the Westport River, and Priest's trient load enters the bay. The potential sensitivity Cove and West Island in Fairhaven. Westport has of Zostera beds to nutrient loading (operating the largest area of salt marsh in the Buzzards Bay through phytoplankton and epiphyte effects) has system, primarily due to the presence of the served to make eelgrass a sentinel species for moni­ Westport River. In contrast. New Bedford has the toring nutrient-related water quality ofBuzzards smallest area, caused both by the physical structure Bay (Buzzards Bay Project 1990; Costa et al. ofthe harbor as well as by large-scale develop­ 1992). ment that has occurred over the years. These tidal wetlands within the bay system are typical of New 4.2. Intertidal England marshes, generally forming behind protec­ tive barriers such as barrier beaches, or as narrow 4.2.1. Salt Marshes fringing marshes in low-energy environments such as circulation-restricted coves and embayments. Salt marshes (Fig. 4.7) represent an important The diminished velocities of tidal water as it enters component in the ecology ofBuzzards Bay (Tables these coves and embayments results in the deposi­ 1.1 and 4.5). Salt marshes occur in pockets all tion of suspended particles, ultimately resulting in around the border ofthe bay, including Little and the establishment of sediments at an elevation within Great Sippewissett in West Falmouth, Allen's Pond the tidal range suitable for the colonization of marsh and Little River in Dartmouth, Weweantic in plants. The absence of high-energy waves is 60 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 important to the establishment of these species, as water. Both the low and high marshes are sufficiently waves prevent the formation of a stable substrate flooded by seawater to inhibit the growth of more (Redfield 1972). In the initial formation of a wet­ freshwater marsh plants such as Typha (cattail) and land, a gradation in sediment type exists,fromsand y Phragmites (reed). toward the mouth ofthe wetland to silty toward the Low marsh is typically flooded on every high head. This gradation reflects the characteristics of tide and is almost exclusively colonized by Spartina the suspended matter, as tidal waters have a lower alterniflora, occasionally with Limonium nashii ability to keep heavier materials like sand in sus­ (sea lavender) or Salicornia (glassworts) present. pension, resulting in sand deposition near the mouth Spartina alterniflora exhibits two growth forms, and subsequent deposition offiner particles nearer the tall form (up to 1-2 m in height), which grows the headwaters. Once the substrate is available at 1 -3 m inland from creeks, and the short form (less suitable elevation and the plants begin to colonize, than 50 cm), which grows inlandfrom the tall zone. the extensive root and rhizome systems of marsh The differences in these morphologies is generally species stabilize the sediments, and the marsh be­ attributed to a combination of nutrient availability, comes established. About half of the production of sediment oxidation, and plant-sediment interactions, the dominant low marsh species Spartina with the more productive tall form growing in better alterniflora is in belowground production. drained, more oxidized sediments (therefore, plants The value of these highly productive intertidal possess increased ability to uptake nitrogen) with wetlands has long been recognized—as habitat for low concentrations of plant growth inhibitors (such waterfowl and shellfish, as storm buffers for adja­ as sulfides; Howes et al. 1986). In response to the cent upland, as nursery grounds for various species anoxic sediments resultingfrom the high organic mat­ offish, and as potential buffers for terrestrial nutri­ ter inputs andfrequent inundation, these plants have ent inputs to coastal waters. Tidal flushing of salt adapted an aerenchyma system of gas-filled lacu­ marshes is also postulated as a mechanism for ex­ nae to transport oxygen to their roots and rhizomes, port of plant detritus to estuarine food webs in which support aerobic respiration and nutrient embayments like Buzzards Bay. Wilson et al. (1985) uptake (Teal and Kanwisher 1966; Howes and Teal estimated between 5% and 7% ofthe organic mat­ 1994). The physiological difficulties of plant water ter in Buzzards Bay sediments was made up of vas­ uptake and evapotranspiration in saline sediments cular plant remains, with the bulk ofthe balance of has been diminished by the evolution of salt glands, organic matter derivedfrom phytoplankton. They 5 which secrete a concentrated salt solution to main­ also estimated an export of 3-4 x 10 kg particulate tain osmotic balance while water is being lost dur­ organic carbon annuallyfrom marshes into the bay, ing evapotranspiration. The naturally high levels of amounting to 25-30% ofthe total amount of vascu­ primary productivity found in salt marshes are gen­ lar plant debris in the top 1 cm of surface sediment. erally attributed to the abundance of Spartina Saltwater marshes in New England, including alterniflora. those in Buzzards Bay, are generally divided into two rather distinctive zones: the low marsh, domi­ The high marsh supports greater plant diversity nated by the salt marsh cordgrass, Spartina than the low marsh and is dominated primarily by alterniflora; and the high marsh, dominated by the salt marsh hay and spike grass. Along the upland salt marsh hay, Spartina patens, and the spike border where the duration of tidal flooding is least, grass, Distichlis spicata. Flooding frequency and salt-tolerant plants such as saltmeadow rush {Juncus duration are the primary determinants to the distri­ gerardii), switch grass {Panicum virgatum), bution of low and high marsh zones. The low marsh chairmaker's rush {Scirpus americanus), salt zone is located between mean low water and mean marsh bulrush {Scirpus robustus), and marsh elder high water, while the high marsh is the region lying (Ivafrutescens) are commonly found. In most of between mean high water and spring high the marshes around Buzzards Bay where the ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 61

headwaters are fresh or brackish, stands of reeds food for birds and surface-feeding fish in the wet­ and cattails predominate at the landward edges of land ecosystem. Other insects such as plant hop­ the wetlands. Although few animals live or burrow pers, grasshoppers, and aphids, as well as many in the sediments ofthe high marsh zone, the historic species of amphipods and spiders, also are an im­ utilization of salt hay as feed and fodder for animals portant part of the fauna of Buzzards Bay salt and more recently its use as a weed-free garden marshes. mulch have focused attention on the value of these Molts of the horseshoe crab (Limulus wetlands as a usable resource for almost four cen­ polyphemus) andfrequentlyth e crab itself, are com­ turies. mon sights around Buzzards Bay. Known as a "liv­ Marine life is abundant in the salt marshes of ing fossil," horseshoe crabs have remained basi­ Buzzards Bay, such as snails, crabs, mussels, am­ cally unchanged over the past 200 million years, phipods, and large numbers of small fish. Many with ancestors estimated to have roamed shore­ species of birds (wrens, rails, and wading birds; lines roughly 350 million years ago. Not actually a Fig. 4.8) feed on the fish and invertebrates, while crab at all, Limulus is an arthropod, related to spi­ others (Canada goose {Branta canadensis) and ders and scorpions. The larger females move from snow goose {Chen caerulescens); Teal 1986) feed deeper water in early summer to lay eggs along the on marsh plants. Mammals such as voles,fieldmice , high tide line. Horseshoe crabs are particularly in­ raccoons {Procyon lotor), and skunks {Mephitis teresting in that they possess a blue, copper-based mephitis) forage in the marsh during low tides. blood with only one type of cell, which can be ex­ Marshes are well known for their abundance of tracted for use in various medical assays such as mosquitoes and biting flies, and great efforts are identification of infections caused by spinal menin­ undertaken through management practices, such as gitis and E. coli, as well as certain types of cancers ditching, to limit the habitat (primarily stagnant pools) and blood clots. required for breeding. Although considered a nui­ Fish are an important part ofthe ecology of sance to humans and potentially carriers of diseases Buzzards Bay salt marshes, and as both predator such as encephalitis, these insects provide substantial and prey they represent an important component ofthe estuarine food web in the marsh-bay system. The tidal marshes ofBuzzards Bay support resi­ dent species, which spend most of their life within the tidal creeks and pools ofthe marsh system, and nonresident or invading species, which enter into marsh waters and spend only a portion of their life there. Ofthe nonresident species, some are adults that enter into salt marshes to spawn, and others are juveniles of coastal species that use the marshes as nursery grounds. The resident species offish found in Buzzards Bay salt marshes are typified by the Atlantic silver- side, the four-spined stickleback, and three spe­ cies of killifish, mummichog, striped killifish, and sheepshead minnow {Cyprinodon variegatus). Spawning in the marsh, most of thesefish are active from April through October and then move out of Fig. 4.8. The great egret (Casmerodius albus) Photo the marsh into deeper water or burrow into the by B. Howes bottom of tidal creeks or pools during winter. The 62 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 resident species are associated with the marsh Nonresident species differ in their use ofthe throughout their life cycles. The most abundant of marsh. Some use the marsh as spawning grounds, these, the Atlantic silverside (Fig. 4.9), lives only 1 others for protective nursery grounds with abun­ year, and the relatively few that survive the winter dant food for the growth ofjuveniles . The three­ by migrating into deeper waters return to spawn in spined stickleback enters the marshfrom Buzzards spring. Mummichogs (Fig. 4.10) live several years, Bay in spring to spawn and then returns with its surviving the winter by residing in the bottom of young back into the bay. Other invadingfishes, such creeks or marsh pools, often in the more brackish as the alewife, the Atlantic menhaden, the tautog, upper reaches ofthe marsh. The striped killifish on the sea bass, and the winterflounder use the marsh the other hand winters in the lower sandier reaches as a nursery ground and are only present as juve­ ofthe marsh during the winter months. These latter niles during mid and late summer. Bluefish and species utilize plants and animals in their diets, feed­ striped bass enter the marshes as moderate to large ing on algae that lives on the surface ofthe marsh, adults for brief periods during high tide and leave but obtaining higher quality food through the con­ during ebbing tide, feeding on many ofthe smaller sumption of eggs of other species like the horse­ resident species in late summer. shoe crab, small bivalves like Gemma gemma, and other invertebrates. In a study of the fish populations of Great Sippewissett salt marsh in West Falmouth, Werme (1981) found that residentfish were far more abun­ dant than nonresidents (Table 4.7), as is often the case for other fish and bird assemblages. Two resi­ dent species, Atlantic silverside and mummichog, accounted for more than 90% ofthefish in the marsh. Large differences were found in the growth rates between the resident and nonresident species, with nonresidents growing an average of 10 times as quickly as the residentfish (Table 4.8). Investiga­ tion of gut contents and fullness ofthe dominant resident and nonresident species were consistent with their different growth rates, with invading fish maintaining higher feeding rates than the resident fishes and generally consuming a higher percentage of animal foods (Table 4.9). Resident species Fig. 4.9. The silversides {Menidia menidia). Photo by tendedto be more omnivorous,frequentlywit h high J. Teal levels of algae and detritus in their guts. While their diet was generally lower in quality than that ofthe nonresidents, resident species increased the per­ centage of animals in their diet during spawning and overall maintained much larger populations (Table 4.7). Other nondominant species found in the marshes ofBuzzards Bay include bay anchovy {Anchoa mitchilli), sheepshead minnow, American eel {Anguilla rostrata), striped mullet {Mugil cephalus), northern pipefish {Syngnathusfuscus), Fig. 4.10. The mummichog {Fundulus heteroclitus). Photo by J. Teal. butterfish, black sea bass, cunner {Tautogolabrus ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 63

Table 4.7. Occurrence and abundance of resident and nonresident salt marsh fishes Percent occurrence (corrected for distance) for each of three areas, the main channel (M.C.) which connects to Buzzards Bay, sandy creeks and muddy creeks (the furthest landward). Averages are shown ± SE Asterisk (*) indicates significance of t-test at 0.05 level of significance. (From Werme 1981). Seasonal Abundance/ Percent occurrence Species occurrence 100 m M.C. Sand Mud Residents Menidia menidia Apr -Oct 151.7 ±84.4 32 56 12 Apeltes quadracus Apr. - Oct. 0 2 + 0.0 67 33 0 Fundulus heteroclitus Apr. - Oct 1108 + 12.8 11 42 47 Fundulus majalis Apr. - Oct 11.5 ±5.0 16 82 2 Cyprinodon vanegatus Apr. - Oct. 9.9a 0 61 39 Average 56.8 ±31.1 25 ±1 4 55 + 12 20 + 7 Nonresidents Alosa pseudoharengus July - Sept. 1.8 ± 0.0 58 32 9 Brevoortia tyrannus Aug. - Sept 1 3 ± 01 0 64 36 Gasterosteus aculeatus Apr - June 0.4 22 48 30 Tautoga onitis June - Sept. 04 ± 0.2 77 23 0 Centropristes striata Aug - Sept. 0.5 ± 0 2 0 100 0 Pseudopleuronectes amencanus May - Sept 0.5+ 0 2 19 53 28 Average 0.8 ± 0.3 29 ± 12 53 ±11 17 + 7 t-test * NS NS NS •Standard error not available NS - not significant

Table 4.8. Mean total length and average percent increase in length/month of resident and nonresident salt marsh fishes. Averages are shown ± SE. Asterisks (**) indicate significance of t-test at 0 01 level of significance. (From Werme 1981.) Mean % length/ Mean % length/ Species length month Species length month Residents Nonresidents Menidia menidia 51 ±0 30 >4/osa pseudoharengus 62 ± 2 100 Apeltes quadracus 28 ±0 10 Brevoortia tyrannus 78 + 5 - Fundulus heteroclitus 42 + 2 20 Gasterosteus aculeatus 27 ±1 400 Fundulus majalis 50 + 0 20 Tautoga onitis 50 ±0 180 Cyprinodon vanegatus 35 ±0 10 Centropristes striata 40 + 5 100 Pseudopleuronectes * amencanus 88 ±24 — Average 41.2 + 4.4 18.0 ±3.7 Average 57.5±9 4 195 0 ±70 9

t-test NS ** t-test NS ** NS - not significant 64 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Table 4.9. Average gut fullness, percent fish with empty guts, and percent carnivory, herbivory, and detritivory in the diets of resident and nonresident salt marsh fishes Averages are shown ± SE Asterisks (**) indicate significance of t-test at 0 01 level of significance (From Werme 1981.) Average gut Percent Percent Species fullness empty guts Carnivory Herbivory Detritivory Residents Menidia menidia 36 3 ±1.0 34 70 20 10 Apeltes quadncus 32 8 ± 4.4 49 80 5 15 Fundulus heteroclitus 24.8 ±0.9 51 23 52 25 Fundulus majalis 180±09 53 55 15 25 Cyprinodon vanegatus 18.0±1 4 57 13 61 26 Average 26.0 ±3.7 49 ±4 48 ±13 31 ± 11 20 ±3

Nonresidents Alosa pseudoharengus 62 3 ±4.7 18 97 0 3 Brevoortis tyrannus 52.5 ±12 1 0 0 67 33 Gasterosteus aculeatus 56 8 ± 4 7 26 90 0 10 Tautoga onitis 78.5 ± 1 0 0 100 0 0 Centropristes stnatus 40.0 ±8.4 6 90 0 10 Pseudopleuronectes americanus 65.0 ±6.9 0 90 0 10

Average 59.2 ±53 8±5 78 + 16 11+11 11 ±4 t-test ** ** NS NS NS NS - not significant

adspersus), and sand lance {Ammodytes growing abundantly in the peat around marsh americanus). These species are commonly found grasses, and are most prevalent in the lower eleva­ in Buzzards Bay and are all nonresidents. Adult eels tion areas of creekbanks where tidal inundation is and young bluefish, tems, egrets, and herons enter greatest. This mussel is important in the ecology of the marsh sporadically to feed on thefishi n these coastal wetlands. Mussels are active filter feeders, marshes. straining all types of particulates out ofthe water The migration of youngfishhatche d or reared in column, ingesting the edible and processing the in­ the marsh to estuarine waters as well as the tran­ edible into pseudofeces that accumulate around the sient feeding of deeper water fish such as bluefish mussel in areas where tidal currents are not suffi­ and striped bass on marsh residents provide mecha­ cient to sweep them away. Average rates of nisms whereby the abundant productivity found in biodeposition in the form of pseudofeces for the these intertidal wetlands is exported to estuarine ribbed mussel is 549 g/year (Davis 1985). These food webs. These processes represent important mussels can actually bury themselves in these components ofthe role and function of these wet­ pseudofeces and in some areas must continuously lands in coastal ecology and provide a strong argu­ migrate upward over time. This phenomenon re­ ment in defense of wetland protection and sults in the marsh acquiring a hummocky appear­ preservation in the coastal landscape. ance with the height ofthe hummocks being limited Ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa, formerly to the level at which the mussels can still extract Modiolus demissus) arefrequentlyfoun d in the in­ enough foodfromflooding tidal waters to survive tertidal wetland areas around the bay, generally (Teal and Teal 1969). In addition, the network of ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 65

Table 4.10. Average biomass and release of ammonia into marsh waters during summer by major marsh organisms. Biomass of mollusks excludes the shell weight; plant biomass aboveground only. Excretion proceeds for 12 h/day for Geukensia, 24 h/day for other species. Data from Jordan and Valiela (1982). Biomass Release Release Species (kg) (ug NH3-N/h/kg) (kg NH,-N/day/kg)

Bivalves Geukensia demissa 8.900 42 4 5 Mercenaria mercenaria 1,800 42a 1.8 Mya arenaria 1,000 30 0.73 Gemma gemma 460 42a 0.46 Grasses Spartina alterniflora 130,000 0.90 2.8 Spartina patens 3,600 0.42 0.4 Fish Menidia menidia 240 180 1.1 Fundulus heteroclitus 490 65 0.76 Fundulus majalis 120 160 0.47 Arthropods ilea pugnax 3,600 11" 1.0 Carcinus maenas 410 11 0.11 Orchestia spp. 140 11" 0.04 Snails Melampus bidentatus 460 19c 0 21 llyanassa obsolete 55 19 0.02 •Excretion assumed equal to that of G demissa "Excretion assumed equal to that of C maenas "Excretion assumed equal to that of /. obsoleta

byssal threads produced by these mussels increases or gametes. The residentribbedmusse l population the coherence of their substrate (Davis 1985) and in Great Sippewissett Salt Marsh (West Falmouth) may, along with belowground roots and rhizomes, was found to maintain the highest biomass of any stabilize marsh peat, especially areas along animal population, releasing more ammonia into the creekbanks. In areas with high levels of contami­ water than any population of plants or animals (Table nants like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) and 4.10), and accounting for 31 % ofthe ammonia re­ metals in the water column (such as found in the leased into tidal waters during summer. Most of this Acushnet River estuary), the deposition of ammonia is presumed to be taken up by phy­ pseudofeces from filtration of organically bound toplankton or edaphic diatoms, bacteria, and fungi contaminants increases the levels of these growing on Spartina detritus, as the overall am­ contaminants in the surface sediments ofthe marsh. monia concentration in tidal waters remains rela­ Studies by Jordan and Valiela (1982) indicate tively unchanged. The population ofribbed mus­ that ribbed mussels play an important role in the sels in Great Sippewissett was calculated to theo­ nitrogen cycle ofcoasta l salt marshes. Nitrogen fil­ reticallyfilter all ofthe water in each tidal cycle, tered but not deposited by ribbed mussels is ex­ although they presumably refilter water in their ad­ creted as ammonia or dissolved organic nitrogen, jacent vicinity. Their biggestrole in the nitrogen cycle or used for production of flesh, shell, byssal threads, of salt marshes is the retention of nitrogen within 66 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

the system through biodeposition of suspended par­ of utilization and protection in valuable yet ecologi­ ticulate nitrogen. This is also true for other marsh callyfragile coastal environments like Buzzards Bay. species, Mercenaria mercenaria, Mya arenaria, More information is available on salt marsh ecol­ and Gemma gemma; however, given the domi­ ogy in Teal (1986)andNixon(1982). nance ofthe ribbed mussel in this marsh, it is re­ sponsible for most ofthe total bivalvefiltration and 4.2.2. Tidal Flats biodeposition. If the amount of particulate nitrogen filtered by these mussels was instead exported from Tidalflats are gently sloping unvegetated areas the system, a significant loss of nitrogen to coastal extending seaward of coastal landforms to mean , waters would result. Because nitrogen limits phy­ low water (MLW). These flats are typically exposed toplankton productivity in Buzzards Bay, the in­ at low tide, revealing sediments rangingfrom sands creased nitrogen retention byribbed mussel filtra­ to muds and silts. Tidal flats are generally deposi­ tion may actually serve to reduce fertilization of tional environments, with the area and duration of adjacent bay waters. exposure dependent on tidal amplitude. They are In addition to their aesthetic value, the impor­ often associated with other types of coastal envi­ tance of marshes as storm buffers, habitats, and ronments such as embayments, salt marshes, spits, nursery grounds for numerous species, and histori­ and barrier beaches that provide a source of cally as a valuable source of salt marsh hay, has sediment for development ofthe flat. long been a basis for defense in their protection. Tidal currents in Buzzards Bay are primarily re­ More recently, the role of salt marshes as nutrient sponsible for the sediment makeup of these flats. buffers for coastal waters is becoming increasingly Along shorelines exposed to higher currents and evident as our understanding of these complex en­ wind-driven wave energies, such as along the edge vironments continues to grow. This is especially true ofthe bay proper, these flats tend to be made up of for areas such as Buzzards Bay where residential coarser, sandier sediments, while those flats in more development is continually increasing. protected areas, such as in estuaries, behind bar­ Because marshes exist at the land and sea inter­ rier beaches, or within wetlands or salt ponds, gen­ face, questions arose in the late 1960's and early erally havefiner, siltier sediments. Their association 1970's as to whether salt marshes were nitrogen with other types of marine systems is important for limited, as are many coastal marine systems, or phos­ providing both a source of strata and a source of phorus limited, as are many terrestrial systems. Ex­ allocthanous organic matter to the organisms that periments undertaken to answer this fundamental inhabit them. question, most notably long-term fertilization experi­ Because the overlying water column retreats at ments initiated in 1970 in the Great Sippewissett high tide, only infaunal and epibenthic animals colo­ Salt Marsh, identified nitrogen as the nutrient limit­ nize tidal flats. At high tide, however, numerous ing production in the salt marsh environment (Valiela species offish "commute" to graze on the benthos et al. 1975; Teal 1986). Much attention has been and epibenthic algae. The infaunal communities in­ paid in recent years to the role of nitrogen-limited habiting the tidal flats along Buzzards Bay provide salt marshes in intercepting or buffering nitrogen in­ a valuable resource to the aquatic food web and to putsfrom terrestrial sources as they move toward the many species of waterfowl that feed on these coastal waters. The increased understanding of organisms during low tide. Shorebirds, feeding pri­ marsh processes in this regard has contributed to marily on invertebrates such as polychaetes, mol­ the development of artificial wetland ecosystems lusks, and crustaceans, often follow the water's edge (such as Solar Aquatics; Teal and Peterson 1991) as it advances and retreats over the flats, with for the tertiary treatment of nutrient-rich wastewa­ maximum foraging during low tide when most of ter and septage. These new technologies hold prom­ the tidal flat is exposed. Many other species utilize ise for dealing with the often competing objectives the tidal flats, including crabs such as rock crab ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 67

{Cancer irroratus), green crab {Carcinus landscape around the bay. Sphagnum bogs are simi­ maenas), and blue crab {Callinectes sapidus); lar to marshes in that they become established in these species migrate on and off the flats with the areas of persistently saturated soils. These bogs are tide, feeding on submerged bivalves and annelids. dominated by Sphagnum spp. or "peat" mosses The lady or calico crab {Ovalipes ocellatus) fre­ and low-growing shrubs like cranberry {Vaccinium quently buries itself in the sandy sediments of these macrocarpon). The live sphagnum or peat mosses flats. Hermit crabs {Pagurus longicarpus and P. grow in thick mats overlying deep layers of accu­ pollicaris) and snails {Ilyanassa and Nassarius) mulated peat. A veryfragile system, these bogs of­ also coexist on the tidal flats; the hermit crabs utilize ten support a variety of rare and unusual plants the empty shells ofthe snails for semipermanent such as wild orchids and carnivorous plants such as homes. The horseshoe crabfrequently uses the tidal sundews {Drosera sp.). Sphagnum bogs can be flats as feeding and spawning grounds and deposits found around the bay, notably in Falmouth its eggs at the high water line. As with marshland, (Chappaquoit) and Bourne (near the railroad Westport has the largest areas of tidalflat and bar­ bridge). rier beach within Buzzards Bay. Additional infor­ Like sphagnum bogs, cedar swamps, which are mation on New England tidal flat communities can dominated by the Atlantic white cedar be found in Whitlatch (1982). {Chamaecyparis thyoides), highbush blueberry {Vaccinium corymbosum), and swamp azalea 4.3. Terrestrial {Rhododendron viscosum), occur in areas of satu­ rated soils and acidic waters that affect decompo­ The physical processes that formed Buzzards sition and nutrient availability. The white cedar Bay not only led to a wide variety of marine envi­ swamp is commonly found along with red maples ronments but also resulted in a diversity of land {Acer rubrum), which often restrict the extent of forms, habitats, and natural resources within its up­ white cedar growth. These cedar swamps can be land regions. Human activities within the watershed found in pockets or associated with cranberry bogs area over the past several centuries, however, have around Buzzards Bay, in Bourne (east ofthe Bourne significantly altered the structure and composition Bridge) and Falmouth (east of Woods Hole and of many of these terrestrial systems. east of Little Sippewissett Marsh in West Falmouth), Numerous kettle ponds, common to pitted but most notably in the Acushnet Cedar Swamp in outwash plains such as Buzzards Bay, are a domi­ New Bedford and Dartmouth, considered to be one nant feature ofthe landscape. These deep ponds ofthe last truly wilderness areas in southeastern were formed when large blocks of ice left by the Massachusetts. Cedar swamps, like huckleberry and retreating glaciers were buried by glacial debris and maple swamps, were historically much more abun­ outwash sands that collapsed as the ice melted, leav­ dant but were cleared and diked to form many of ing the depressions. When the base ofthe depres­ the existing cranberry bogs, which is the dominant sion was below the water table, a pond was formed. agriculture ofthe region (White 1870; Thomas Many of these ponds supportfreshwater marshes, 1990). Cranberry bogs require damp but not satu­ typically dominated by Typha and Phragmites, and rated soils for best production, conditions found in provide important habitat for many species of many ofthe swamp forests. Some attempts were animals. made by the early settlers to conserve the white Otherfreshwater environments within the Buz­ cedar swamps because their wood was used in the zards Bay watershed, like the freshwater marshes, construction of moisture-proof foundations and for are structured by the amount and duration of fresh­ the cedar shingles prevalent on many houses in the water saturation. Critical habitats such as sphag­ region. The diminished availability offirewoodwit h num bogs, cedar swamps, and vernal pools dot the progressive deforestation, however, increased the 68 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

raining of peat from cedar swamps and, with the demand for wood for construction. There was also expansion ofthe cranberry industry in the 1800's, an associated demand for firewood to fuel the led to the near loss of this ecosystemfrom the wa­ evaporation of seawater for preparation of salt and tershed. to boil whale blubber. About 1.5 cords of wood In the elevated areas around Buzzards Bay, the were required for producing only one bushel of salt highly permeable soils ofthe region provide an ideal (O'Brien 1990); at its peak, production of salt from site for the growth of hardy species of oak {Quercus Cape Cod was estimated at more than 1/2 million spp.), pitch pine {Pinus rigida), and white pine bushels per year (Fawsett 1990). In fact, the Sand­ {Pinus strobus), the dominant trees ofthe region's wich Glassworks was established in the town of forested land. Although somewhat small and Sandwich not for its abundant sand (which was sup­ "scrubby" (i.e., the name "scrub oak") by inland posedly too impure) but for the extensive pitch pine standards, these hardy trees reflect the low nutrient and red oak {Quercus rubra) forests, which were environment under which these forests have devel­ cleared starting around 1825 and provided fuel for oped. Even with the encroachment of human de­ the glass furnaces for over 60 years, leaving the velopment overtime, these forests still support large formerly well forested Sandwich hills basically bare. numbers of wildlife, including deer {Odocoileus The combined result of these various demands virginianus) and even coyote {Canas latrans). for wood was a general deforestation ofthe old These woodlands have played an important role in growth forests all around Buzzards Bay, with only a the history ofthe region, yet the species we see few virgin areas now remaining; a notable example today are not necessarily those viewed and utilized is a grove of white pine forest located in Beebe by the early settlers. Woods, a forest preserve located just west of Significant changes have occurred in the bay's Falmouth center. After cutting, much ofthe wood­ surrounding upland over the past several hundred land was left to natural succession. The relatively years. In what is now primarily pitch pine-domi­ poor soil conditions that evolved after the destruc­ nated forest, the landscape once supported signifi­ tion ofthe forests have led to reforestation by har­ cant stands of old growth forests of white pine, oak, dier species, notably the pitch pine, which grows walnut {Juglans spp.), beech {Fagus grandifolia), widely in the region in those areas buffeted by wind and holly {Hex opaca). The extensive acreage of and sea as well as on nutrient poor, sandy, barren these original forests wasfrequentlyidentifie d in the soils. The survivability of this species also encour­ logs of early explorers and settlers (White 1870; aged its widespread planting in the late 1800's so O'Brien 1990). Although living near the sea, the that with species of oak (scrub {Quercus ilicifolia), early European settlers were predominantly red, post {Quercus stellata), etc.), eastern red ce­ farmers. Early on, they attempted to clear the for­ dar {Juniperus virginiana, also known as juniper), ests for agricultural land with little understanding, and red maple, significant reforestation has occurred. and therefore regard, for the long-term impact on these virgin forests. These settlers were not the first, however, to impact the woodlands. Evidence in 4.4. Unique and archeological records indicates that Native Ameri­ canstypicallypractice d "slash and bum" techniques Threatened Environments to clear the forests for the production of com. Large-scale deforestation, however, occurred pri­ 4.4.1. Anadromous Fish Runs marily from the late 1600's through the 1800's. Although many ofthe settlers shiftedfrom farming These fish runs are an important component of tofishing, the cutting ofthe forests did not diminish. thefisheriesofBuzzard s Bay. Streams linking ma­ Withfishingan d whaling came shipbuilding, an im­ rine andfreshwaterbodie s provide runs for several portant mainstay ofthe economy that increased the species offish that grow to maturity in the ocean ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 69 and migrate tofresh water to spawn. Living prima­ the Buzzards Bay watershed are shown in Table rily in salt water, anadromousfishsuc h as alewives, 4.11. blueback herrings, white perches {Morone Successfulfish runs have common characteris­ americana), and rainbow smelts {Osmerus tics: an unimpeded connection between creeks, mordax) migrate up tidal streams to brackish and ponds, lakes,rivers,o r streams and the sea; suffi­ freshwater systems where, after spawning, the fry cient volume and depth of flow to enablefisht o hatch and eventually return to the sea. Except for overcome periodic obstructions within the run such rainbow smelt, which migratefrom February through asfish ladders, natural falls, or logjams; good wa­ April, migration begins in early March or April (when ter quality in the spawning area; and, of course, an the water temperatures of inlandriversan d streams availability offish. Because fish in their early life begin to warm up relative to colder waters offshore) stages are very vulnerable tofluctuationsi n their and generally continues into June. Anadromous fish spawning or nursery environment, relatively con­ typically return to the place where they were stant environmental conditions such as temperature hatched, although it is not entirely clear how they and salinity can be important to successful identify any particular stream except perhaps by the recruitment. Industrial pollution also has local im­ unique water chemistry that may be associated with pacts on anadromousfish, such as in New Bedford one area versus another. Anadromousfish runs within Inner Harbor where several historically productive

Table 4.11. Anadromous fish runs of Buzzards Bay. (From Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering 1978) Town River Species Spawning area Falmouth Herring Brook Alewife, blueback herring Wings Pond Wild Harbor River Alewife Dam Pond

Bourne Herring River Alewife Little Herring Pond

Wareham Sippican River Alewife Sippican River Agawam River Alewife, rainbow smelt Mill Pond Wankinco River Alewife Parker Mills Pond Red Brook Alewife, blueback herring White Island Pond Gibbs Brook Alewife Dicks Pond

Marion Weweantic River Alewife, rainbow smelt Horseshoe Pond

Mattapoisett Mattapoisett River Alewife Mattapoisett River

Acushnet Acushnet River Alewife Sawmill Pond

Dartmouth Slocums River Alewife, rainbow smelt Destruction Brook/ Russell's Mill Dam

Westport Richmond Pond Alewife Richmond Pond Cockeast Pond Alewife Cockeast Pond Westport River Alewife, brook trout Westport River 70 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 fish runs have been all but eliminated. However, however, most notably avian fauna, are the focus of around Buzzards Bay it appears that simple impedi­ intensive, integrated, and highly visible protection ments to migration by construction of dams with­ programs and are briefly discussed. outfish ladders or alteration associated with devel­ Sandy beaches surrounding Buzzards Bay, no­ opment, farming, or cranberry growing and even tably Little Beach and Horseneck Beach on the failure to maintain existing runs are the prime causes bay's western shore, provide habitat for the feder­ of declines of anadromous fish popula­ ally listed piping plover {Charadrius melodus; Fig. tions. Renewed interest in thisfishery around Buz­ 4.11). Piping plovers are indigenous to sandy zards Bay in recent years, however, has resulted in beaches and have evolved a sand-colored body that increased attention to mamtaining or improving the is difficult to spot. Migratingfrom areas ofthe south existingfishruns, and in reestablishing some of those Atlantic coast to northern Mexico, they arrive in late lost through neglect or alteration. March and April and nest on the open beaches through August (O'Brien 1990). In the 1800's, pip­ 4.4.2. Endangered Species ing plovers were extremely abundant but were hunted to near extinction by the early 1900's for Some endangered and threatened species have the millinery trade. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act been identified in the region of Cape Cod and the of 1918 provided the piping plover with some pro­ Buzzards Bay watershed (Table 4.12). To success­ tection, and populations increased into the 1940's; fully preserve these species, it is necessary to pre­ thereafter, human disturbance and predation of nest­ serve their habitats since the decline of many ani­ ing sites, primarilyfromdevelopmen t and increased mal species is due to loss of nesting or ecological recreational use of beaches, once again resulted in habitat. Species at the limits ofthei r ranges are par­ population decline. Recent surveys indicate less than ticularly sensitive as additional suitable habitat may a thousand pairs occur along the Atlantic Coast (D. not be readily available in response to alteration or Mignogno, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, destruction of existing areas. In addition to the ob­ Mass., personal communication). Each nesting sea­ vious concerns over diminishing wildlife populations son, beach areas of active and potential nesting are and decreasing habitat for many coastal species, cordoned off or fenced to exclude people and indirect effects of activities in the coastal zone may predators, and nesting success is followed and re­ also impact populations. The use of fertilizers and corded to gauge population dynamics. Considered pesticides, for example, may affect areas far from of "special concern" by the Massachusetts Natural the source of application. Beyond the direct impact Heritage Program and Endangered Species Pro­ of development, the mere presence of people may gram are least tems, whose nesting habitats— adversely affect the territorial behavior of many sparsely vegetated regions ofthe barrier beach above animals. Pets roamingfree on the beach may act as the high tide line—are similar to those ofthe piping predators and cause birds to abandon their nests. plover. In the Buzzards Bay area, efforts undertaken Stabilization of eroding dune systems near endan­ to protect plovers are frequently expanded to in­ gered nesting sites by "planting" used Christmas trees clude nesting habitats for least tems. has been identified as problematic as they provide hiding places for many predatory animals. Even kite Buzzards Bay, specifically Bird Island located in flying near ground-nesting birds can affect behav­ Marion, also provides habitat for another federally ior because the kites are perceived as large avian listed endangered species, the roseate tem. These predators. birds breed primarily on small islands and occasion­ Because the list of rare and endangered species ally at the end of barrier beaches and build nests (Table 4.12) is substantial and new species are be­ under or next to vegetation or some other object ing added, a species by species discussion is be­ affording protection. Two distinct breeding popula­ yond the scope of this text. Several species, tions are found in North America: one occurs along ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY- An Estuanne Profile 71

Table 4.12. Rare plants and wildlife identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program and Endangered Species Program for the Cape Cod region including the Buzzards Bay watershed From VanLuven (1991) and O'Brien (1990). Species Status Plants Isoetaceae (quillworts) Isoetes acadiensis (Acadian quillwort) Endangered Ophioglossaceae (adder's-tongue ferns) Ophioglossum vulgatum (adder's-tongue fern) Threatened Schizaeaceae (climbing and curly grass ferns) Lygodium palmatum (American climbing fern) Special concern Alismataceae (arrowheads, water-plantains) Sagittaria teres (terete arrowhead) Special concern Poaceae (grasses) Threatened Aristida purpurascens (purple needlegrass) Special concern Dichanthelium wrightianum (Wright's panic-grass) Special concern Dichanthelium commonsianum (common's panic-grass) Endangered Dichanthelium mattamuskeetense (Mattamuskeet panic-grass) Threatened Diplachne maritime (saltpond grass) Endangered Elymus mollis (sea lyme-grass) Special concern Panicum philadelphicum (Philadelphia panic-grass) Special concern Setaria geniculate (bristly foxtail) Special concern- Spartina cynosuroides (salt reed-grass) Threatened Spenopholis pennsylvanica (swamp oats) Cyperaceae (sedges) Carex oltgosperma (few-fruited sedge) Threatened Carex striata (Walter's sedge) Endangered Eleocharis obtusa (ovate spikerush) Endangered Psilocarya mtens (short-beaked baldrush) Threatened Psilocarya scirpoides (long-beaked baldrush) Special concern Rhynchospora mundata (horned beakrush) Threatened Rhynchospora torreyana (Torey's beakrush) Endangered Selena pauciflora (papillose nutrush) Endangered Araceae (arums) Orontium aquaticum (golden club) Threatened Juncaceae (rushes) Juncus biflorus (two-flowered rush) Endangered Endangered Juncus debtlis (weak rush) Haemodoraceae (bloodworts, redroots) Lachnanthes Carolina (redroot) Special concern Iridaceae (irises) Special concern Sisyrinchium arenicola (sandplam blue-eyed grass) Orchidaceae (orchids) Threatened Arethusa bulbosa (dragon's mouth orchid) Endangered Listera cordate (heartleaf twayblade) Threatened Platanthera dilatata (leafy white orchid) Special concern Spiranthes vemalis (grass-leaved ladies' tresses) Endangered Tipularia discolor (cranefly orchid) Polygonaceae (docks, knotweeds) Special concern Polygonum puritanorum (pondshore knotweed) Special concern Polygonum setaceum (strigose knotweed) 72 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Table 4.12. (continued) Species Status Chenopodiaceae (saltworts, sea-blights) Suaeda americana (American seepweed) Special concern Portulacaceae (purslanes, spring beauties) Claytonia virginica (narrow-leaved spring beauty) Threatened Rosaceae (roses, shadbushes) Crataegus bicknelln (Bicknell's hawthorn) Endangered Lmaceae (flaxes) Linum intercursum (sandplain flax) Special concern Linum medium (rigid flax) Threatened Empetraceae (crowberries) Corema conradii (broom crowberry) Special concern Hypericaceae (St. John's-worts) Hypericum adpressum (creeping St John's-wort) Threatened Cistaceae (rockroses, frostweeds) Helianthemum dumosum (bushy rockrose) Special concern Cactaceae (cacti) Opuntia humifusa (prickly pear) Special concern Melastomataceae (meadow beauties) Rhexia mariana (Maryland meadow beauty) Threatened Haloragaceae (water-milfoils) Myriophyllum pinnatum (pinnate water-milfoil) Special concern Apiaceae (parsleys, angelicas) Hydrocotyle verticillata (saltpond pennywort) Special concern Gentianaceae (gentians) Sabatia campanulata (slender marsh pink) Endangered Sabatia kennedyana (Plymouth gentian) Special concern Asclepiadaceae (milkweeds) Asclepias verticillata (linear-leaved milkweed) Threatened Asclepias purpurascens (purple milkweed) Threatened Boragmaceae (borages) Mertensia maritime (oysterleaf) Endangered Scrophulariaceae (figworts) Agalinis acuta (sandplain gerardia)a Endangered Lentibulariaceae (bladderworts) Utricularia Mora (two-flowered bladderwort) Threatened Utricularia fibrosa (fiberous bladderwort) Threatened Utricularia subulata (subulate bladderwort) Special concern Capnfoliaceae (honeysuckles) Triosteum perfoliatum (broad tinkerVweed) Endangered Asteraceae (asters, composites) Achillea millefolium (seaside yarrow) Threatened Eupatorium aromaticum (lessersnakeroot) Endangered Eupatorium leucolepis (New England boneset) Endangered Gnaphalium purpureum (purple cudweed) Endangered Lactuca hirsuta (hairy wild lettuce) Endangered Prenanthes serpentaria (lion's foot) Endangered ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuanne Profile 73

Table 4.12. (continued) Species Status Wildlife (vertebrates) Fish Lampetra appendix (American brook lamprey) Threatened Acipenser brevirostrum (shortnose sturgeon)3 Endangered Amphibians Hemidactylium scutatum (four-toed salamander) Special concern Scaphiopus holbrookii (eastern spadefoot toad) Threatened Reptiles Clemmys guttata (spotted turtle) Special concern Malaclemys terrapin (diamondback terrapin) Threatened Terrapene Carolina (common box turtle) Special concern Pseudemys rubiventris bangsi (Plymouth red-bellied turtle)3 Endangered Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle)8 Threatened Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ndley sea turtle)8 Endangered Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle)8 Endangered Birds Podilymbus podiceps (pied-billed grebe) Threatened Botaurus lentigmosus (American bittern) Special concern Ixobrychus exilis (least bittern) Threatened Accipiter striatus (sharp-shinned hawk) Special concern Circus cyaneus (northern harrier) Threatened Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)8 Endangered Gallinula chloropus (common moorhen) Special concern Rallus elegans (king rail) Threatened Charadrius melodus (piping plover)8 Threatened Bartramia longicauda (upland sandpiper) Endangered Sterna antillarum (least tern) Special concern Sfema dougallii (roseate tern)3 Endangered Sterna hirundo (common tern) Special concern Sfema paradisaea (Arctic tern) Special concern Tyto alba (common barn-owl) Special concern Asio flammeus (short-eared owl) Endangered Ammodramus savannarum (grasshopper sparrow) Special concern Parula americana (northern parula warbler) Threatened Pandion haliaetus (osprey) Special concern Mammals Halichoerus grypus (gray seal) Special concern Wildlife (invertebrates) , Bivalvia (mussels and clams) Leptodea ochracea (tidewater mucket) Special concern Ligumia nasuta (eastern pond mussel) Special concern Hirudinea (leeches) Macrobdella sestertia (New England medicinal leech) Special concern Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Aeshna mutate (spring blue darner dragonfly) Endangered Anax longipes (long-legged green darner dragonfly) Special concern Enallagma carunculatum (bluet damselfly) Special concern Enallagma laterals (lateral bluet damselfly) Special concern Enallagma recurvatum (barrens bluet damselfly) Threatened 74 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Table 4.12. (continued) Species Status Lepidoptera (butterflys and moths) Fixsenia ontano (northern haristreak butterfly) Special concern Speyena idalia (regal fntillary butterfly) Endangered Abagrotis crumbi banjamini (coastal heathland cutworm) Special concern Apharetra purpurea (blueberry sallow moth) Threatened Bagisara rectifascia (straight lined mallow moth) Special concern Catocala herodiasgerhardi (Gerhard's underwind moth) Threatened Cicinnus melscheimeri(Melscheimer's sack bearer moth) Threatened Cingilia catenana (chain dot geometer moth) Special concern Hemileuca maia (barrens buckmoth) Threatened Lithophane vmdipallens (pale green pinion moth) Special concern Metarranthis apiciaria (coastal swamp metarranthis moth) Special concern Oligia hausta (northern brocade moth) Special concern Papaipema stenocehs (chain fern borer moth) Special concern Papaipema sulphurate (decodon stem borer moth) Threatened •Indicates species is federally listed as same status (U S Fish and Wildlife Service 1994)

a series of islands off the northeastern coast ofthe extending from the Florida Keys and the Bahamas United States, from New York to Maine, and has to the Lesser Antilles. Buzzards Bay represents an smaller numbers of individuals extending as far as important locale for this species; approximately 60% the Canadian Maritime Provinces; the second ofthe northeast population nests on Bird Island in breeds on islands in the Caribbean Sea region Buzzards Bay (1,650 nesting pairs in 1984; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989; B. Blodgett, Mas­ sachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Spe­ cies Program, personal communication). As is true for the piping plover, the roseate tern population was significantly decreased in the late 1800's be­ cause of hunting associated with the millinery trade. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 facilitated l*^"-; ^ y . "iSy\ 'A * •' '•' ,'.>-•'•"*''"'•; '' * i' j . - -" <#_ S v > "^ -, ' population decreased to roughly 2,500 pairs by 1977 because of increased numbers of nesting her­ ring gulls and great black-backed gulls and increased human activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). Extensive efforts have been undertaken to increase the species' nesting population and to ex­ pand the breeding range through a recovery pro­ gram for the northeastern population The goals of this program are to increase the species' nesting population to 5,000 pairs within at least six colo­ • •»-«• . nies in its current northeast range and hopefully ef­ Fig. 4.11. The piping plover (Charadrius melodus). fect an ultimate return to 1930's levels (U.S. Fish Photo by D. Goehringer. and Wildlife Service 1989). ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 75

The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is considered kempii, endangered), and leatherback a rare bird whose numbers diminished throughout {Dermochelys coriacea, endangered). These sea the United States during the 1950's and 1960's as turtles visit the bay in summer after migrating from a result ofthe widespread use ofthe pesticide DDT. overwintering regions in warmer southern waters. The pesticide primarily affected ospreys by causing Water temperature partially dictates their appear­ a thinning ofthe eggshell, rendering the eggs fragile ance because they lack the ability to regulate body and susceptible to disturbance orpredation. Ospreys temperature. Ridley and loggerhead turtles cannot nest high above the ground, building large nests up withstand temperatures below 23.2° C and 19.5° to 2.4 m in diameter usually in large dead trees near C, respectively (O'Brien 1990), while the leather- the water, which provide them with easy access to back, which may have some thermoregulatory their primary diet offish. Human activities and de­ mechanism, has been found in colder northern wa­ velopment along the coast have resulted in the dis­ ters (D. Mignogno, personal communication). The appearance of many of these potential nesting plat­ numbers of sea turtles frequenting Buzzards Bay forms. Efforts all around Buzzards Bay to erect poles are difficult to ascertain since their subtidal distribu­ with nesting platforms have resulted in the return of tion makes sightings rare; however, 14 leatherback many ospreys to the bay shores (Poole 1989). sea turtles were stranded around the bayfrom198 4 A nonavian endangered species under federal to 1987. Kemp's ridley sea turtle reports include protection is the Plymouth red-bellied turtle three strandings in the early 1900's and a large num­ {Pseudemys rubiventris bangsi), a subspecies of ber of sitings and strandings during a single event in the red-bellied turtle of mid-Atlantic coastal plains. the 1930's. Since the 1930's there have been no Only about 200 adults making up 12 populations reports of further Kemp's ridley strandings (cf. are currently known, all within Plymouth County, Payne et al. 1994), although they have been occa­ which extends into the northeastern portion ofthe sionally sighted (Prescott in Camp, Dresser, and bay's watershed. Primarily a herbivorous freshwa­ McKee, Inc. 1990). Only a single loggerhead has ter reptile inhabitingfreshwater ponds, the Plymouth been found stranded in recent years (1985) within red-bellied turtle requires a sandy substrate in the Buzzards Bay. surrounding upland for nesting in late June and early Use of Buzzards Bay by sea turtles is likely July. Hatchlings emergefromlat e August through greater than suggested by the available sighting and October, and survivors reach maturity at 8 to 15 stranding reports given the difficulty in seeing turtles years, females possibly laterthan males. While many at sea and the restriction against netfishing within factors have led to the decline ofthe Plymouth red- the bay, which is a major source of sightings in other bellied turtle, possibly the most significant has been regions (cf. Payne et al. 1994). habitat losses both by direct destruction or indirect Buzzards Bay does not present a habitat for sig­ alteration resultingfromland-us e practices that pre­ nificant utilization by either whales or dolphins. It vent upland burning and decrease the availability of appears that the absence of topographic and suitable nesting sites (Massachusetts Natural Heri­ oceanographic features that concentrate prey spe­ tage Program 1987). cies (and possibly the bay's shallow waters) are the There are a few strictly marine threatened or underlying causes. A few individual sightings of ce­ endangered species that use the bay; all are sea taceans have been reported this century, though turtles. Federally listed species that frequent Buz­ they tend to be near the entrance to Buzzards Bay, zards Bay waters are the loggerhead {Caretta typically off Cuttyhunk, rather than within the bay caretta, threatened), Kemp'sridley{Lepidochely s itself(Payneetal. 1994).

ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 79

To evaluate water quality in coastal embayments, of nearshore coastal waters through increased nu­ it is important to identify not only point sources of trient loading. The gradual loss of vegetated land pollution discharging directly into the bay itself but surface to buildings, roads, or other paved surfaces also those inputs enteringfromth e entire watershed. affects many ecological processes,from the role of Nonpoint source inputsfromth e watershed are fre­ plants in the cycling of nutrients and water to the quently less discrete and more difficult to quantify permeability of soils to precipitation. One ofthe than point sources yetfrequentlylas t longer and po­ greatest challenges facing land use planners and man­ tentially have more impact. This impact is especially agers for the towns within the Buzzards Bay water­ true for nutrient inputs to coastal systems. To un­ shed is balancing these changing land use patterns derstand the variations in water quality throughout with environmental protection. Maintaining this bal­ Buzzards Bay it is beneficial to look at the various ance is important to ensure both a healthy environ­ land uses ofthe communities that make up the wa­ ment and a healthy economy, with the health ofthe tershed as well as the economic factors influencing economy depending to a great degree on that of activities within and surrounding the bay. the environment, especially in this predominantly tourism-based region. 5.1. Land Use Many different land uses are found within the 5.2. Economy Buzzards Bay watershed; however, the relative dominance of land use patterns has been shifting in 5.2.1, Towns Within the recent decades. Forested land represents the larg­ Watershed est acreage in the watershed, followed by residen­ tial development. Agricultural (including cropland The Buzzards Bay drainage basin includes 10 and pastureland), commercial, and industrial devel­ towns located directly on the bay, and 8 noncoastal opment make up the bulk ofthe remaining land uses. towns located completely or partially within the Over the past four decades, forestland area has watershed boundary. A brief description of these decreased the most, closely followed by agricul­ towns (Fig. 1.3), as they relate to Buzzards Bay tural land, primarily due to the large increase in resi­ waters, follows (information summarizedfromBuz ­ dential development. Commercial and industrial zards Bay Project 1986,1987,1989,1990; Camp, development has also been on therise, primarily in Dresser, and McKee, Inc. 1990; Terkla et al. 1990; response to the increase in year-round populations personal communication with town representatives). from new residential development and conversion Coastal: of summer homes to year-round occupancy. Westport. Westport is primarily a rural and The changing patterns of land use within the agricultural community supporting much ofthe dairy Buzzards Bay watershed have had many conse­ industry within the Buzzards Bay watershed. In re­ quences for the region, both environmentally and cent years, however, the town has experienced rapid economically. Increased populations require addi­ residential growth. The Westport River, which ac­ tional services such as new or improved roads, ad­ tually comprises two rivers, the East and West equate waste disposal, and increased utilities. The branches, with independent subwatersheds, flows numbers of commercial enterprises such as stores, through parts of Westport and Dartmouth, with restaurants, and recreational facilities also increase. tributaries as far north as Freetown (East Branch) Increased development of watershed areas, espe­ and Tiverton (West Branch). Both the East and West cially in areas with on-site septic disposal of wastes branches ofthe Westport River have relatively (as is the primary method within the Buzzards Bay high water quality; however, increased numbers of watershed), can create long-term problems with closures to swimming and shellfishing because of groundwater protection and can threaten the health high levels of coliform bacteria and evidence of 80 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

increasing nutrient inputsfrom residential develop­ Acushnet River basin in the west, the Mattapoisett ment and upstream agricultural activities are of grow­ River basin in the northeast, and the Nasketucket ing concern to the community. River basin in the central portion ofthe town. Run­ Dartmouth. A relatively large town, Dartmouth off of pollutionfrom municipal and industrial sources includes the historic seaport village of Padanaram into the Acushnet River has resulted in periodic low in its southeast comer. The town maintains a sec­ oxygen levels and high bacteria counts, exacerbated ondary treatment plant built in 1970 (to be expanded by inputs from treatment plant effluent and runoff sometime in the 1990's) that discharges effluent into from both New Bedford and Fairhaven. Buzzards Bay south of Salters Point. A portion of Mattapoisett. Mattapoisett is a small coastal the watershed for the East Branch ofthe Westport residential community. The town historically sup­ River lies within the town's boundaries. Increased ported agriculture and shipbuilding but now is pri­ nutrient loadingfrom development is a concern in marily residential with a seasonal influx of tourists this area; Lake Noquochoke, lying along one ofthe during the summer months. The southern portion of sourcerivers for the East Branch, currently suffers the town drains directly into the bay through sev­ from eutrophication, with overproduction ofaquati c eral small streams. Most ofthe town drains into the plants due to excessive nutrient loading. Mattapoisett River basin except for a small part in Apponagansett Bay is also subject to high nutrient the northeast comer, which is part ofthe Sippican loads and resulting low oxygen conditions. River basin. Mattapoisett River discharges into New Bedford. This city has the largest popu­ Mattapoisett Harbor; both have relatively high wa­ lation in the region, with most of its land area (ap­ ter quality without significant municipal or industrial proximately 5,261 ha) developed. The Achushnet discharges, although the harbor is occasionally River (along the city's southeast border) has been closed for shellfishing because of high numbers of heavily polluted by industrial and organic wastes. coliform bacteria. The source of this bacteria is pri­ High levels of coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and marily from discharge at the town pier of a small polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) are found in the stormwater and sanitary collection system. High lev­ river waters and sediments. The sources of this els of nutrients and coliform have been measured in pollution rangefrom runoff and residential inputs in the stream that drains the center ofthe town, pre­ the upper portions ofthe river to direct industrial sumablyfromsepti c system leachate and domestic discharges and combined sewer overflows in the waste discharge. Runofffrom nearby dairy farms is inner harbor (lower Acushnet River). From 1920 also identified as a source of pollution. Natural to 1973, wastewater was discharged directly into sources, however, cannot yet be ruled out. New Bedford Outer Harbor; since 1974 New Marion. Marion is a small rural community on Bedford has maintained a municipal wastewater the upper bay with a large seasonal influx of sum­ treatment facility that continues to discharge primary mer tourists. Most ofthe town's watershed drains effluent into the harbor, including storm-related directly to the bay through a series of streams and wastewater. Also, there is a growing concern over Sippican Harbor. Water quality has historically been the potential contamination of groundwaterfrom the high in all but a small portion ofthe Sippican River existing municipal landfill, which contains more than found to contain high mercury concentrations origi­ 225,000 kg of capacitors and barrels containing nating from the former use of mercury-based anti- PCB's. fouling paints. Marion's wastewater treatment fa­ Fairhaven. As with many ofthe towns along cility discharges into a small stream that enters Buzzards Bay, Fairhaven historically maintained a Aucoot Cove. Studies conducted in Aucoot Cove, seaport. Bordering Buzzards Bay and the Acushnet the recipient ofthe town's municipal wastewater River acrossfrom New Bedford, Fairhaven has treatment plant, indicate this area maintains rela­ experienced rapid residential and commercial tively high water quality (Howes 1993). The former growth in recent years. Fairhaven drains by the town landfill was graded and planted to reduce ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 81

leachate production and now serves as a waste tourist accommodations more than twice that of all transfer station. the other towns within the Buzzards Bay watershed Wareham. Located near the southern end of combined. Although some of this activity is located the Cape Cod Canal, Wareham contains significant along the southern shore ofthe town, which is out­ areas of tidal wetlands through which three rivers, side the bay's watershed, about one-third of this the Weweantic, Agawam, and Wareham, enter the seasonal population increase is located within the bay. Wareham supports a large tourist industry with watershed. West Falmouth Harbor has long been substantial commercial and retail activity. Intensive known for its high water quality and scallop fisher­ cranberry agriculture along the Weweantic River has ies; however, it is an area of future concern be­ historically resulted in problems with pesticide pol­ cause it lies in the path ofthe groundwater nutrient lution. The river is often stagnant and occasionally plume generated by the Falmouth Wastewater experiences problems with low oxygen conditions; Treatment Facility. The village of Woods Hole also however, overall water quality conditions appear lies within the Falmouth portion ofthe Buzzards Bay to be relatively good. Occasional fuel oil spills have watershed. occurredfrom business in Wareham Center. But­ Gosnold. The town of Gosnold actually repre­ termilk Bay, although receiving no known major sents the Elizabeth Islands made up ofNonamessett, point source discharges, is affected by nonpoint Naushon, Pasque, Nashawena, Cuttyhunk, and source discharge of nutrientsfrom several nearby Penikese islands. The 1990 census identified a residential developments and historically has suf­ population for Gosnold of 98 people, but even with feredfrom periodic eutrophication. Buttermilk Bay the limited accessibility ofthe islands, the popula­ also experiences some oil pollutionfrom the large tion does increase in summer with a small influx of number of boats thatfrequent this area. Onset Bay, tourists. Gosnold maintains no real manufacturing immediately southwest of Buttermilk Bay, experi­ or industry, with the exception of a handful of small ences much the same inputs from the substantial businesses serving the few residents. surrounding development. Cranberry growing is also Noncoastal: prevalent in these areas, but studies of bog and bay Fall River. Fall River represents a major indus­ exchanges indicate pollutant inputsfrom this source trial city in the region, with a significant manufactur­ are small (Gill 1988; Howes and Teal 1992). ing center. Although locally important, only a small Bourne. Three-quarters ofthe population of portion ofthe city resides within the Buzzards Bay Bourne resides within the Buzzards Bay watershed. watershed. The northeast comer of Fall River lies The majority of developed land is residential with in the Westport River basin, and drains into the bay, historic summer cottages now year-round homes. with most ofthe city's discharge entering the Taunton The town borders on Buttermilk Bay, an important River basin. source of soft-shelled clams that has been repeat­ Freetown. Primarily a residential community, edly closed to shellfishing since 1984 due to high Freetown is situated between Fall River and New levels of coliform bacteria. These waters also have Bedford. Within the town's boundaries lies a 1,214­ provided an important area for scallop harvesting. ha state forest, which has substantially contributed Some areas, such as Barlow's Landing in the vil­ to the relatively undeveloped nature of this commu­ lage of Pocassett and areas around Toby's Island, nity. Its resultant nutrient input to Buzzards Bay are alsofrequently closed to shellfishing because of waters is likely to be correspondingly small. high coliform bacteria numbers. Lakeville. Lakeville is a small but growing town Falmouth. Primarily a residential community, the that has seen recent increases in residential devel­ population of Falmouth increases from 27,000 in opment. The town includes several large ponds that the winter to 63,000 in the summer. Tourism is a providefreshwate r for New Bedford and surround­ major economic resource, with tax revenues from ing towns. Interest in maintaining high levels of 82 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

water quality in these ponds has focused attention pressure for development of year-round and sea­ toward protecting the quality ofthe surrounding sonal housing. Riversfrom the watershed discharge groundwater to prevent contamination of these primarily into Buzzards Bay, Plymouth Bay, and the source ponds. Cape Cod Canal; theriversflowin g into Buzzards Middleborough. A large rural town, Bay have their sources in the Plymouth-Carver aqui­ Middleborough lies partially within the Buzzards Bay fer. These rivers include the Weweantic River, drainage basin. The southeast comer ofthe town is Wankinco River, Agawam River, and Red Brook, in the Weweantic and Sippican drainage basins, with Herring River discharging into the canal. The which empty into Buzzards Bay. A substantial municipal sewage treatment plant for Plymouth dis­ amount of Middleborough is preserved for water­ charges into Plymouth Harbor and Cape Cod Bay shed protection and conservation and does not pro­ and therefore is generally not considered to influ­ vide significant pollutant inputs to the bay. ence Buzzards Bay. Rochester. Rochester is a rural agricultural Acushnet. The town of Acushnet supports a community with limited highway access and subse­ mixture of industry, residential development, and quently little commercial or industrial development. rural area and is located on the Acushnet River The town is drained by the Sippican River on the northeast of New Bedford. Runoff from the dairy east and the Mattapoisett River on the west. Al­ industry has been identified as the cause of periodic though there are numerous cranberry bogs in the low oxygen conditions and high coliform counts; town, water quality remains high in the waters flow­ although some reaeration ofriver waters is provided ing towards Buzzards Bay. A regional trash incin­ by a dam, this has no effect on the increased eration facility is located here that accepts trash from coliform populations identified downstream. Evi­ many coastal communities in southeastern Massa­ dence of residual mercury inputs has been found, chusetts. possibly from the historic use of mercury-based Carver. Carver is a rural community with large pesticides on nearby orchards (Terkla et al. 1990). areas of forest and about 40% ofthe cranberry bog Potential inputsfrom the municipal landfill to atribu­ area within the entire bay watershed (University of tary ofthe Acushnet River have been of growing Massachusetts Cranberry Experiment Station, per­ concern in this area. sonal communication). Most of Carver is drained by the Weweantic River basin; southeastern Carver 5.2.2. Economic Resources is part ofthe Winnetuxet River basin. To the north, and Water Quality the Winnetuxet River basin flows to the Taunton For a coastal community, high water quality has River basin, and the remainder ofthe town drains both direct and indirect economic benefits. The south to Buzzards Bay. Because it receives no health of valuable natural resources such as recre­ municipal waste input, water quality is good in this ational and commercialfish and shellfish species river, with the exception of some areas identified to depends on the environmental health ofthe ecosys­ have pesticide residuesfrom cranberry agriculture. tem as a whole. For many coastal communities, tour­ The Wankinco River makes up part ofthe Carver- ism is also an important economic resource. Poor Plymouth boundary and maintains many impound­ water quality seriously affects the desirability of a ments as well as cranberry bogs. Except for some coastal area for tourism; it can also affect the value evidence of pesticide residues, thisriver is consid­ of real estate, which subsequently affects the rev­ ered relatively clean as well. enue base for many of these towns. To evaluate the Plymouth. This town maintains the largest land potential long-term impacts of declines in water area in the commonwealth, sharing with Carver and quality on the local economy, it is important to dif­ Wareham the largest groundwater aquifer in Mas­ ferentiate between those changes caused by natu­ sachusetts. Plymouth has experienced substantial ral processes as opposed to human activities. In ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 83

some cases, activities aimed toward stimulating eco­ environmental management and economic devel­ nomic growth in coastal areas (such as increased opment plans. With pressuresfromdevelopment - development) can, if not planned with consideration and conservation-oriented interests, along with in­ for the potential long-term ecological impacts, ulti­ dications of potentially declining water quality in mately result in decreased desirability and overall some areas ofBuzzards Bay, increased attention is economic loss to the region. Environmental bound­ being given to the interrelationship between envi­ aries are more easily delineated than economic ones ronmental and economic factors vvdthin the bay and because the success of local economies is generally its watershed. closely related to that ofthe surrounding region. In A study of economic growth and environmental addition to local aesthetics, employment and busi­ change in Buzzards Bay (Terkla et al. 1990) has ness opportunities are important influences on the desirability of an area for development. Nearby identified population growth as the dominant factor metropolitan areas serve both to attract tourists and currently affecting the environmental health ofBuz­ allow towns to serve as bedroom communities. In zards Bay. The continued increase in residential that much ofthe attractiveness of an area depends development and tourism within the bay's water­ on its aesthetic appeal, it is somewhat ironic that shed, as for most coastal communities, represents the inherent beauty ofthe natural system may so the leading cause of environmental degradation that often lead to its environmental decline. One ofthe is primarily due to increased eutrophication from primary challenges facing managers and land plan­ increased nutrient inputs. This degradation may ners today is to maintain economic growth while threaten the economic viability of some traditional ensuring environmental protection; this is difficult to agricultural and marine activities. Agricultural ac­ achieve in that both objectives are affected by local tivities are likely to be more restricted as they are as well as regional factors. This is certainly the case implicated as sources of contamination, while ma­ for Buzzards Bay, for within its watershed bound­ rine activities (fishing and recreational uses) are di­ aries lies a wide variety of economic industries and rectly affected by water quality. Although the cost natural resources, each affected to some degree by of lost revenues caused by poor or restricted fish the other. and shellfish catch can be directly determined, the value placed on aesthetics and recreation is more Identifying the sources of pollution and evaluat­ difficult to quantify, even though these are the source ing their potential impacts on the Buzzards Bay re­ of much ofthe current demand for improved envi­ gion are difficult because, although many point ronmental quality. sources exist, the primary inputs are via nonpoint sources widely dispersed throughout the watershed. Terkla et al. (1990) reported that the Buzzards Another challenge lies in estimating the economic Bay watershed supportsfive primary economies: losses caused by pollution and the benefits of residential, manufacturing, tourism, agriculture, and remediative measures, which often involve overlap­ fishing, all in some way influencing the health ofthe ping or widely separated political jurisdictions. bay. Becauserivers,streams , and groundwater are the Residential. As with many coastal communi­ transport mechanisms for manytypes of estuarine ties, the Buzzards Bay watershed has seen signifi­ contamination, a pollutant's source may originate cant increases in residential development in recent farfrom the resulting impact Responsibility for moni­ decades, as evidenced by the changes in popula­ toring, evaluating, and protecting water quality of­ tion. The region as a whole has seen an average ten Ues simultaneously within different levels of gov­ increase of 31 people/km2 since 1970, with 50% ernment: federal, state, and local. The combination more housing units in 1988 than in 1980. This growth of these overlapping political, economic, and envi­ in the residential component affects the environment ronmental boundaries often interferes with the effi­ ofthe bay through increased use of on-site septic cient development and implementation of integrated treatment of wastes and lawn fertilizers, the primary 84 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 nonpoint sources of nutrients (via groundwater trans­ 8.3% ofthe area's total manufacturing jobs, instru­ port) to the bay. In fact, only New Bedford and ment production is the third largest employer in the Fairhaven support significant public sewer systems, region, replacing older industries such as rubber, with most ofthe homes in the rural areas and much plastics, and primary and fabricated metals. of the major towns of Falmouth, Bourne, and Although experiencing a decline, New Bedford Wareham depending on private, on-site treatment remains the region's major manufacturing center, (see Chapter 6). with 80% of the total related employment. Residential nutrient loading is magnified because Historic manufacturing practices severely impacted many summer communities that were originally built the environmental health of New Bedford Harbor, close to bay waters and developed at high densities specifically the so-called "inner harbor," which had have been or are now being converted to year- significant textile and metal-related industries. The round residences. Regulationsfrequently permitted production of electrical equipment and machinery, thistype of intense development with limited leach­ the second-largest manufacturing sector in New ingfieldare a (one-fifth of that required for year- Bedford, has historically been a major polluter spe­ round occupation) under the rationale that summer­ cifically to New Bedford Harbor. With new envi­ time water tables were lower, allowing for increased ronmental regulations in the late 1970's, the two filtration ofcontaminants , and that the leaching fieldsmajo r electronicsfirmsusin g PCB's were required would "cleanse themselves" during the balance of to replace them with other materials. Because of the year when not in use. Considering that nitrogen their persistence in the environment, however, (a major potential contaminant to coastal waters) is PCB's discharged into the Acushnet River and New not significantly altered in groundwater transport, Bedford Harbor still remain at levels well in excess the concurrent increase in nutrient loading as these of EPA guidelines in the water column (parts per summer homes are converted to full-time occupancy billion vs. EPA standards of 1 part per trillion). Sedi­ may substantially increase the potential for eutrophi­ ment contamination with PCB's has resulted in the cation in the bay's shallower coves and embayments closure of thousands of hectares to the harvest of without an obvious increase in housing stock. shellfish and lobsters since 1979. Although PCB's The desirability of an area for residential devel­ have been replaced in the manufacturing industry, opment is dependent to a significant extent on aes­ municipal wastewater continues to contain signifi­ thetics. Although most ofBuzzards Bay and its as­ cant levels. Metal wastesfrom fabrication and pri­ sociated coves and harbors are still relatively clean, mary metal industries contribute wastewater con­ increasedfrequency of eutrophic events and in­ taminated with heavy metals, acids, and other ma­ creased closures caused by coliform bacteria are terials. Separation of metals "in-house" and land- becoming a factor. The towns surrounding Buzzards based disposal of contaminated sludges have less­ Bay face ever-increasing challenges to maintain the ened the impact of these discharges on Buzzards delicate balance between increased revenues from Bay waters. Although Federal guidelines and dis­ growing development versus the potentially signifi­ charge restrictions have reduced industrial waste cant economic impacts of overdevelopment. inputs into Buzzards Bay, contaminants still con­ Manufacturing. Traditional manufacturing in­ tinue to enter through the city's sewerage system. dustries around Buzzards Bay include textiles, print­ Because ofthe dominance of New Bedford as an ing, building materials, primary metals, and paper, industrial center, the environmental impact by in­ as well as marine-related industries such as boat dustrial pollution to Buzzards Bay is largely con­ building and repair. In recent years manufacture of fined to the Acushnet River and New Bedford In­ advanced oceanographic instrumentation, partially ner and Outer harbors. related to the proximity to Woods Hole research Tourism. Tourism provides a major economic institutions, has become an expanding industry. With resource to Buzzards Bay communities, especially ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 85 the towns of Falmouth, Bourne, and Wareham. fertilizers (Howes and Teal 1992). The dairy in­ Those same qualities that make the Buzzards Bay dustry, however, is a major generator of fecal region attractive for residential growth are also re­ pollution through runoff, primarily in the Westport sponsible for attracting tourists. Maintaining the natu­ River area. ral resources on which the tourism industry is based With increasing concern over excessive nutrient requires a careful balance between protection of inputs, it is commonly believed that agriculture rep­ natural resources and accommodating the demands resents an important nonpoint source of these pol­ for access, especially to some ofthe most sensitive lutants to coastal waters. In the drainage area around yet desirable areas. Employment in the two major Buzzards Bay, cranberry growing is by far the larg­ tourist sectors, lodging and restaurants, has roughly est agricultural land use, occupying some 2,695 ha doubled in the Buzzards Bay region since 1970, around the head ofthe bay. Cranberry bogs are and the growth in tourist numbers has been even classified as wetlands; although highly modified from larger. With this surge in tourism comes a parallel natural wetlands and managed so the plants are increase in water activities such as boating, fishing, growing in well-drained soil, there are still periods and shellfishing and growth in marine-related when the soils are completely saturated (Fig. 5.1). businesses. Bogs, frequently created from swamps or low- The seasonal influx oftourist s to communities in lying areas, are sited near readily available water, the Buzzards Bay region raises their populations by usually with a stream flowing through them which almost three-fold, increasing nutrient loading at a then flows into coastal waters. Cranberry bogs are time when nearshore coastal waters are most sus­ flooded during certaintimes of year, in conjunction ceptible to additional inputs. Parallel increases in with insect and disease control, harvesting, and frost recreational boating activities can increase turbidity protection. Although some of this water may be in shallow, nearshore waters, decreasing light pen­ pumped back into reservoirs when the bogs are etration with negative ecological consequences, drained, eventually it all reaches the coast. notably the potential loss of valuable eelgrass beds. Cranberry bogs located within the Buzzards Bay In addition, boat septic discharges add pollutants watershed contribute about half of Massachusetts (although major efforts are underway to increase cranberry production. Although concentrated in the availability ofpump-ou t facilities and to restrict Carver, Rochester, and Wareham (about 80% of nearshore discharge), and small oil and gasoline spills the total hectarage in the watershed), bogs are are associated with power boat operation. The natu­ ral scenic beauty and recreational resources, as with most coastal environments, are in essence the basic cause of their own potential degradationby increasing the demand for access to these resources. Agriculture. Cranberry growing is the domi­ nant agricultural activity in the Buzzards Bay water­ shed, with dairy cattle fanning second. There are 12 times more cranberry growers than dairy farm­ ers, with economic revenues outstripping dairy pro­ duction 30 to 1 (Terkla et al. 1990). Although both have been identified as potential sources of pollu­ tion to Buzzards Bay, recent evidence indicates that cranberry production contributes only very small amounts of toxic contaminantsfrom pesticides (Gil Fig. 5.1. Aerial view of a cranberry bog within the 1988) and minimal amounts of nitrogen from Buzzards Bay watershed. Photo by B. Howes. 86 BIOLOGICAL REPORT31 predominant in the watershed contributing to the one-third ofthe amount of dissolved inorganic ni­ head ofthe bay (Fig. 5.2). Two primary methods trogen (DIN, a readily bioavailable form of nitro­ are used in cranberry harvest: water harvesting, gen) per unit area compared to detailed studies of a whereby bogs are flooded during the harvest sea­ natural wetland, Great Sippewissett Salt Marsh son and thefloatingberrie s can easily be gathered (Valiela and Teal 1979). The partem of loss is on the surface ofthe water, and dry harvest, where roughly the same for both systems, with greatest the berries are mechanically scooped dry, which losses occurring during the coolest parts ofthe year tends to damage the vines. The disadvantage of wet when the receiving coastal waters are less sensitive harvest is more rapid deterioration ofthe berries, to inputs. with these generally processed for juice or sauce The dairy industry has been identified as a po­ (90%o ofthe national cranberry market). Dry-har­ tentially important source of agriculturally based vested berries are generally sold fresh or frozen, pollution to Buzzards Bay waters. The towns of making up the balance ofthe market. Carver, Rochester, and Westport are the primary Cranberry cultivation has often been scrutinized sites within the watershed, with only Westport lo­ for its potential as a source of pollution to coastal cated directly on the bay. All of these towns have waters in that fertilization and pesticide application seen a decrease in agricultural activities in recent are common practices in this agriculture (Fig. 5.3). decades as residential development has replaced Increased demand for cranberry products has gen­ farmland. Ofthe three towns, Westport supports erally resulted in more efficient agricultural prac­ most ofthe dairy industry, although it has declined tices rather than overall areal growth, with chemical by more than half in the past two decades. How­ application methods becoming increasingly sophis­ ever, closures of shellfish areas because of bacte­ ticated to maximize yields. A constant concern has rial contamination have become morefrequent even been the potential for coastal eutrophication result­ while the total number of dairy cows has decreased ingfrom nutrient losses through runoff and ground­ because the density of cattle per hectare in many waterflow.However , measurements of inputs and areas has increased. The greater density has in­ lossesfrom a major cranberry bog into the head of creased manure concentrations in some places, Buzzards Bay (Buttermilk Bay) indicate that losses causing higher inputs in runoff from pastures and are small, comparable to those generated by low- feedlots to streams entering theriveran d bay. As density (0.4 ha) residential development and cer­ more land is convertedfrom agricultural to residen­ tainly less than those of other dominant shoreline tial housing, pollutant inputsfromth e dairy industry uses around the bay (Howes and Teal 1992). Nu­ will be replaced, most likely with somewhat differ­ trient retention by the bogs is consistent with crop ent but nevertheless significant inputsfromhumans . management practices to prevent overfertilization, Marine Economy. The marine economy in Buz­ which tends to reduce yields by encouraging ex­ zards Bay consists primarily of commercial finfishing cessive vegetative growth. Generally, growers in the and shellfishing, although commercialfinfishing is Buzzards Bay watershed apply only enough fertil­ prohibited in the central bay. Much ofthe com­ izer to compensate for the nitrogen lost in berry mercial fishingfleet is based out of New Bedford, harvest. Pesticides generally used in cranberry ag­ with mostfishing activities concentrated offshore. riculture have been approved by EPA for applica­ The shellfishing industry, however, is centered pri­ tion, and most have short life spans in the environ­ marily within Buzzards Bay. Four major species of ment. With the increased use of recycled bog wa­ shellfish are harvested—quahogs (or hard-shelled ter (primarily due to limited water supplies), residual clams, Mercenaria mercenaria), oysters, soft- pesticides and nutrients are given additional oppor­ shelled clams (or steamers), and bay scallops (see tunity to become sequestered within the bog before also Chapter 4). Quahogs represent the largest por­ the potential for loss to adjacent coastal waters. tion ofthe shellfishery, yet significant numbers of Although fertilized, the bog loses about one-half to the other major species are harvested each year. ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 87

BUZZARDS BAY Drainage Basin r-) / (&~S' /&K- •* 4 ' VA-^

I

WESTPORT

BB Cranberry Bog Salt Water Marsh ESI Densely Populated ES3 Rivers E 3 Drainage Basin Line

Adapted

F/g. 5.2. Location of major cranberry bogs around Buzzards Bay 88 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

shallow nearshore embayments. The impact ofthe shellfishery (and recreationalfinfishery)o n the ma­ rine economy is much greater than value ofthe an­ nual catch because both support secondary indus­ tries and tourism. 5.3. Fisheries -saaar-. Although early records offish catches in Buz­ zards Bay are quite limited, it is clear that fish rep­ «H^^gj0gS^t* resent one ofthe most important resources ofthe Fig, 5.3. Spray irrigation on cranberry bogs, the bay. After the initial establishment of fanning to en­ primary method for application of fertilizer and sure an adequate food supply, the early settlers pesticides, although flooding is also used for pest control. Photo by B. Howes. turned toward the bay to supplement their diets. Salted and driedfish,primaril y cod and mackerel, kept well and are frequently referred to in the his­ toric literature, although many other species were also caught in the bay for immediate consumption. As commercial finfishing is prohibited within Schools of mackerel, bluefish, sea bass, butterfish, Buzzards Bay waters, the marine economy most scup, and menhaden historically provided a signifi­ impacted by poor water quality conditions is the cant catch in the deeper open bay waters (Belding shellfishing industry. Unfortunately, only limited long­ 1916). In the late 1800's, the bay was also a source term information is available on local catches, and of menhaden, alewives, tautog, squeteague (also much of these data are of marginal quality for our known as weakfish), and eels (Baird 1873). The purposes. The lack ofinformatio n restricts our ability extent to which Cape Cod's namesake, the cod­ to look at long-term trends in economic losses fish, was plentiful in Buzzards Bay waters is un­ caused by pollution or overfishing. Closures of shell­ clear; however, it has historically been part ofthe fish beds because of coliform contamination, how­ catch within the bay during late winter through early ever, provide a general idea ofthe increased im­ spring before it moves offshore during the warm pact of anthropogenic activities within the water­ summer months. The value of codfish to early set­ shed (cf. Chapter 6). tlers is evidenced by the fact that in 1639 the Gen­ Although commercial marine activities do con­ eral Court ofthe Massachusetts Bay Colony or­ tribute some pollution to the bay, they also tend to dered that these fish no longer be used as fertilizer. be the most affected by pollution. This is particu­ Cod landings for coastal Massachusetts vary widely, larly evident in the steady increase of shellfish bed fromarecordhighofl33,000tinl880to 16,000tin closures caused by fecal coliform contamination, 1965, and 18,0001 in 1972 (Clayton et al. 1978). originatingfrom road runoff, damaged septic sys­ Natural within-species variability compounds the tems, and wildfowl and other animal wastes. The difficulties with identifying long-term changes in fish average of 1,764 ha closed to shellfishing in 1970 populations within Buzzards Bay waters. For in­ has steadily increased, reaching an average of 4,452­ stance, scup were abundant when the early settlers 4,856 ha in 1988 and nearly 6,070 ha in 1990. arrived, notably from 1621 to 1642, but at some Although only a moderate portion ofthe overall point toward the end ofthe century they virtually shellfishery (primarily through recreational harvest), disappeared. They reappeared in abundance about soft-shelled clams are particularly affected by bed 1794 and decreased again around 1864 but did closures since they are concentrated in areas most not disappear completely (Baird 1873). Scup must susceptible to bacterial contamination such as have been an important resource, especially in the ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 89 late 1800's, as many petitions were introduced to surface swimming behavior made them a frequent control certainfishing methods to protect their ap­ catch infishweirs . parently declining stocks. Often the declines of many A representation of historical changes in catch fish species were blamed on the voracious and rela­ compiled for the Buzzards Bay Comprehensive tively nonselective feeding ofbluefish, which are fre­ Conservation and Management Plan by Moss and quently found to have not only scup in their stom­ Hoff (1989) is shown in Fig. 5.4. Records prior to achs but also rock crabs, eels, sand lances, and a 1920 indicated about 190 species offinfishspen t whole variety of other species. Remarks presented some portion of their life cycle in Buzzards Bay. by a gentleman named Atwood at the 1870 Con­ Unfortunately, few data exist from 1920 to 1960; ference ofthe United States Commissioner of Fish­ however, for the post-1960 period 100 species of eries stated that "all present" (including the com­ missioners of Rhode Island and Massachusetts) at finfish have been identified. Combining the two those meetings agreed "scup, tautog, sea-bass and periods, over 203 species offish have been recorded striped bass had within a few years diminished in in Buzzards Bay (Moss and Hoff 1989). This in­ Buzzards Bay," (Atwood 1820:117) but that over­ formation indicates that Buzzards Bayfisherieswer e fishing was not a clear cause of this decline. These dominated previously by Atlantic mackerel, butter­ petitions also referred to concern over the threat of fish, silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis), alewives, overfishing to mackerel. Mackerel are migratory herring, and scup (Fig. 5.4). Today the most abun­ and, swimming in large schools, provide a substan­ dant fish species in Buzzards Bay are scup, winter tial catch if found. Their transient nature, however, flounder, and butterfish (Table 4.2). Bluefish, striped made them somewhat unreliable as a sustainable bass, and Atlantic mackerel are also seasonally fishery, and although mackerel were easier to cure prevalent in the bay, using it in summer and fall as a than codfish, anglers were often more inclined to nursery ground. Young-of-the-year butterfish, sea fish for other more dependable species. bass, and scup numerically dominate the fauna each Nevertheless, mackerel were abundant, and their year.

Pre-1920 Post-1960

Fig. 5.4. Changes in reported fish catches for Buzzards Bay From Buzzards Bay Project (1987), 90 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

The cause for the apparent species changes is The Pilgrims would bury two orthree herring in each unclear but may only reflect sampling differences hill of com, a practice known as "spot fertilizing." from variousfishing methods (i.e., traps vs. lines) The success of com cultivation by the early settlers and sampling locations as well as methods of was attributed to this practice, since no other source recordkeeping (Moss and Hoff 1989). Trap fish­ of manure was available to them. Many ofthe fields ing, for instance, was common before 1920 yet is the Pilgrims worked had previously been cleared not used to any great extent today. Although most and cultivated by the Native Americans and had ofthe species abundant in the pre-1920 data were become depleted in nutrients. The herring were present after 1960, there are some real differences abundant, and the practice continued even after in dominance. Shad, abundant in earlier years, are animals were importedfrom England, especially for not abundant today (Davis 1989). Historic records com, to preserve manure for other crops. As is true disagree occasionally, as they do for instance with for alewives, herring were so important for food scup. Scup are identified as being important (but and fertilizer that laws were passed in the early not dominant) before 1920 (Moss and Hoff 1989); 1700's to prevent grist mills, saw mills, and other however, substantial catches of scup were also re­ water-powered industriesfrom interfering with the ported in 1888, appearing in such numbers "as to upstream migration of these fish (Fawsett 1990). bring down the price so that it hardly paid to ship The productive shellfish resources ofBuzzards them to New York" (Nye 18 89:160). Also, testi­ Bay have long represented a readily accessible and monyfromTheodor e Lyman, the Massachusetts abundant source of food and income for residents Commissioner of Inland Fisheries in 1872, stated living on or near the bay. The four primary shellfish­ that "no representative (ofthe 'white fishes') has eries are quahogs (or hard-shelled clams), scallops, been more abundant on the south shore of Cape soft-shelled clams, and oysters, with a relatively Cod than the scup" (Lyman 1872:112). Lyman at­ smallfishery in surf clams and mussels (see also tributed the decline in scup populations in these Chapter 4). The catchfromrecreationa lfishing of waters, including Buzzards Bay, to want of food, these species generally meets or exceeds that of traps, and bluefish. He dismissed pollution as a cause, the commercialfishery in all cases except for qua­ referring to the large numbers offish and shellfish hogs. Quahogs represent the largest commercial living in proximity to industries (Baird 1873). shellfish industry for Buzzards Bay, with commer­ Anadromousfishutiliz e Buzzards Bay for an cial catch generally exceeding the catch of all other important stage in their life cycle, the migration from species combined (Table 5.1). salt water to brackish or freshwater areas for the The hardiness of this bivalve with its rugged shell purpose of spawning (see also Chapter 4). Sev­ and ability to close tightly when disturbed or faced eral species dominate the anadromousfish popula­ with low oxygen conditions results in a relatively tions in Buzzards Bay: alewives, blueback herring, long lifetime for individuals of this species. Little- white perch, rainbow trout {Oncorhynchus necks and cherrystones are the smallest ofthe al­ mykiss), and rainbow smelt. Of these, alewives have lowable harvest, and they are favored for steaming, been historically dominant, most notably in the re­ as well as for eating whole and raw. Chowder clams gions of the Acushnet, Mattapoisett, and Wareham are generally chopped and used in chowders or other rivers. Arriving earlier in the year than herring, ale­ seafood dishes. Although catch statistics generally wives were usually caught for local consumption, do not break down into size classes, each class with herring often exported (Wilcox 1887). maintains a somewhat distinct market (even though Blueback herring historically have been abun­ most methods ofharvest do not discrirninate among dant in the bay; they were so plentiful that the early sizes). As the most important commercial shellfishing settlers would spread them on the land for fertilizer, industry in Buzzards Bay, the steadily increasing a practice they learnedfrom the Native Americans. harvests of this clam reflect their value to the Table 5.1. Recreational versus commercial shellfish landings for Buzzards Bay by year (in kilograms). 1977-1982 data from Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries in Terkla et al. 1990 (data not available on bay scallops and surf clams), 1983-1990 data from Steven Cadrin, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Sandwich, Mass. Quahogs Soft-shelled clams Oysters Bay scallops Surf clams Mussels Year Rec. Com. Rec. Com. Rec. Com. Rec. Com. Rec. Com. Rec. Com.

1977 517,068 358,888 198,814 0 30,046 35,562 179,444 1,244,134

1978 530,458 531,801 204,084 726 57,662 26.490 48,858 1,701,326

1979 564,460 490,251 199,439 2,830 6,260 15,422 320,350 1,022.378

1980 593,998 637,108 224,224 75,334 71,233 19,414 37,848 91,409

1981 607,316 1,352,381 232,570 29,684 70,326 38,683 34,619 153,825

m 1982 570,266 2,671,160 247,230 45,578 81,212 64,774 550,053 573.641 o O r ­ O 1983 290,259 2,309,659 61,182 12,481 28,658 14,098 17,908 90,482 0 7,348 2,859 6,151 O -< o 1984 125,479 2.209,204 85,585 43,524 13,608 92,453 5,906 69,466 1,497 44,144 2,722 4,191 Tl 03 1985 1,444,135 1,723,616 112,647 31,968 38,320 42,811 315,787 1,384,791 4,627 0 6,396 14,179 B TJ 1986 476,089 2,044,956 119,315 83,771 30,945 42,947 10,777 29,393 0 0 4,491 4,844 OT

1987 570,447 2,138,111 122,758 106,768 32,221 52,282 0 6,559 1.497 0 0 8,573 > 3 m £2. 1988 438,749 1.474,046 96,445 75,660 17,609 45,233 0 816 163 0 136 490 c 01 -1 (D 1989 404,647 1,566,907 92,553 59,189 10,435 11,009 272 6,341 327 0 218 925 TJ

1990 316,114 1,079,268 55,069 109,675 3,388 0 0 1,959 272 0 272 1,170 CD 92 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

fishery. They are the only one ofthe four major left by the Native Americans indicates oysters were shellfish species found in water deeper than about once very prevalent in the bay. Most indications 3 m. Before 1982, there were few deepwater qua­ are that overfishing of this resource is the cause of hog dredge boats in Buzzards Bay, with harvesting long-term changes in the population, as supported primarily conducted in shallow waters. The abrupt by declining commercial and recreational catches expansion ofthe deepwaterfisheryresulte d in a large over the past few years (Table 5.1). The appar­ increase in quahog landings (Terkla et al. 1990), ently declining populations of this and the other shell­ along witii aparallel increase in landed value prices. fish species have resulted in attempts to seed areas The highly prized bay scallop makes up an im­ such as New Bedford with stockfrom other areas portantfishery, especially in the shallower reaches within the bay. The requirement for suitable sub­ ofthe bay. Although generally carrying a relatively strate for the settling of oyster spat has resulted in high market price in comparison to other species, the establishment of new oyster beds in areas where the significant year-to-year variability of scallop artificial structures have been constructed, such as populations makes them a less dependable com­ the spillway for the hurricane barrier in New Bedford mercial resource relative to the more stable qua­ Harbor. hogs, soft-shelled clams, and oysters. The scallop One ofthe primary threats to the Buzzards Bay has only one spawning season and is relatively short shellfishery (although not the shellfish) is the ever- lived (only a couple of years on average); there­ increasing number of shellfish bed closures because fore, year-to-year populations can fluctuate sub­ of bacterial contamination. Routine monitoring of stantially depending on the success ofthe previous fecal coliform bacteria is conducted by the State of set. In addition, scallops may grow to marketable Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; high size before they reach sexual maturity (Walsh et al. levels of coliforms (greater than 14 colonies/100 1978), potentially reducing the number of individu­ ml) in a shellfish area will result in bed closure. Clo­ als available for spawning (Capuzzo and Taylor sure is done primarily to protect public health; how­ 1979). The fishery began in the 1870's, focusing ever, the method has come under scrutiny in past primarily on the western shore embayment of New years, as it does not necessarily reflect the ecologi­ Bedford and the Acushnet River, however, because cal health ofthe environment. Coliforms are easily of industrial contamination this area no longer pro­ measured and although not directly harmful to hu­ vides the scallop resource of the past. West mans are sometimes associated with other enteric Falmouth harbor on the eastern shore has histori­ pathogens harmful to human health. Shellfish bed cally been an area of high scallop production. In­ closures that are due to the presence of coliform creased interest and activity have been directed to­ bacteria have increased dramatically over the past ward managing the scallop fishery in recent years, decade, paralleling the increased population growth with attempts to increase natural production by experienced in the Buzzards Bay watershed (see transplanting or seeding scallopsfrom productive also Chapter 6). beds and commercial hatcheries. The apparent de­ cline in the population, as defined by the annual land­ Although methods of estimating shellfish catch ings (Table 5.1), has all but removed this fishery vary from town to town, total catch for Buzzards from the bay in recent years; the cause ofthe de­ Bay in 1983 was estimated at over 91,000 bushels cline is not known. (36.3 kg/bushel). Of this, 76,000 bushels were com­ mercial landings. In 1987, catch estimates increased Oysters, being somewhat limited in distribution to over 136,000 bushels, 94,000 of which were around the bay, represent only a small portion of from commercial landings. This increase was in spite the total shellfishery. Although found on both shores, of decliningfishablearea s available due to increased oyster populations are not abundant. Anecdotal his­ closures from coliform bacteria. The value ofthe torical information and the presence of shell middens Buzzards Bay shellfishery in 1985 was estimated at ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY An Estuarine Profile 93

$6,575,000 (S. Cadrin, Massachusetts Department Table 5.2. Commercial lobster landings for of Marine Fisheries, personal communication). Buzzards Bay from 1981 to 1991. Data from Steve Cadrin, Massachusetts Division of Marine In contrast to their reputation as a high priced Fisheries, Sandwich, Massachusetts, personal delicacy today, lobsters historically were so abun­ communication. dant they were considered "poor man's food." Landings Records from the early days of the Plymouth Year (kg) Colony described occasional "plethoras" ofthe 1981 97,088 1982 124,161 species thrown up onto the beach after a storm, 1983 144,033 sometimes several layers deep and often consid­ 1984 125,203 ered a nuisance. In some parts ofthe country, es­ 1985 107,653 1986 108,289­ pecially the south, lobsters were fed to the servants 1987 113,298 and slaves sofrequentlytha t a colonial Virginia gov­ 1988 134,674 ernment granted a petition that lobsters were not to 1989 143,401 1990 148.102 be fed to these individuals more than twice a week. 1991 131,868 Cape Cod appears to be one ofthe first areas to actually pursue the lobster as a true fishery in its ownright in the late 1700's; the well known Maine fishery did not support a lobster fleet until around 1940 (O'Brien 1990). What was once considered a nuisance species has now turned into a multimil­ lion dollar industry (see also Chapter 4). The reason for the apparent decline in lobster provides a small recreationalfishing industry. Lob­ populations for the past few hundred years is not ster traps require some attention and must be totally clear, but overfishing and in some cases checkedfrequently, especially in areas with higher coastal pollution are generally identified as the pri­ lobster populations, to avoid cannibalism. In con­ mary causes. In 1841 the average catch for Buz­ trast tofishing, lobstering is not generally consid­ zards Bay was one lobster per day per pot. Today, ered a recreational activity for the transient tourist; the average catch per 3-day set is 0.8 lobsters per however, the increased demand for lobster in fish day (Davis 1989). Compared with 1841, today's markets and restaurants around Buzzards Bay dur­ rate of 0.8 lobsters per day per pot appears low, ing the tourist season often results in inflated prices, but the per unit catch in Buzzards Bay is still rela­ frequently inspiring residents who do not routinely tively high when compared to that of northshore maintain pots to set out a few traps to catch lob­ fishing areas (Estrella and McKiemen 1988,1989). sters for their own consumption. Buzzards Bay today remains a very productive lob­ Buzzards Bay is important to the regional lob­ ster area (Davis 1989). The lobster fishery origi­ ster fishery as a productive spawning area and nally began around 1807 along the Elizabeth Is­ source of larvae for Massachusetts Bay via the Cape lands, primarily in Cuttyhunk. In 1880 the lobster Cod Canal (Clayton et al. 1978; Davis 1989). The catchfromth e New Bedford district (84,155 kg) percentage of gravid females caught in 1987 in was as follows: New Bedford, 22,919 kg; Buzzards Bay (31 %) was significantly higher than Fairhaven, 20,412 kg; Mattapoisett, 1,361 kg; those of regions north of Cape Cod. In compari­ Dartmouth, 34,020 kg; and Westport Point, 5,443 son, areas north ofBuzzards Bay maintained the kg. Lobster catch statisticsfrom the period of 1981 following averages: Cape Ann, 4.5%; Beverly- through 1991 show the annual catch to be rela­ Salem, 1.8%; Boston Harbor, 1.7%; Cape Cod tively stable overthis period (Table 5.2) and similar Bay, 3.9%; and Outer Cape, 16.9% (Estrella and to that of 100 years ago. The lobster fishery also McKiernan 1988,1989).

ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 97

6.1. Human Impacts and other commercially valuable species. For a major estuarine system in the metropolitan corri­ Over the past several centuries, Buzzards Bay dor, however, the entirety ofBuzzards Bay remains has experienced major shifts in both marine and land- relatively pristine, still supporting a diversity of eco­ based activities, many of which have affected the systems, benthic communities, andfisheries(Table s bay to some degree. Some of these activities have 1.1,4.1,4.5, and 5.1). The goal for environmental had a major impact on the utility and to some extent managers will be to maintain the diversity and func­ functioning ofthe bay, such as the construction of tions ofthe bay system as development continues. the Cape Cod Canal, yet have resulted in little en­ vironmental degradation to the system. Some ac­ tivities, such as overfishing, were identified early on 6.1.1. Cape Cod Canal as potentially detrimental to the health ofthe bay, The shallow waters off the easternmost shores allowing sufficienttime to implement management of Cape Cod have historically claimed many ships strategies. The impacts of other activities, how­ and lives. Attention was often drawn to the narrow ever, are only recently beginning to be recognized, strip of land separating Cape Cod Bayfrom Buz­ and our limited understanding of their long-term con­ zards Bay as a potential route to avoid these treach­ sequences hinders development of sound manage­ erous waters. This narrow, low strip of land, formed ment policies to ensure protection ofthe system. at the j oint ofthe Buzzards Bay lobe and the Cape Of these activities, the most recent focus of con­ Cod Bay lobe ofthe Laurentide Ice Sheet, had two cern is the long-term effect of nutrient loading on rivers that together nearly connected the bays. The the water quality ofthe bay. Scusset River flowed northeast to Cape Cod Bay, Although water quality conditions in Buzzards and the Monument River southwest to Buzzards Bay are still relatively good, some ofthe smaller Bay, with only a few kilometers of low valley sepa­ circulation-restricted coves and inlets around the rating their headwaters. Early settlers discovered bay are experiencing declines. While PCB contami­ this trading routefrom the Indians, who used small nation and oil pollution present significant problems boats to transport goodsfrom Scusset River, haul­ for the bay ecosystem, they tend to be localized ing goods over land a few kilometers to the head­ (e.g., New Bedford Inner Harbor and Wild Har­ waters ofthe Manomet River and out to Buzzards bor), with the major threat to Buzzards Bay aquatic Bay. Discussions were recorded as early as 1620 resources being primarilyfromincrease d nutrient regarding the potential for a canal to be dug con­ inputs. The growth in residential development and necting these rivers, and three centuries later the increased tourism arefrequently identified as the Cape Cod Canal was constructed along nearly the causes for water quality declines, the long-term im­ same route; the history ofthe canal summarized here plications of which are still unclear. Periodic eutrophi­ is extensively described in Parson (1993). By 1627, cation events occur when increased nutrient inputs the use ofthe rivers even with portage became a stimulate the overproduction of algae and phy­ popular route for Plymouth to trade with the com­ toplankton, which, with dark respiration activities munities along the Connecticut River andNew York. and decomposition, can result in oxygen depletion Many initial planning attempts were made for con­ in these water bodies. The impacts of these nutrient structing a canal, most notably when British war­ inputs are greatest in shallow, circulation-restricted ships blockaded the offshore route around Cape embayments, where lower rates of dilution and Cod in 1776 and later during the War of 1812. flushing are less effective in ameliorating the effects The project continued to flounder despite steady of additional inputs. In addition, stimulated growth increases in shipping and shipwrecks, as well as an of epiphytes on eelgrass as a result of increased increased concern for future military defense. Sev­ nutrient loading can cause the decline of eelgrass eral charters were granted, and there was even an beds, important in the production of bay scallops initial start at digging by the Cape Cod Canal 98 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Company in 1890, Each new proposed project was result from the large differences in phase and am­ larger than the one before, and all had their own plitude of tides in Cape Cod Bay versus Buzzards plans for dealing with the extreme currents that Bay, with a mean tidal range in Cape Cod Bay of would be created by the differences in tidal range 2.8 m versus 1.2 m in Buzzards Bay. Currents main­ between the bays. Finally, work began in earnest in tain a regular reversal approximately every 6 h, the 1909 with plans to include locks abandoned in fa­ westerly current being the stronger (due to the higher vor of a larger canal (primarily due to fear of freez­ tidal amplitude of Cape Cod Bay), with velocities ing in the stagnant locks). Five years later the canal averaging 3.5 knots (6.5 km/h), or 4 knots (7.4 opened under private operation (Cape Cod Canal km/h) during spring tides. The passage of large and Company), and the waters ofBuzzards and Cape small ships alike is closely monitored with extensive Cod bays were joined. coordination, especially for larger ships such as tank­ The new canal was not without its problems; ers or cruise ships transiting the canal, to minimize the swift current caused by its limited width (30.5 the chance for accidents that threaten not only hu­ m) necessitated good maneuvering by ships, and man safety but also the health ofthe environment. many boats hit the banks ofthe canal. Frequently two large ships could not pass easily in opposite 6.1.2. Overfishing directions. During World War I, the canal received new attention in 1917 after a German submarine Although it is often difficult to separate the im­ sank a tug and a string of barges off of Orleans pacts of overfishing from natural population varia­ (Cape Cod). The increased war-time shipping that tions as the cause for the declines in many Buzzards resulted overburdened the canal's capacity, requir­ Bayfisheries, it is nevertheless clear that overfish­ ing the Federal Government to take over opera­ ing may be an important causative factor. Commer­ tions and perform emergency improvements and cialfinfish populations were already being overfished dredging. When World War I ended, the canal was in the late 1800's with Baird (1873) attributing di­ sold to the U.S. Government, which began major minishedfish populations in major part to the in­ expansion projects from 1932 to 1940, creating tense pound net and weir fisheries in southeastern the system seen today. During this time, the canal Massachusetts. There were 30 weirs in the bay was widenedfrom 30.5 to 146 m at bottom level, alone, whose shoreline covers only about 10% of making it the widest sea-level canal in the world. It the Massachusetts coast but accounted for 95% of was deepened to 9.8 m, and the approach channel the total Massachusetts menhaden catch in 1876 was extended out to 28 km. The two highway draw­ (Goode 1879). In an attempt to restore the popu­ bridges were replaced withfixedleve l bridges (the lation, netfishingwa s banned in Buzzards Bay in Bourne and Sagamore bridges), and a railroad 1896, and the ban continues today. Unlike in most drawbridge was replaced by a vertical lift bridge. populated coastal regions where gill netting and Tolls were not charged for these bridges, yet the trawling continue to deplete manyfish stocks, the utility ofthe canal (foreseen in 1776 and 1812) was Buzzards Bay finfishery has been protected for confirmed during World War U when German sub­ nearly the last century. marines routinely prowled the coast. The canal is However, the major present fishery, shellfish, has now operated and maintained by the U.S. Army certainly been damaged by overfishing in many ar­ Corps of Engineers, Engineering Division, New eas, specifically in nearshore areas. Nearshore England. shellfishing in Buzzards Bay functions more as aquac­ Although significantly improved after widening, ulture, with management practices undertaken over the Cape Cod Canal still represents a significant the past few decades to encourage healthy popula­ navigational challenge. One ofthe major difficulties tions and allow depleted stocks to recover. Seed­ for shipping lies in the very strong tidal currents ex­ ing programs are conducted, especially for quahogs, perienced throughout the passage. These currents all around the perimeter ofthe bay, with beds closed ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 99

for periods to allow reestablishment ofthe popula­ not likely to be seen again soon on Buzzards Bay tion. To this end, an inadvertent advantage of shell­ shores. fish bed closures due to high bacterial counts is that Shellfishing historically has been conducted in shellfish populations are left undisturbed and allowed the nearshore zone by the use of rakes and tongs, to increase in size on their own, unimpacted, at least generally by individuals or small groups, which to by human predation. Were it not for overfishing of some extent limited the catch by virtue ofthe lim­ the shellfish beds, seeding programs would gener­ ited energies ofthefishermenAlthoug h newer tech­ ally not be necessary. The need for seeding pro­ niques are available, mechanization ofthe industry grams to maintain the beds in many areas, how­ has been slow, mostly for ecological reasons, as ever, signifies that the Buzzards Bay shellfishery has the primary method available requires large-scale shifted more toward a cultivated rather than natural scraping ofthe bottom, resulting in significant dam­ fishery. age to the system. New techniques such as hydro- Given the vast changes infishing effort and the dredging, using forced water to uncover produc­ quality of catch statistics over the past 100 years, it tive beds, have increased commercial catches in is difficult to quantitatively evaluate the effects of some areas; however, again the potential disturbance overfishing on Buzzards Bay commercial species. to the sediments has resulted in intense scrutiny and Some general conclusions can be drawn for a few potential restrictions of this practice. Assessing the species, however. Shellfisheries form the best data impact of overfishing on the scallop industry is more base because they involve sessile populations and complex owing to the scallop's single spawning sea­ therefore can be thought of as local indicators. The son and inherent natural variability. However, since major economic species ofthe late 1800's was the scallops frequently reach harvestable size before oyster, distributed throughout the bay's shallow reaching sexual maturity, the impact of overfishing waters. The evidence is fairly strong that for this on the already unstable population may have great species overfishing for at least 150 years following consequences for future scallop populations within European colonization greatly depleted stocks, Buzzards Bay. which remain so to this day. Freeman (1862:50) stated that oysters "formerly abundant and very large One importantfinfisheryi n Buzzards Bay dating and finely flavored, have ceased" in parts ofBuz­ to the earliest colonists is that for alewife. While zards Bay. overfishing by nets at inlets greatly reduced the Goode (1887:272) reported that in the Westport population prior to 1896, today the harvest is again River "an ancient bed of native oysters, which has small compared to previous records. Much of this now nearly disappeared through too great reduction is due to reduced demand and therefore raking....not more than 50 bushels a year can now reduced effort in catch (P. Brady, Sandwich Branch, be caught throughout the whole three miles from Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, per­ the 'Point' up to the bridge." Compare this with sonal communication), but it also appears to be a roughly 400 bushels per year for the entire Westport result ofthe lack of maintenance of "herring runs" River embaymentfrom 1977 to 1987 (Terkla etal. or waterways, usually streams that lead fromfresh­ 1990). Similarly, even Wareham, which was once water and brackish water ponds out to the sea. His­ reputed to have the "choicest brand" of oysters, toric waterways have been dammed,fish ladders supports few today. How much the lack of recov­ have fallen into disrepair, pond flows have been al­ ery resultsfromth e continuousfishing of a depleted tered by development, and natural processes that stock (currently at 4,000 bushels/year) and how affect small flows in the coastal zone have all re­ much from habitat destruction and disease is un­ sulted in the decline of herring populations (D. clear, but the day of "oisters...a foot long...so bit it Bourne, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, must admit of a division to be got in your mouth" personal communication). Without a clear freshwa­ (Wood 1634 as quoted by Goode 1887:731) are ter to saltwater pathway, which is required during 100 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 the life cycle of this species, population declines have nearly 5,990 ha by the end ofthe decade, and 1992 been caused by physical obstacles rather than over­ closures averaged approximately 6,070 ha. The fishing or chemical perturbation (see also Chapter growing increase in closures during the past decade 4). The alewife fishery is indicative ofthe variety of has had a significant impact on the shellfishery and factors that may causefish stocks to decline and has directed attention to the advancing ecological underscores the need for sound biological data for and economic threats posed by declining water ecological management. quality conditions in some areas ofthe bay associ­ ated with sewage inputs (Fig. 6.1). 6.1.3. Bacterial Contamination 6.1.4. Toxic Pollutants Bacterial shellfish closures have been docu­ mented for Buzzards Bay since the early 1900's, The variety of potential sources of toxic con­ primarily as the result of illness linked to the dis­ taminants to Buzzards Bay are as wide as the vari­ charge of raw sewage. Unfortunately, bacterial con­ ety of potential contaminants. Toxic chemicals, in­ tamination of shellfish beds in the early part ofthe cluding petroleum hydrocarbons, PCB's, pesticides, century was generally identified only after resulting organic compounds, and metals, can enter the bay public health impacts were felt, with water tested through point and nonpoint source inputs from after the outbreak of illnesses. For example, only outfalls, runoff,rivers,streams , and atmospheric after over 500 cases of typhoid fever were identi­ deposition. Chemical contaminationfromindustria l fied among shellfish consumers in New Bedford was activities primarily occurs in the urban areas ofNew it determined that substantial amounts of raw sew­ Bedford, Fairhaven, and Dartmouth. Agriculturally erage were entering New Bedford Harbor derived chemical inputs (pesticides and herbicides), (Germano 1992). Significant restrictions were sub­ however, are more likely to enter through runoff sequently placed on the shellfishery, which led to and smallrivers,whic h flow through virtually all of the construction of a sewage system to collect all of the bay's watershed, most notably the areas of New Bedford's sewage and discharge it farther into Westport, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, and Mattapoisett Buzzards Bay, the precursor to the city's current (see also Chapter 5). sewerage treatment system. It was not until 1925, The most serious water quality problems involv­ when nationwide outbreaks of typhoid fever led the ing toxic contamination in Buzzards Bay are focused U.S. Public Health Service to develop a program for routine monitoring of bacterial contamination in shellfish areas, that other areas in Buzzards Bay, O Non-urban population including parts of Mattapoisett Harbor and • Shellfish bed closures Apponagansett Bay in Dartmouth, experienced clo­ sures. By 19301,174 haofshellfish beds had been o o closed. Thisfigureremaine d relatively constant for o years, increasing to approximately 1,700 ha in the 1960's, but with year-to-year variations caused by jp CO increased closures following major storms and hur­ ricanes. In the 1970's shellfish bed closures in­ X creased significantly to over 3,238 ha; however, some of this increase is attributed to the increased monitoring effort undertaken during this time by the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1990 2000 This increase, however, was dwarfed by the sub­ Year Fig. 6.1. Population versus shellfish bed closures for stantial increase in closures during the 1980's to the Buzzards Bay watershed. ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 101 in New Bedford Harbor. Unregulated industrial accidental spills, waste discharges, and boating discharges, primarilyfromtw o local manufacturers activities, and indirectly through stormwater runoff. over many years, have resulted in high levels of sev­ There are no major point sources within the water­ eral toxic pollutants in the sediments. PCB's, which shed, no production facilities, refineries, or petro­ were discharged into New Bedford Harbor and chemical plants; about half of the oil entering the Buzzards Bay via the Acushnet River andfromth e bay comesfrom oil "imports" to New Bedford, to New Bedford Wastewater Treatment Facility at meet demands for gasoline, heating oil, and indus­ Clarices Pointfrom194 7 through 1978, are maj or trial oil, and to the Boston region via the Cape Cod sources of concern. Heavy metals have also been Canal. In fact, one ofthe major ecological effects introduced to the bay, again primarily at New ofthe canal stemsfrom its use for oil transport re­ Bedford, including copper, chromium, zinc, silver, sulting in periodic (1969,1974,1978) large-scale cadmium, and lead. Sediment samples from out­ spillsfrom oil barges traveling northward (Fig. 6.2). side New Bedford Harbor indicate a gradual spread While the impacts of these spills are dramatic, they ofthes e contaminants. Fish and shellfish in the area are also localized and account for only about half of continue to maintain high levels of these contami­ the total oil entering the bay over the past 25 years. nants in their tissues. Because ofthe retention of Small-scale spillsfrom boats and fuel/oil harbor fa­ these pollutants in the sediments, fishing and cilities, leachingfrom pilings, and outfalls account shellfishing in many areas will continue to be pro­ for less than 10% ofthe inputs. The largest chronic hibited for years to come. In addition to any imme­ source, and the hardest to control, is runoff from diate toxic effects of these pollutants, their residential, commercial, industrial, and road surfaces bioaccumulation can also seriously affect offspring, (SAIC 1991). There is another potential source of such as eggs and juveniles of winterflounder(Camp , oil to bay waters, however, ironically from com­ Dresser, and McKee, Inc. 1990). This impact is mercialfishing vessels and small recreational boats. not limited to resident species, but also affects mi­ Buzzards Bay supports about 4,300 moorings and gratory species that return to inshore spawning ar­ slips and is the highway for more than 20,000 ves­ eas. In addition to the decreased viability of em­ sels per year. Recreational vessels discharge oil pri­ bryos, high concentrations of these compounds of­ marily as a function of outboard motor use, but it is ten reduce or delay spawning activity in adults the 200 or so fishing vessels that use 1.9-3.8 mil­ (Bengtsson 1980; Black et al. 1988). The extreme lion liters of engine oil per year, much unaccounted difficulty and expense of removing, treating, and safely disposing of these compounds (notably the PCB's), however, has led to at least one recom­ mendation that they remain in their present environ­ ment rather than being moved and reintroduced into a new area. Other sources of toxic pollution to Buzzards Bay include stormwater runoffan d landfills. Storm drains can often combine rainwater with oil and gas runoff from roads, chemicals from lawn fertilizers, and animal wastesfrom pets or wildlife. Landfills can be a major source ofpollutio nfromcommercia l and household toxic wastes that can leach into and con­ taminate groundwater and drinking water supplies.

Oil Pollution. Petroleum hydrocarbons enter Fig. 6.2. Oil spill from the barge Florida. 1969 Photo Buzzards Bay waters directly through large and small by J Teal. 102 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 for, that may represent a significant unqualified abundant red algae {Polysiphonia fibrillosa). source to bay waters (SAIC 1991). These algae, along with Spartina and Salicornia, Our understanding ofthe effects of oil spills on are the major sources of plant material to detritivores coastal marine systems has been significantly in­ in these marshes. All ofthe organisms in the imme­ creased through two ofthe oil spills in Buzzards diate area ofthe spill had oil incorporated into their Bay, which provided experimental sites for investi­ tissues, including thefiddler crab {Ucapugnax), gation of long-term ecological impacts. The chronic the marsh killifish {Fundulus confluentus), the impacts of these oil spills (both occurring within the ribbed mussel, and the herring gull. Fiddler crabs relatively short time frame of 5 years) have been obtained most of their oil through feeding on mud, monitored by researchers since their original oc­ detritus, and algae; mussels andfish were probably currence and provide some ofthe only long-term contaminated through the processing of contami­ data sets available on the persistence of aromatic nated water; and the gulls were contaminated pri­ hydrocarbons, the major constituents of oil and the marily from food. The effect ofthe spill on these compounds considered most damaging in the organisms, although still evident, had lessened after coastal environment 4 years. Although over 90% ofthe heavily oiled On 16 September 1969, the barge Florida ran areas were considered "recovered" within 6 years, aground on a rocky shoal just west of Fassett's oil was still detectable in a subtidal mud core at 10­ Point, West Falmouth, Massachusetts. Roughly 15 cm, and fuel oil hydrocarbons were present in 675,000 L of Number 2 fuel oil leaked into Buz­ some organisms near the contaminated salt marsh zards Bay and were driven on-shore by strong sites 20 years after the spill (Teal et al. 1992). south-southwest winds into the Wild Harbor River The greater recovery 5-20 years after contami­ in North Falmouth. The oil spread over more than nation in subtidal areas versus marsh was due to 400 ha, including 6.4 km of coastline, contaminat­ offshore stations being affected by physical and bio­ ing intertidal and subtidal bay areas and causing the logical processes that stir and weather the sedi­ death of many marine and salt marsh organisms. ments, increasing physical removal and degrada­ Much ofthe oil settled along a few meter band in tion of sorbed oil. The highly organic and reduced the Wild Harbor Marsh, resulting in significant losses nature of marsh sediments and their low-energy of benthic infauna and marsh grass, primarily environment limitphysical removal and oxidation of Spartina alterniflora. Blumer et al. (1975) reported introduced hydrocarbons. Twenty years later there up to 95% ofthe benthic bay animals were dead or was only limited evidence for oil hydrocarbons in dying in heavily oiled areas 8 days after the spill; 16 existing marsh species, and that residue appeared months after the spill, areas with more than 1 -2 mg to be a result from oil in less than 1 % ofthe con­ oil/g sediment contained no living higher plants. Most taminated marsh area. Crabs, which burrow in the ofthe fuel oil entering the marsh was sorbed into sediments and feed on detritus and algae, showed the anoxic marsh sediments with long-term chronic the greatest concentration of hydrocarbons in their effects. Even in high marsh areas dominated by tissues. Although present in only trace concentra­ Spartina patens, oil was found to have penetrated tions, these hydrocarbons still appear to be impact­ at least 115 cm below the surface. In less contami­ ing the biota. nated areas where Spartina had nonetheless been The other monitored spill that affected Buzzards killed, some regrowth ofSalicornia europaea was Bay waters occurred on 9 October 1974, when evident {Salicornia sp. germinate wellfrom seed the barge Bouchard No. 65 hit a submerged ob­ and often recolonize damaged wetland areas until ject while travelling northeast into Buzzards Bay outcompeted by Spartina, which grows primarily (Hampson and Moul 1978). The barge was towed from roots and rhizomes; Bums and Teal 1979). to the west entrance ofthe Cape Cod Canal and The abundant green algae {Enteromorpha anchored, leaking an undetermined portion ofthe clathrata) was highly contaminated, as was the less original 11,604,810 L ofNumber 2 fuel oil into the ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 103 bay. As with the Florida spill, high winds and rough certain chlorinated pesticides such as DDT and di­ seas made containment impossible, and the oil was eldrin. During the 1950's and 1960's, these pesti­ driven onshore onto Bassett's Island and Winsor cides were frequently used for mosquito control Cove. A substantial immediate kill of marine life re­ within the watershed with detrimental results, most sulted, affecting crabs, snails, and clams; shortly notably to resident invertebrate andfishpopulation s thereafter marsh plants in Winsor Cove began re­ (SAIC 1991). The pesticides routinely in use today sponding as in the West Falmouth spill, with brown­ (e.g., diazinon, parathion, cararyl), primarily for ing of Spartina, Salicornia, and the sea lavender cranberry agriculture and mosquito control, are short {Limonium). Although plants were recolonizing the lived and generally nonpersistent in the environment. affected areas after 3 years, the recovery was slow As with most chemicals, however, excessive or im­ and new growth limited in stem density and culm proper application may have deleterious effects on height compared with unoiled areas. Winsor Cove animal communities, especially fish in small was more affected than other areas, as it received embayments; therefore, routine monitoring of these repeated applications of oil through tidal inundation compounds is necessary to ensure protection of and consistent winds. The marsh became impreg­ potentially susceptible areas. nated with oil, and weathering was limited. The slow, Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Although minor chronic release of toxic aromaticsfromth e buried inputs of PCB's enter Buzzards Bay from boat oil impeded recolonization of plants and animals. paints, dredged material disposal, and atmospheric While the general focus will probably remain on inputs, the most significant input has beenfrommanu ­ the large and dramatic oil spills where there are facturing, primarily inNew Bedford (Farrington and obvious impacts, it is clear for Buzzards Bay and Capuzzo 1990; SAIC 1991). Contamination of likely for most coastal waters that petroleum is en­ New Bedford Harbor by PCB's represents the larg­ tering daily, possibly at rates greater than those of est single source of toxic contamination in the bay the spills. Regardless ofthe source, all petroleum because they were used since 1926 as insulation in hydrocarbons combine to create the potential for electrical transformers and as coolants and lubri­ cumulative chronic impacts to the aquatic systems cants. Significant inputs of PCB's occurred in the ofthe bay, each with its specific sensitivity and ca­ upper reaches of New Bedford Harbor from the pacity to retain or lose hydrocarbons. 1940's to the late I970's as a result of industrial waste discharge from several New Bedford firms Concern over the potential for significant envi­ that manufactured electrical components. Because ronmental degradationfrom future shipping acci­ these compounds do not break down into less haz­ dents has brought increased scrutiny to the regula­ ardous chemicals, they pose a potential long-term tions covering shipping through the Cape Cod Ca­ problem to the ecology ofBuzzards Bay and to the nal. Considering the hazardous nature of canal cur­ public health of residents who consumefish and rents and the ecologically sensitive nature ofBuz­ shellfishfrom the region. zards Bay, Massachusetts and federal regulations About 1451 of PCB's were discharged into the now require all foreign vessels and U.S. vessels New Bedford-Acushnet River system between sailing on register to be under the direction of a first- 1958 and 1977 (Farrington and Capuzzo 1990; class pilot whose license is endorsed specifically SAIC 1991). However, with the decline in PCB for the canal and bay waters. In addition, begin­ release to the environment because ofthe develop­ ning in 1992 a substantial effort was undertaken to ment of alternative compounds and an active pro­ remap the bay floor, primarily in response to sev­ gram to halt PCB discharge through the outfall, the eral groundings in poorly charted areas around the primary present sources to Buzzards Bay are from bay. resuspension of sediments inNew Bedford Harbor Pesticides. The impacts of pesticides on the and from atmospheric deposition. It appears that bay have greatly decreased since the banning of with the cleanup of the most contaminated 104 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 sediments in the harbor and the restricted circula­ throughout the bay. The PCB's migrate from the tion inland ofthe hurricane barrier at the mouth of highly contaminated bottom sediments into the over­ the harbor, most ofthe PCB's will remain in harbor lying water column primarily through desorption, sediments and be buried by natural accretion. At sediment resuspension by boundary layer currents, present, the major source of PCB's to the bay and through sediment reworking by benthic organ­ proper appears to be by atmospheric deposition isms. PCB contamination will be a hazard to the (Mayer 1982; Farrington and Capuzzo 1990; SAIC ecological health of New Bedford and Buzzards 1991). Bay for a long time. In 1982, New Bedford Harbor was selected Trace Metals. New Bedford Harbor is also by the EPA for inclusion on the National Priorities the primary location for trace metal contamination List ofthe Nation's worst hazardous waste sites, within Buzzards Bay. Metals, including cadmium, making it eligible for Superfund cleanup funds. The chromium, lead, mercury, copper, silver, nickel, and site of contamination is large (over 400 ha), with arsenic, can enter bay waters through industrial the most serious contamination occurring near the waste discharge, boat paint, sewage effluent, and head ofthe estuary, where PCB concentrations dredged material, as well as through atmospheric approach 3 0,000 ppm in the sediments. PCB's have deposition and natural rock weathering. Industrial been detected in thetissues of shellfish, lobster, and activities and the wastewater treatment facility in flounder, indicating mobilization of this contaminant New Bedford, however, are dominant sources of through the food chain, primarily through the inges­ these contaminants. Although industrial use of cop­ tion of contaminated sediments or contaminated per for metal plating, historically a large industry in prey (Fig. 6.3). Although the highest tissue concen­ the New Bedford area, is no longer prevalent, the trations are found nearest the site of greatest con­ use of copper-containing antifouling paints and cop­ tamination, elevated concentrations have been found per pipes for water lines continues to input low lev­ els of copper to the bay. Elevated concentrations of metals have been found in mussels, mummichogs, and winter flounder in New Bedford Harbor, as well as in ring-billed gulls and mice, indicating biomagnification ofmetal s may be occurring through the food chain (IEP, Inc. 1988). Elevated levels of metals are found in the adjacent saltwater wetlands and in the detritivores and their predators living and feeding in these wetlands. As with PCB's, tissue concentrations are generally highest in areas near­ est the areas of direct contamination (New Bedford Inner Harbor and near the outfall); nevertheless, mo­ bilization of these metals is believed to be occurring through food chain transfer within the New Bedford Harbor system, as well as potentially to Buzzards Bay (Farrington and Capuzzo 1990; SAIC 1991).

Fig. 6.3. Average PCB concentrations for lobsters and 6.1.5. Nutrients and Cultural winter flounder collected at various stations around Eutrophication Buzzards Bay. Note the high concentration at New Bedford Data from J Schwartz. Massachusetts Di­ vision of Marine Fisheries, and Buzzards Bay Project Although the basic ecology of much ofthe Buz­ (1987). zards Bay system remains relatively healthy and ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 105 pristine and in many ways similar to that experi­ called eutrophication, and when the nitrogen inputs enced by early settlers in the region, there has been are the result of human activity (as opposed to natu­ a major modification affecting the whole ofthe bay. ral processes), the process is termed "cultural This system-wide change involves nutrients, prima­ eutrophication." Cultural eutrophication is the great­ rily nitrogen. In 1602 when Gosnold was sailing the est potential long-term threat to the Buzzards Bay waters ofBuzzards Bay, the nitrogen inputs to the ecosystem. While toxic impacts (e.g., oil spills) can bay systems, especially in the shallow marginal ar­ have serious consequences, they tend to be rela­ eas, were substantially lower than they are today. tively localized. The difficulty with managing nitro­ Population increases (Fig. 1.5) of more than 100­ gen loading is its widespread distributionfroma wide foldfrom early colonial occupation to greater than array of sources. 250,000 persons today are the primary causes for Current nitrogen inputs to Buzzards Bay include the increased loading, although regional develop­ natural inputsfrom undisturbed areas, microbial ni­ ment leading to increased atmospheric deposition trogenfixation, exchanges with offshore waters, and of nitrogen has also been significant. inputs due to development: directly through sewer Nitrogen is a natural and essential part of all eco­ outfalls, precipitation, and runoff, and indirectly systems, aquatic and terrestrial. For Buzzards Bay, through groundwater transportfrom septic systems, as for most temperate coastal systems, nitrogen is lawn and agricultural fertilizers, and animal farming. limiting to phytoplankton, algal, and rooted plant Although the population ofthe Buzzards Bay wa­ productivity and therefore secondary production, tershed has been increasing steadily since colonial especially shellfish. It would, therefore, seem that days, only recently have significant signs of incipi­ increasing nitrogen inputs would be a benefit to the ent cultural eutrophication become apparent in many system, increasingfisheriesharvests . However, there ofthe embayments. One reason for this is that both is much current discussion about the problems as­ the distribution and the total mass loading of nitro­ sociated with nitrogen loading to coastal systems gen that determine the impact are related not to the and there are multimillion to billion dollar projects rate of population increase but to the number of to reduce nitrogen loading to the coastal zone. The persons present. The population ofthe watershed apparent paradox stems from the fact that at low has doubled this century (Fig. 1.5), but equally im­ levels of nitrogen in coastal waters, increased load­ portant has been the change in population distribu­ ing stimulates secondary production (e.g.,fish and tion to a more widely dispersed occupation ofthe shellfish); at higher levels increased yields may still watershed surface. be achieved, but changes in community structure The importance ofthe changing land uses and may begin to occur (e.g., phytoplankton species, benthic animal species, and impacts to eelgrass habi­ associated nutrient loading to the watershed, hence tats). At higher loadings, however, the increased to bay waters, can best be evaluated by comparing oxygen demand in the water column and sediments the amounts and modes of input from the major stemmingfromincrease d plant production exceeds sources. In addition, since there is no evidence that the rate of oxygen input from photosynthesis and the "natural" sources of nitrogen have changed sig­ by atmospheric mixing, and lowered oxygen con­ nificantly over the past 350 years and since the as­ centrations can occur (hypoxia, anoxia). It is the similative capacity (the ability ofthe system to re­ stress associated with low oxygen concentrations ceive more nutrients without deleterious effects) has that has the most deleterious effects on plant and only recently been approached for most of the animal communities, and that at higher frequencies embayments, evaluation of "sources" will focus on and durations results in the loss of stable popula­ the "new" sources related to human activities (i.e., tions and their replacement with opportunistic spe­ the ones capable of being managed). cies. This sequence of nitrogen inputs leading to Point sources of nutrient pollution tend to be dis­ low oxygen concentrations in aquatic systems is crete and easily quantifiable, and nonpoint sources, 106 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 which are more widespread and more difficult to Almost all ofthe treatment facilities' input to the identify and measure, generally reach Buzzards Bay bay is in the New Bedford/Fairhaven area, with the waters through groundwater transport. Point New Bedford outfall and combined sewer over­ sources have historically been regulated and quan­ flows accounting for 80% ofthe total inputs from tified, whereas nonpoint sources are a recent area this source. The New Bedford outfalls (113.6 mil­ of research and have a larger error associated with lion L/day) serve 98% ofthe city's population plus their estimates. 600 residences in Dartmouth and 60 in Acushnet. Point Sources. The only major point source Thirty-eight sewer overflows contribute to the 962 of nitrogen in the Buzzards Bay watershed origi­ t/year entering New Bedford Inner and Outer Har­ natesfromsewage . Other potential point sources bors, discharging nutrients, coliforms, and toxics to like maj orriverdischarge s and large-scale agricul­ bay waters. Combined sewer overflows are the fo­ ture do not contribute to bay waters (cf. Chapters cus of an ongoing remediation program (Camp, 1 and 5, respectively). Residential and municipal Dresser, and McKee, Inc. 1990); these discharges wastes are piped to wastewater treatment facilities are responsible for restricted shellfishing in this area in the more heavily populated areas ofthe water­ throughout this century. Sewage treatment plants shed. New Bedford, Wareham, Dartmouth, ' and combined sewer overflows are the major source Fairhaven, Falmouth, and Marion maintain these of nitrogen loading to bay waters, 1,210 t/year. facilities, and all except Falmouth discharge directly These facilities service about half of the population to bay waters (Table 6.1). The Falmouth facility ofthe bay's watershed and most of its heavy com­ discharges to groundwater by rapid infiltration and mercial and industrial area. spray irrigation. Although the Falmouth facility at­ Nonpoint Sources. These diffuse sources of tempts to lower nutrient loading (about 1 % ofthe nitrogen to bay waters stemfromresidentia l waste region's total) to coastal waters by adding a plant disposal and fertilizer use, agricultural fertilizers, dairy uptake and soil nitrogen removal step not used at and cattle farming, surface water runoff, and direct the other facilities, the facility still "imports" nitro­ precipitation, m total, they represent slightly less than gen into Buzzards Bay because the contributing ar­ half of the "new" nitrogen loadings to the bay (Fig. eas are outside ofthe bay watershed (Howes et al. 6.4). 1992). In contrast, the Marion facility (less than 1 % of total nutrient loading) discharges to surface wa­ ter at the head of a salt marsh, which performs lim­ Dairy cattle -1 5% Uncontammaled | Cranberry -1.5% ited tertiary treatment before discharge to Aucoot groundwater rAgncultural fertilizer -1 7% 0 7% - •—Lawn fertilizer - 3.1% Cove, and represents true removal (Howes 1993). Septic: Seasonal ­ 2 7%

Table 6.1. Nitrogen inputs to Buzzards Bay from sewage treatment plants. Adapted from SAIC (1991). Treatment plant t N/year

New Bedford 962 Wareham 29 Dartmouth 57 Fairhaven 140 Falmouth' 15 Marion 7 Fig. 6.4. Relative sources of nitrogen inputs to Total 1.210 Buzzards Bay water. Note that wastewater •Disposal by rapid infiltration and spray irrigation, transport through (sewer and septic) accounts for two-thirds of groundwater to West Falmouth Harbor, Buzzards Bay the total annual input ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY' An Estuarine Profile 107

As might be expected from the outfall data, ni­ compared to removing nitrogen loadingfrom septic trogenfrom on-site septic treatment of wastewater systems or agricultural sources. is the maj or nonpoint source with a total contribu­ Agricultural inputsfrom cranberry bogs, dairy tion of 320 t/year. Nitrogen inputsfromsepti c sys­ farms, and cattle, and miscellaneous crops account tems have been quantified within the Buzzards Bay for the remaining land-based inputs (104 t/year). watershed (Weiskel and Howes 1991) to calibrate Cranberry growing accounts for relatively little ni­ loading models. Septic disposal treats the waste­ trogen, about 33 t/year (Howes and Teal 1992), waterfrom almost half of the population, and with about the same as dairy farms and cattle or terres­ residential fertilizer usage (68 t/year) accounts for trial croplands (Buzzards Bay Project 1990; Terkla almost 80% ofthe nonpoint source nitrogen inputs et al. 1990). While they may be locally important originating within the watershed (i.e., disregarding sources of nutrients to the associated embayments, inputfromprecipitation) . Both of these sources reach agricultural inputs do not represent a major source bay waters primarily by groundwater transport. Re­ to the bay proper and are probably even smaller gardless ofthe original form ofthe nitrogen, the form than stated since the inputs from dairy and cattle of almost all nitrogen in groundwater is nitrate. For farming are based on the assumption of significant example, although both organic and inorganic ni­ runoff in these permeable soils. The conclusion that trogen enter septic systems, as a result of degrada­ low nitrogen loading resultsfrom agricultural prac­ tion and anaerobic conditions within tanks almost tices is often hotly contested at the citizen and regu­ all ofthe nitrogen released is as ammonium. Even at latory levels. The debatefrequentlyarise sfrom in­ the very high resulting concentrations (millimolar), tuitive awareness that farming uses fertilizers and the ammonium is rapidly oxidized to nitrate by bac­ from omitting alternative uses ofthe landfrom the teria (nitrification) generally after a few meters of nitrogen loading equation. For example, while the infiltration. Once the nitrate reaches the groundwa­ total inputfrom agriculture is from an area ofthe ter it is transported nearly conservatively (i.e., con­ watershed about half the size of that covered by centration changed only by dilution)to the bay shores residential lots, its contribution of nitrogen is only (Weiskel and Howes 1992). Even where large treat­ about a quarter as much. The comparison with ur­ ment facility groundwater plumes occur the amount ban areas with sewage outfalls yields even greater of removalfromth e groundwater is quantitatively contrasts. The sewered area of New Bedford rep­ relatively small compared to the loading (Smith et resents much less than half of the total agricultural al. 1991). area ofthe watershed yet discharges 44% ofthe Ofthe residential sources, septic system and total nitrogen load to bay waters compared to less fertilizers, the role of lawn fertilizers is more difficult than 5% for agriculture (Terkla et al. 1990). to quantify because they are applied at low con­ A frequently overlooked source of nitrogen to centrations over wide areas. Estimates of lawn fer­ coastal waters is atmospheric deposition, either di­ tilizer application within the watershed are thus vari­ rectly on the bay or via groundwater recharge. At­ able and subjective. Using data based on the num­ mospheric deposition takes two forms: dry (par­ ber of dwellings per lot size (<0.1 -0.2, and > 0.2 ha, ticle settling) and wet (dissolved in rainwater). The with 279,465, and 1,394 m2 of lawn, respectively) nitrogen in atmospheric deposition is about equally a general application rate of 0.45 kg of nitrogen per divided between organic and inorganic forms. In a 93 m2 per year, and a 3 0% transport to groundwa­ study of nitrogen inputs to a Buzzards Bay salt ter, the estimated input of nitrogen is 68 t/year (SAIC marsh, Valiela and Teal (1979) found a total annual 1991). An understanding ofthe role of lawn fertil­ nitrogen deposition of almost 0.79 g/year at an av­ izers is important for management, as they are a erage rainfall of 105 cm/year on each square meter moderate-sized source but present an inexpensive ofthe watershed. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen trade-off for controlling nitrogen inputs when deposition has been the topic of several regional 108 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 studies producing similar results. Because deposi­ organic forms in soil. The result is that the perme­ tion to the bay surface is direct, it represents a ma­ able areas with almost twice the deposition of im­ jor nitrogen input of 433 t/year; however, deposi­ permeable areas represent less than 4% (16 t/year) tion also occurs on the watershed surface. In im­ ofthe total nitrogen delivery to bay waters. Com­ permeable areas (rooftop, paved surfaces, etc.) paring all ofthe nonpoint sources, atmospheric rainfall collects an additional nitrogen load that, if deposition accounts for almost half (46%) ofthe directed into bay waters or shunted to subsurface total loading. While some portion of this atmospheric leaching pits, transports much of its nitrogen load deposition is certainlyfrom within the watershed, (37 t/year) intact to the bay (Table 6.2). the limited population and industry and the relatively Fortunately, most ofthe watershed surface is small area involved indicate that most is probably permeable and vegetated so that deposition on most due to the movement of nitrogen-contaminated re­ ofthe surface is not washed off but enters the soil gional air masses. system where plant uptake and microbial nitrogen Boat discharges that place nutrient inputs directly transformations can occur. In these areas, most of into bay waters have not been quantitatively evalu­ the nitrogen depositedfrom the atmosphere is re­ ated, but they represent a very small potential moved in transport, being denitrified or held in source. There are 4,300 slips and moorings asso­ ciated with Buzzards Bay, but the vast majority are summer usage and typically occupied only a few days per week. In addition, pump-outs for boat wastes are available around the bay (the nutrients Table 6.2. Annual inputs of nitrogen to Buzzards then becoming a part ofthe treatment facility in­ Bay waters. puts), and direct discharges are prohibited Nitrogen input %of nearshore. The result is a potential inputfromthi s Nitrogen source (t/year) total source less than 0.1 % ofthe total loading to bay Precipitation waters and an input distributed throughout the bay. on bay waters' 433 19.8 runoff - developed surfaces" 37 1.7 Compliance with proper discharge procedures re­ groundwater (uncontaminated)0 16 0.7 duces this source to near zero. The problem with Wastewater treatment plants" 1,210 55.3. boat discharges appears to be more associated with (Outfalls and CSO's) bacterial and pathogenic contamination ofthe wa­ Septic disposal of wastewater ters than with cultural eutrophication. (groundwater contaminated) year-round" 260 12.0 Comparisons ofthe various sources of "new" seasonal' 60 2.7 nitrogen to Buzzards Bay waters clearly indicate Nitrogen fertilizers lawn" 68 3.1 that disposal of human wastes accounts for most of agriculture (misc )b 38 1.7 the inputs (70%), with treatment facilities account­ cranberry bogs' 33 1.5 9 ing for 55% and septic disposal 15% (Table 6.2). dairy and cattle 33 1 5 Ofthe remaining inputs, precipitation accounts for Total 2.188 100 •Surface area = 55,000 ha, 0 75 mg N/L (Valiela and Teal 1979), total 22%, agriculture for 5%, and lawn fertilizers 3%. Nitrogen (TN), 105 cm rain/year TN was used since other inputs (i e, While each embayment requires its own nitrogen outfalls) include dissolved organic Nitrogen + particulate organic Ni­ trogen pools management scheme focusing on the site-specific "SAIC 1991 and Buzzards Bay Project 1990 sources and tolerances (Costa et al. 1994), it ap­ 'Land area = 1,103 km2 (SAIC 1991), 1 9 M in groundwater (Weiskel and Howes 1991), 54 cm recharge/year (Fnmpter et al 1990) pears that the major management issues must focus "Terkla et al 1990, SAIC 1991, Weiskel and Howes 1991 on waste disposal. •20 1% seasonal (U S Census, Terkla etal 1990), 155 molN person/year (Weiskel and Howes 1991) and estimate of 4P, 4 mo/H (Herr 1984) The potential impacts of nitrogen inputs from '2,695 ha bogs in watershed (Terkla et al 1990) and 13 kg/ha/year (total treatment facilities and residential inputs, septic sys­ bog export, Howes and Teal 1992) 'Terkla etal 1990 tems, and lawn fertilizers differ in several ways. First, ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 109 for more than 60 years in the distribution ofthe in­ retain or remove some ofthe load, thus buffering puts, almost all ofthe treatment facility input to the bay waters. Unfortunately, it is these same bay has beenfrom a single region, New Bedford/ embayments and nearshore waters that support the Fairhaven. The nutrient-related ecological impacts most diverse ecological habitats and productive fish­ of these inputs have thus remained relatively local­ eries, as well as much ofthe recreational and aes­ ized (Howes and Taylor 1989; Costa et al. 1992). thetic values ofthe bay. The result is that only a small portion ofthe bay has been degraded, although it is receiving almost half 6.2. Natural Modification ofthe total loading to the entire bay. In contrast, over the same 60 years there has been a rapid rise The land-sea interface ofthe coastal zone is al­ in the nonurban population (Fig. 1.5), which uses ways in transition, especially landscapes like those septic waste disposal and is distributed primarily surrounding Buzzards Bay, which are relatively re­ along the tributaries to the bay's shallow cent and are composed of unconsolidated glacial embayments. Although these systems in total re­ till. In addition to the normal surficial weathering ceive lower loadings, they are shallow and poorly that operates on geologic time scales, two processes flushed and mixed, giving them a lower assimilative are altering the coastal zone on smaller time scales: capacity; as a result, some are already exhibiting relative sea-levelrise (the level ofthe sea relative to eutrophic conditions. It also appears that there is a the level ofthe land at any locale) and storms. Al­ much lower per capita nitrogen load from septic though these processes have been acting on Buz­ systems versus treatment facility disposal; both sys­ zards Bay throughout its existence, the apparent re­ tems cover about the same population base but dif­ cent acceleration in the rate of relative sea-level rise fer in contribution by four-fold. Part of this differ­ has increased the rate of erosion and coastal re­ ence is due to additional nitrogen sources (com­ gression to the point of easy observation in periods mercial and industrial and combined sewer over­ much less than a lifetime. Coastal storms act in con­ cert withrisingse a level; however, the two differ in flows) in the treatment facilityfraction, but a maj or thatrisingse a level is continuous and gradual and factor is the removal of particulates, sorption, coastal storms are occasional but often dramatic. and denitrification associated with septic disposal (Weiskel and Howes 1991). The particulates form most ofthe "septage" removed when tanks are 6.2.1. Relative Sea-level Rise cleaned (Teal and Peterson 1991), and the signifi­ cant nitrogen that they contain is transported to a There has been much recent concern over surface disposal site or is put through the treatment changing sea levels and the potential effects on the facilities. coastal zone; however, relative sea level has been The incipient cultural eutrophication of the constantly changing through geologictime.Th e rela­ embayments compared to the bay proper stems tive level of land and sea can be modified by changing from their lower assimilative capacity and higher sea or ocean level (eustatic sea level) and by chang­ relative nitrogen loadings. Although almost all treat­ ing land level. There are many mechanisms that al­ ment facility discharges are to better flushed areas, ter land and sea levels: changes in the volume of the embayments receive nearly all ofthe other wa­ water in the oceans through changes in the volume tershed inputs, so that while they receive less than ofthe ocean basins by plate tectonics and sea floor 25% ofthe "new" nitrogen load, they occupy less spreading, or even sedimentation or changes in land than 14%> ofthe area (75 km2) and even less ofthe levels through tectonics or isostatic adjustment. volume ofthe bay (calculatedfrom Table 6.2). In While the whole variety of factors are at work in addition, much ofthe watershed nutrient load first the world's coastal zones today, in Buzzards Bay cycles through the embayment systems, which two primary factors account for therisei n sea level 110 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 over the past several thousand years: subsidence year variation in the records, all ofthe tide gauges ofthe land and changing oceanic or eustatic sea in the region indicate increasing relative sea levels, level. although the long-term rates vary. In the Buzzards The subsidence ofthe watershed ofBuzzards Bay watershed over the past century, relative sea Bay (and the region) is due to the after effects of level has beenrising at about 0.24 m/100 years (2 the same ice sheets that led to its formation. As the mm/year) with about 0.09 m from global sea level Laurentide Ice Sheet, with its Buzzards Bay, Cape change and 0.15 mfromsinkin g ofthe land (Emery Cod Bay, and South Channel lobes, formed and and Aubrey 1991). Whatever the cause ofthe rise expanded, it imposed an overburden on the earth's and regardless ofthe debate over acceleration in surface. This overburden resulted in a "sinking" of the current eustatic component, the relative sea level the land surface under the load and a rise around will continue torisea t least at current rates, and the the margin ofthe ice sheet. The rise around the modification this produces to Buzzards Bay shores margin is called the peripheral bulge, which during will continue far into the future. the last ice age extended along much of the Atlantic Effects on Upland Area. As the sea rises in coast with a high centered near Cape Hatteras (cf. this region, it covers (floods) the historic upland Emery and Aubrey 1991). As the ice sheet melted, surface. The degree of encroachment on the land is the weight was released and the land surface re­ directly related to the amount of land at each new bounded with a concomitant subsidence ofthe pe­ flooding elevation and to the erosional retreat ofthe ripheral bulge. The initial rise in sea level into upland face, headlands, and scarps. However, in Buzzards Bay resultedfromthi s subsidence and the Buzzards Bay most ofthe upland is protected from return to the oceans ofthe vast amount of water ocean waves, and the flooding over or passive re­ that had been held in the ice sheets. treat ofthe upland edge is the major contributor to Thefractiono f relative sea-levelrise resulting land loss (Geise 1989). It is not possible, at present, from eustatic (oceanic) sea-levelrise is of present to ascertain the incremental retreat at each point concern in that the rate ofrisema y be accelerating along the Buzzards Bay coastline. However, be­ because of climate change. Predictions of eustatic cause sea levelrises over long periods and the land­ sea-levelrise over the next century are driven pre­ scape in most areas decreases in elevation, it is pos­ dominately by attempts to assess the extent of ther­ sible to predict the long-term rate of passive retreat mal expansion of ocean water and the volume of ofthe upland edgefrom hypsometric curves ofthe "new" water enteringfrom the current glacial stocks, upland topography. An upland hypsometric curve both factors related to hypothesized global warm­ is the cumulative percent ofthe area of interest (e.g., ing trends. a town) below each measured elevation relative to Because the Buzzards Bay lobe extended south current sea level (Fig. 6.6). The curve indicates the ofthe bay and a terminal moraine extended south area of land lost as therisingse a floods the lower to Long Island, recent sea-level rise in Buzzards elevations. When used to detennine rates of loss Bay can be evaluated within this regional context. over large areas and long periods (25-100 years) The contours generatedfromman y spatially sepa­ in watersheds like Buzzards Bay, the technique has rated tide gauges measuring relative sea level in­ useful application, especially as a management and crease tend to parallel the historic margin ofthe educational tool. Laurentide Ice Sheet with Buzzards Bay at the pe­ Hypsometric curves for representing the ex­ ripheral bulge (Fig. 6.5). Recent rates of relative tremes found in the Buzzards Bay watershed. New sea-level rise in southeastern New England and Bedford (western shore), and Wareham (head of Buzzards Bay have been determinedfromtid e gauge the bay) demonstrate the low relief of the land sur­ records, generallyfromwithi n the past 70 years (Fig. face. The elevational distribution of each town also 6.5 A and B). Although there is significant year-to­ indicates its different susceptibility to upland loss in ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 111

MONTAUK -19 100

BRIDGEPORT NANTUCKET -13 093 -09 093

. PORT JEFFERSON 27 100

. NEW ROCHELLE Sr^r CAPE COD CANAL -07 094 -20 097

W1LLETS PT BUZZARDS BAY -2 * JOO -06 098

. NEW YORK WOODS HOLE -31 -27 100 1.00 SANDY HOOK -41 100

PHILADELPHIA 2 7 WO .

.ATLANTIC CITY NEW LONDON -22 100

-39 100

Top At the left of each record is the name of the station, the mean annual change of relative land level in mm/year (regular numbers) and the t-confi­ dence ofthe regression line (italic numbers)

Bottom: A. Positions of tide-gauge stations from above The edge of the latest Wisconsman ice sheet at its maximum extent (about 16,000 years B P.) lay along the offshore islands B Mean annual change of relative land level based on linear regression analysis of full records from tide gauges Contours show areal distribution of rates in mm/year.

Fig. 6.5. Mean annual and changes in relative land levels at tide-gauge stations in Long Island Sound and vicinity. From Emery and Aubrey (1991) 112 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

However, some forecasts of global climate change 60­ i 200 suggest that this rate may increase several fold over -SO" j ­ 150 £• the next 100 years. As no accurate value is avail­ g 40" able, predictions generally use a range of future New Bedford^^-^^- ^ r S 30­ 100 | rise rates encompassing the various models avail­ LU LU

20" able. Giese and Aubrey (1987) and Giese (1989), - 50 -i-.^-' ' Wareham using the large range of eustatic rise rates by 10" ^/_ . *-**^* 3­ i i Hoffman et al. (1986) and local rates of subsidence 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (Braatz and Aubrey 1987), estimated land loss from Upland area (%) hypsometric curves for each coastal town in the Buz­ Fig. 6.6. Hypsometric curves for the upland areas of zards Bay watershed (Table 6.3). The increasing the Buzzards Bay towns of New Bedford and Wareham. Adapted from Giese (1989). difference in the hectaragefromth e high versus low estimates of sea-level rise throughtime results mainly from the increasing uncertainty in long-term predic­

2 tions. In the near term (50 years), however, the dif­ the face of arisingbay . Almost half (47 km ) ofthe ferences between estimates are less than two-fold upland surface of Wareham is less than 12 m above 2 and with significant loss of upland, about 1,000 ha, sea level, while only 15% (7 km ) is this low for or 1% ofthe total land mass. New Bedford (Fig. 6.6). In addition to the direct flooding of upland, sec­ It is possible to determine bay-wide land loss ondary effects such as increased additional flood­ using hypsometric curves for each coastal town in ing during storms, coastal erosion, saltwater intru­ the watershed and the predicted rate of sea-level sion, and raising ofthe groundwater table will oc­ rise. The major weakness in this method is not the cur. The impacts on coastal infrastmcture will most hypsometric approach but the prediction of future certainly be disproportionate to the percent of water levels (Fig. 6.7). As stated above, at present hectarage lost due to the concentration ofthe popu­ the eustatic component is about one-third ofthe lation and development in the low-lying areas di­ total rise (0.09 m out of 0.24 m/100 years). rectly adjacent to the coast. As stated above, the encroachment ofthe sea on upland is occurring re­ gion wide (Giese and Aubrey 1987; Fig. 6.8) and indeed throughout most ofthe world. Effects on Saltwater Wetlands. In contrast 3" Hoffmanetal (1986) to effects of relative sea level on uplands, salt marsh Hoffman etal (1983)' area is not necessarily impacted, and in fact, sea- Robin (1986) levelrise is involved in the maintenance of healthy NAS (1985) tidal wetland functioning. The vegetated regions of Villach (1987) ~*0 salt marshes can be divided functionally into high Meier (1989)- £ Revelle (1983) -Q versus low marsh, where high marsh is only inter­ Gornte et al (1982)^" Oerlemans (1989)' Oerlemans (1989)^0 \. I Stewart (1989) Raperelal (1990)=^ ; L mittently flooded and dominated by Spartina pat­ - T 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 ens, Distichlis spicata, and Juncus spp., and low Year marsh maintains a more intimate contact with es­ Fig. 6.7. Future sea level projections by various au­ tuarine waters, being routinely flooded and vegetated thors. Hollow rectangles represent spot estimates, by Spartina alterniflora (Redfield 1972; 1967; solid triangles mark extreme ends of range estimates. Nixon 1982; Teal 1986; cf. Chapter 4). Dashed line is the trend if present "assumed" rate of eustatic sea-level rise continues unchanged Adapted The distribution of plant communities in tidal from Emery and Aubrey (1991). wetlands is predominately related to thetidal flooding ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 113

Table 6.3. Projected losses of upland acreage in Buzzards Bay coastal towns. Based upon low and high estimates of sea-level rise (SLR). Adapted from Giese 1990, and Giese and Aubrey 1987. Town land Coastal area Area of land submerged (ha) town (ha x 1,000) SLR 2,025 2,050 2,075 2,100 Westport 13.7 Low 27 48 77 115 High 43 100 308 577 Dartmouth 158 Low 49 87 141 210 High 79 183 563 1,056 New Bedford 4.9 Low 14 25 41 62 High 23 53 165 309 Acushnet 4.7 Low 5 9 15 23 High 8 19 60 113 Fairhaven 3.2 Low 32 57 93 138 High 52 120 371 696 Mattapoisett 4.5 Low 17 29 47 71 High 27 62 190 355 Marion 3.7 Low 51 91 146 218 High 82 190 585 1,097 Wareham 9 5 Low 112 200 323 481 High 180 418 1,291 2,421 Bourne 10.6 Low 36 65 105 157 High 59 136 420 788 Falmouth 115 Low 91 162 263 391 High 147 340 1,050 1,968 Gosnold Low 14 25 40 59 High 22 52 159 299 Totals Low 448 798 1,291 1,925 High 722 1,673 5,162 9,679 Estimated SLR Low(m) 0.18 0.34 0 52 0.76 Total from 1980 High(m) 0.30 0.67 2.07 3.87 frequency and duration. Along the eastern coast of ofthe wetland plants with little inorganic accumula­ North America, low marsh areas tend to be colo­ tion (Redfield 1972; Howes et al. 1985; Orson and nized by S. alterniflora, as is the case for the Buz­ Howes 1992). This contrasts with wetlands in ar­ zards Bay estuary. In fact, the region ofthe tidal eas receiving significant sediment loading from riv­ range (mean high - mean low water) where S. ers (e.g., Mississippi Delta) where inorganic accu­ alterniflora will persist appears to be constrained mulation predominates (Baumann et al. 1984; Sali­ to a zone of about two-thirds ofthe tide range (al­ nas etal. 1986). though subject to local variation), which is also true While accretion rates vary within each marsh, for Cape Cod marshes (Fig. 6.9). The difficulty in the marsh flats colonized by S. alterniflora appear maintaining low and high marsh within the appro­ to be accreting at the same rate as relative sea level priateflooding range stems from the need to bal­ is rising. This is the case for two marsh systems ance the accretion ofthe marsh surface with the proximate to Buzzards Bay, Barnstable (Redfield rate of sea-level rise. In the southeastern Massa­ 1972) and Waquoit (Orson and Howes 1992). The chusetts marshes, accretion is predominately from continualrisei n relative sea level accommodates the accumulation of decomposed roots and rhizomes wetland elevation increase without significantly 114 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Tidal range (ft) Fig. 6.9. Vertical range of Spartina alterniflora in rela­ tion to the range of the tide. Open circles' positions between Massachusetts and Florida; solid circles, positions on Cape Cod. The slope of the line is 0.7. From Redfield (1972).

Fig. 6.8. Upland retreat rates for Massachusetts functions within the estuarine system, such as nutri­ coastal communities, expressed as the percentage ent transformations, spawning and nursery grounds of total upland lost per century at the present rate of forfishan d shellfish, etc. The rate of sea-level rise relative sea-level rise. Note several barrier beaches that results in the conversion of wetlands to open and sand spits are not shaded and are not included in water is currently the subject of intense study. the calculations of upland loss for their respective towns. From Giese and Aubrey (1987). Even if the wetlands can "keep up," changes will occur, and in the Buzzards Bay system the salt marsh area is likely to diminish. As stated, as relative sea- levelrises, the upland retreats. Because wetlands are composed of relatively unconsolidated sedi­ ments, they persist only in lower wave energy envi­ altering the floodingfrequency and duration ofthe ronments, and therefore they will be eroded back wetland plant communities. This necessitates a bal­ with the land margin on an open shore. The more ance between the rate of sea-level rise and sedi­ general case for Buzzards Bay is the development ment accretion, however. At present rates of sea- of salt marsh behind a barrier dune complex (Fig. levelrise, Buzzard Bay wetlands appear to be able 6.10). As sea levelrises, storms occasionally erode to maintain their elevation, and marsh drowning and the dune barrier and wash the sand back onto the the conversion of vegetated marsh to open water is marsh in a process called overwash (Fig. 6.11 A). not occurring. Given that almost all ofthe vertical With successive overwash events and continually accretion is self-generated (organic matter produced rising sea level, the dune complex is reestablished by the plants) rather than trapped imported inor­ inland ofthe initial location over some ofthe present ganic matter, however, it is likely that at the highest marsh, and old marsh surface can be exposed on rates of relative sea-levelrisesom e ofthe wetland the new shore (Figs. 6.10 and 6.11B) where it is area will be converted to open water. This conver­ quickly eroded by the direct wave actionfrom Buz­ sion will have an associated loss of wetland zards Bay. With the now-higher sea level, however, ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 115

Current

Mean sea level

Salt marsh

Unrestricted

Mean sea level

Vestigial peat Salt marsh (Sea level rise)

Restricted

Mean sea level Embankment Vestigial peat —

(Sea level nse) Salt marsh

Fig. 6.10. Response of the current barrier dune marsh system to rising sea level under unrestricted and restricted conditions at the marsh-upland interface

Fig. 6.11. A. Aerial view of dune overwash Storms carry the barrier dune back over the marsh where they eventually reestablish. B Vestigial peat. Remains of old salt marsh protruding seaward after protective barrier dune migrated landward over the marsh. Photos by D Goehnnger tidalfloodingbegin s toflood upland farther inland. entire wetland system migrates inland (Fig. 6.10), The result is that marsh species at the former marsh- and although each marsh varies, the net effect does upland boundary can now colonize over previous not necessitate significant wetland loss; in fact, wet­ upland communities. The total effect is that the land expansion could occur. The most likely result 116 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 for Buzzards Bay, however, will be the loss of wet­ (Sears and Parker 1981) ruled out domestic and land hectares. Much ofthe current upland/wetland chemical pollutants. border is currently or likely to be armored or graded Although there are many hypothetical causes for to protect inland areas from flooding by coastal various dieback events, the one at Nonquitt Marsh storms. is thought to be due to restriction of tidal exchange. The result of these alterations to the upland-marsh The adverse impact of impeded circulation within boundary is that as the bay edge ofthe marsh mi­ this type of system is extended soil waterlogging, grates inland, the marshes will compress into the which results in oxygen deficiency that can alter the upland embankments decreasing their areal extent physiology and growth of Spartina (Mendelssohn (Fig. 6.10). This potential mechanism for loss of and Seneca 1980; Howes et al. 1986). Between wetlands is a management issue that increases in 60% and 80% ofthe tidal volume remains within importance as coastal development continues in the Nonquitt Marsh between tidal cycles, as compared face of an increasing rate of relative sea-level rise. to other healthy systems like Barnstable Marsh, Ecological impacts of wetland loss extend out into Massachusetts, where only 10% ofthe volume re­ the bay and are possibly multiplied in that the nutri­ mains in the confines ofthe marsh system at low ent-buffering capacity provided by wetlands may tide (Redfield 1972). In Nonquitt, the marsh was be decreasing just as the loading from the water­ apparently able to tolerate restricted circulation for shed is increasing. several decades until storms appear to have caused Marsh Dieback. Alteration ofthe flooding fre­ excessive clogging ofthe culvert, triggering the die- quency and duration of wetlands, as a result of back event. changing relative sea level or in response to human Although dieback occurs rapidly, recovery oc­ alteration ofthe hydrodynamic regime, can lead to curs over longer periods, even after adequate tidal rapid, local large-scale declines of salt marsh plant exchange is restored. In Nonquitt, initial regrowth communities through a process called "dieback." along the denuded edges began immediately, with This response is similar to the initial stages of wet­ naturally invading plants having somewhat more land conversion to open water such as what occurs success in colonization than transplants. Four years when sea level is rising faster than the marsh sur­ later most ofthe barren areas remained wet or wa­ face can accrete. Salt marsh dieback is a poorly terlogged with little new growth, except for sparse understood phenomenon where large stands of tidal occurrences of rapidly colonizing Salicornia spe­ wetland plants simply die. Major dieback events cies. The remaining large denuded areas are most have occurred in North Carolina, Louisiana, parts likely due to the highly reducing conditions resulting of the mid-Atlantic coast, and Great Britain from extended soil waterlogging, as well as salinity (Goodman and Williams 1961; Smith 1970; Sears elevation in shallow pools and sediments on the and Parker 1981). The first documented case of marsh surface resulting from evaporative losses. marsh dieback in New England occurred at Nonquitt Concentrations of up to 55 ppt chloride were found Marsh, South Dartmouth, beginning in the mid­ in the top 2 cm of sediment in denuded areas (three­ 1970's. By September 1980 over 60% ofthe for­ fold higher than Buzzards Bay waters); however, merly healthy stands of Spartina alterniflora had tidal water salinities did not appear significantly el­ become denuded. The marsh lies along the south­ evated (D. Goehringer, unpublished data). It ap­ western shore ofBuzzards Bay and is bordered on pears that as plants recolonize the edges of this three sides by hardwood and pine upland and by a marsh, sediment characteristics become more fa­ barrier beach and road running parallel to the shore. vorable for growth with increased oxidation ofthe Tidal exchange with the bay is through a culvert run­ sediments in the presence of plants (Howes et al. ning under the road, which operated for over four 1986). Without restriction to circulation, much of decades prior to the dieback event. Investigations the wetland probably will recover to predieoff con­ conducted into the potential cause of this dieback ditions. On the other hand, the settling of peat and ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 117 erosion ofthe marsh surface in many areas has cre­ problems because the effects are not readily ob­ ated shallow depressions that retain standing water servable on an annual scale. and are likely to restrict regrowth for many more Although storm occurrence is irregular and un­ years. predictablefromyea r to year, over longer periods there is a probability of a major storm every 1 -2 6.2.2. Storms years and smaller storms at a much higher frequency (Fig. 6.12; Aubrey and Speer 1984). Storm oc­ In contrast to the gradual effects of continuous currence is seasonal, composed of the Atlantic tropi­ relative sea-level rise, storms are infrequent and cal storms in late summer and fall and northeast sometimes cause major physical and biological storms of winter. In all, there have been at least 160 changes in a matter of moments. The reason for the gales (wind greater than 15 m/s) in the Atlantic temporal disparity is that sea-levelrise in Buzzards coastal region of Cape Cod from 1870 to 1975 Bay is caused by geologic processes of land sub­ (cf. Aubrey sidence and changes in global sea level, while the and Speer 1984). It is difficult to deter­ effects of storms are the result of rapidly changing mine the precise number of storms per year over atmospheric and tidal phenomena that exist for hours past centuries because the early records tend to to days. The gradual and infrequent processes that include only major storms. The apparent recent in­ drive coastal changes both produce management crease in stormfrequency since 1948 demonstrates

1910 1920 1970 1980

7-|

CO i M o 5­ 4-" CO 4 ­ .Q E D C « 2 ­ C i IQ Ll 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 Year Fig. 6.12. Cyclone activity affecting the area of Cape Cod (60° W to 70° W, 37 5° N to 42.5° N) from 1885 to 1982. Storm count is indicative of storm number and duration, not individual events. The data addresses long term trends in relative storm occurrence From Aubrey and Speer (1984). 118 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

the highfrequencyofmajo r storms in the region. The effect of this rotation in a storm moving north­ The magnitude ofthe effect of storms on the Buz­ ward is that the wind speed of its eastern portion is zards Bay system is determined by a variety of fac­ effectively increased by the storm's advance while tors, most importantly wind speed and direction, the winds ofthe storm's western portion have a tide stage, rainfall, and season. lower ground speed. The enhanced wind effect on Storms, both hurricanes and "nor'easters," tend the eastern side ofthe storm has termed that side of to approach Buzzards Bay from the south. Wind speed and direction are determined, in part, by the the cyclone the "dangerous semi-circle" (Oldale track ofthe storm center as it passes the bay mov­ 1992). The effect on Buzzards Bay is that storms ing northward. Storms in the northern hemisphere with centers passing to the west tend to produce rotate in the counter-clockwise direction (Fig. 6.13). the most coastal erosion and flooding.

Fig. 6.13. NOAA satellite photograph of Hurricane Bob, 19 August 1991, at 1131 h. The eye ofthe hurricane is south of Buzzards Bay, off the coast of New Jersey The counter-clockwise rotation of the storm can be clearly seen as the storm moves northward From Potter (1991). ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 119

The effect ofthe wind has greater consequences i.e., wave height on a surge on a high tide on arising than direct damage and producing larger waves; in bay level. The impact of sea-levelrise, on the other the Buzzards Bay system winds can also have a hand, is more constant and can be predicted with major effect on storm surge. Surge is the increase some confidence. An important difference is that in bay water levels associated with meteorologic as whileflooding by bay incursions during storms may opposed to lunar (tidal) events. Buzzards Bay is a produce "short-term" effects, an areaflooded due funnel-shaped estuary with the mouth facing to the to relative sea-levelrisepersists . Both of these Shetl­ south-southwest, a situation enhancing the build-up and long-term processes result in coastal erosion of wind-driven water (surge) most dramatically at and the retreat ofthe shoreline. the head ofthe bay as a storm moves northward (the normal path) and passes to the west. Surge is Storms do have some unique physical and eco­ also created by the low barometric pressures of logical effects on the bay system. Overwash of sand storm systems, especially hurricanes. The waves from barrier dunes onto salt marshes (Fig. 6.11 A) built up by storm winds ride on top ofthe surge, not only restructures the dune systems and some­ allowing them to strike the coast with greater force times tidal inlet dynamics, but also can produce and penetrate farther inland. changes in plant communities. If overwash deposits cover salt marsh to a level above all but the highest Given the positioning and structure ofBuzzards tides, they will not be recolonized by the marsh Bay, the ingredients for a maximum strength coastal grasses or by dune plants but sometimes will per­ storm are a major storm (e.g., hurricane) passing sist for many years with a cover of opportunistic near the west ofthe bay, maximizing winds via the colonizers (e.g., Salicornia). Storms can affect in­ dangerous semicircle effect, and maximum water land plant communities as well, not only through the levelsfrom surge coinciding with the lunar high tide. obvious effects of uprooting trees but also often These were just the conditions for the largest storm through greater effects of desiccation and salt sprays to hit the bay in recorded history, the "Great Long as almost all inland plants are not salt tolerant These Island-New England Hurricane of September 21, latter processes were responsible for major impacts 193 8" (cf. Potter and Steward 1991). The forward to the terrestrial ecosystems within the Buzzards Bay motion ofthe hurricane was 97-113 km/h with sus­ watershed during the passage of Hurricane Bob, tained winds of 121-145 km/h and gusts to 161 19 August 1991. The eastern shore ofthe bay re­ km/h when it reached Buzzards Bay. In the upper ceived almost no rain during the hurricane, but in­ bay, the storm surge raised levels 4 m above the • stead a spray of salt water was delivered kilome­ coincident high tide, with waters 4.9 and 5.8 m ters inland. The result was that many deciduous above mean low water in the bay's mid and head regions, respectively. The combined high waters and trees browned and lost their leaves, and a few died. 2.4 m wind-driven waves tossed rocks through However, among the affected conifers, particularly windows 8.8 m above mean low water at a site the relatively salt-sensitive white pine trees, a mor­ near the entrance to the Cape Cod Canal (Oldale tality of 50% was predicted (Potter 1991). The ef­ 1992). The 1938 hurricane was extreme but not fects of salt spray are compounded by the simulta­ unique. In 1954 Hurricane Carol followed the 193 8 neous high winds, which increase the rate of track and produced an even higher surge (4.9 m) evaporation from the leaves and hence enhance because the eye passed closer to the bay. It is clear their desiccation. that other similar storms have taken place and will Storms that deposit significant fresh water can continue to occur. also have important ecological impacts, primarily Storm effects on the Buzzards Bay system are on aquatic systems. The increased freshwater flow related to sea-levelrisealthoug h they differ in sev­ into coastal salt ponds and embayments carries with eral aspects. One way to envision the relationship it sediments and nutrients andfrequentlyresult s in a is that storm effects can be increased incrementally; temporary stratification of water columns. 120 BIOLOGICAL REPORT31

Stratification effectively isolates the lower waters storm events may provide a temporary local so­ from the atmosphere, which in nutrient-rich systems lution to land loss by erosion and flooding. Over with high rates of oxygen consumption can result the long term, however, the Buzzards Bay wa­ in depletion of dissolved oxygen (Costa et al. tershed will diminish in size, and the salt marshes, 1992; Taylor and Howes 1994). The indirect ef­ barrier dunes, and beaches will continue the re­ fect of stratification is a significant impact to the treat that they began shortly after Buzzards Bay animal and plant communities ofthe receiving first became an estuary. water body. Building seawalls and armoring the coast in the face of a continually rising bay and periodic >M^fy*r?»ipUi -*•

fc*£s

X? 10. 'jsjM

ftOHGI UDW05-. 5.SURHCYS

r 1-J'hH»Jrcrb» TlUVlf.^ '••IN * •.£V.V-*f.. -v .,­ ' " '.' Bii.ni>>

•£%£££?

sgF v--« --•• -: yyy ' • •> '^ySS^A/S-yy :;f

• ';^4*3Mi 1 '' - ; - --• ' • %9Sli^- - •.••

,, :^fe.;^J,.•^. * i *i - f?*y,r $&

(gjfi Vl"*' -x^;,. Uy'~£-

KaM&KZSKx* »# • ajraefetnL Mj&***% ' ? x^Sv* •. .

w*s •' £*i'r^ _ t „..»,,,,..,. i. J ­

*!*<" -"3­ -b;?"l 'iVft ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 123

For U.S. mid and North Atlantic coastal estuar­ various levels of contaminant reduction. "No ac­ ies, Buzzards Bay stands out as a relatively clean tion" is also being considered an alternative as seri­ and healthy ecosystem with abundant natural re­ ous concern surrounds the potential deleterious im­ sources and high aesthetic, commercial, and recre­ pacts of resuspending, hence reintroducing, deeper ational value. As more and more coastal sediment-bound contaminants to the active biotic embayments succumb to water quality degradation zone. As of 1995, the alternatives were still under resultingfrom ever-increasing development pres­ review, and new informationfrom research and fea­ sures, the desirability ofBuzzards Bay unavoidably sibility studies continues to enter the process. It is increases and threatens the health of this system. clear that it will be some time before PCB contami­ The effect of increased coastal development is evi­ nation no longer presents a hazard to the ecological denced by the parallelrisei n the number of shellfish health of New Bedford and Buzzards Bay. bed closures (Fig. 6.1) and increasing eutrophica­ After the discovery of significant PCB contami­ tion in the bay's smaller harbors and embayments. nation inNew Bedford Harbor, one ofthe first major Without proper environmental management strate­ regulatory actions was aimed primarily toward pro­ gies, the desirability ofBuzzards Bay could, in ef­ tecting the public health and was implemented in fect, cause its decline as well. 1979. A series of restrictions was imposed moving from the area of greatest contamination toward the 7.1. Toxic Pollutants better flushed regions ofthe outer harbor and out to where the harbor becomes part ofBuzzards Bay proper. The regulations rangefromrestrictin g the Most ofthe concern over toxic pollutants in taking of lobsters,fish,an d shellfishfrom inner har­ Buzzards Bay centers on the PCB and heavy metal bor regions identified as highly contaminated, to lim­ contamination ofNew Bedford Harbor (see Chapter iting take of just bottom-feedingfishan d lobsters 6). The concentrations of PCB's and heavy metals with distance away from the inner harbor region, in harbor sediments are so high in the inner reaches and finally to restricting only the taking of lobsters of this harbor (up to 30,000 ppm) that it was desig­ farther out toward the open waters ofBuzzards Bay. nated by the EPA in 1982 as one ofthe Nation's The closures related to this contamination have re­ worst hazardous waste sites, resulting in 7,285 ha sulted in annual losses of over $250,000 to the lob­ ofthe harbor region being declared the Nation's sterfishery alone (Ciavattieri and Stockinger 1988). first marine Superfund site. Subsequent study has Many ofthe closures related to toxic contamina­ identified 399 ha ofthe Inner New Bedford Har­ tion, however, are also areas that would be closed bor region as the focus area. Concern over public tofishinga s a result of intense harbor activities or and environmental health surrounding this toxic sewage outfall. waste site has resulted in numerous studies to quan­ tify existing conditions as well as to define potential Certain toxic compounds like PCB's are resis­ remediative measures. The feasibility studies for tantto both chemical and biological degradation and remediation have focused on several evaluation cri­ persist in the environment for long periods, all the teria: overall protection of public health and the while exerting acute and chronic impacts, especially environment; long-term effectiveness; reduction in on benthic animals. Many metals and PCB's are the mobility, toxicity, or volume of contaminants incorporated into bottom sediments; burial is the through treatment; feasibility (logistic and economic); major natural removal mechanism for these com­ and acceptability to both the State of Massachu­ pounds within the bay. Within New Bedford Har­ setts and the New Bedford community. Several al­ bor, rates of sediment accumulation reach 3 mm/ ternatives have been presented, including capping, year (Howes and Taylor 1990), which over time removal via dredging and disposal, and removal and will isolate incorporated compoundsfrom the ac­ treatment by various methods, that would result in tive biotic zone in the water column and surficial 124 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

sediments. Compounds may, however, reenter the fresh in the memory of many and provide a base for system directly by resuspension or indirectly by in­ management. At present, however, the inputs of gestion by benthic communities with possible transfer hydrocarbons in sewage effluent, industrial dis­ up the food chain. Because PCB's have been found charges, and stormwater runoff may actually equal in birds like thering-billedgul l and in white-footed the inputs from accidental spills (Farrington and mice {Peromyscus sp.), it is clear that food chain Capuzzo 1990). Efforts to increase awareness of transfer of this contaminant is occurring, possibly citizens of their role in oil inputs and to develop regu­ resulting in biomagnification ofthe toxin with in­ lations aimed at minimizing inputsfrom these sources creased predator size. Of additional concern are are underway for Buzzards Bay by local communi­ potential alterations to the benthic communities with ties as well as regionally through the bay-wide Buz­ shifts to more pollution-tolerant species, which may zards Bay Project and Coalition for Buzzards Bay. in turn modify the prey resource for other species, especially bottom-feeding fish. Unfortunately, the cooccurrence of many pollutants within the con­ 7.2. Coliform taminated areas makes it impossible to accurately Contamination and identify this effect. The good news is that PCB, or­ ganic toxin, and heavy metal inputs to the bay Shellfish Closures through waterflowsca n be controlled by environ­ One ofthe primary consequences of increased mental management practices because they tend to pollution in Buzzards Bay is reflected by the signifi­ be point sources and can be adjusted before dis­ cant increases in shellfish bed closures in recent charge. The major problem in this area, at present, years (Fig. 6.1). The parallel between the increase is the remediation of previously discharged com­ in these closures and increasing development in the pounds. bay watershed has led many to conclude that faulty The New Bedford/Fairhaven area discharges septic systems are the primary culprit. Evidence is almost all ofthe toxic pollutants and heavy metals increasing, however, that although septic systems and more than half of the sewage inputs to the bay are a potential cause, other sources may be more (cf. Chapter 6). This historic "concentration of im­ important (Heufelder 1988; P. Weiskel, U.S. Geo­ pacts" has led to an isolation of ecological degra­ logical Survey, Marlborough, Massachusetts, per­ dation in the nearshore zone (Howes and Taylor sonal communication). Although measurements of 1990; Costa et al. 1992) of one ofthe bay's 27 fecal coliform bacteria are not accurate indicators embayments. of sewage contamination (or for that matter nutrient Other sources of toxic pollutants to Buzzards pollution) because ofthe various sources of bacte­ Bay tend to have more widespread inputs and are ria, the trend in shellfish closures due to coliform , therefore more difficult to manage; however, most contamination does reflect the increased popula­ of these inputs are small, such as road runoff or the tion growth along the bay. In 1970, an average of leakage of nonvolatile and volatile compounds from 1,781 ha of shellfish beds were closed due to the recreational outboard motors (the notable excep­ presence of this enteric bacteria. In 1988, how­ tion is infrequent but dramatic oil spills). Increased ever, more than 4,452 ha were closed, about effectiveness of quick response to large and small 10% ofthe total hectarage of open shellfish beds oil spills and improved cleanup techniques designed in Buzzards Bay (this figure temporarily surged to to minimize impacts are now being supported by 7,689 ha after the New Bedford sewage treatment spill prevention methodologies within the bay's har­ plant released 378,500 L of sewage into the bay). bors. As with all human introduced compounds, the In 1989, roughly 5,059 ha were closed; in 1990 focus of management on prevention of discharge this number grew to nearly 5,666 ha, indicating a rather than remediation is becoming the standard. continual and steady increase in shellfish bed clo­ The impacts of recent Buzzards Bay spills remain sures for Buzzards Bay waters. These closures are ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuanne Profile 125

grouped into two types: permanent and variable. occasionally undertaken when beds are closed, Permanent closures are long-term restrictions with whereby the shellfish are removedfrom bacterially no immediate prospect for opening; variable clo­ contaminated regions to clean areas and allowed to sures are periodically closed and reopened. About filter for a specified period (from days to weeks), 60% ofthe closures are permanent. Variable clo­ subsequentlyriddingthemselve s ofthe temporary sures are generally related to weather (warmer tem­ bacterial associates. After suitable testing, these peratures increase bacterial activity and therefore shellfish are then evaluated for consumption. often increase coliform populations) and sewage There are several sources of pathogens and bac­ treatment facility malfunctions. In both cases, how­ teria to Buzzards Bay, including sewer outfalls, ever, shellfish can be transferred to clean areas for poorly functioning on-site septic systems, growth and spawning purposes. stormwater runoff, wildlife, waterfowl, and domes­ Fecal coliforms are the most common bacterial tic animals. Sewage treatment facilities utilizing group used as indicators for potentially dangerous outfalls are required to disinfect wastes before dis­ human viruses, which are the real public health con­ charge; however, occasionally failures occur and cern involved in shellfish bed closures. Identifica­ wastes enter untreated. Bacteriafromanima l wastes tion and quantification ofcolifor m bacteria in coastal can be introduced to Buzzards Bay waters both waters are relatively simple; this is not the case for directly (primarily waterfowl) and indirectly through viruses, however, and to date no routine methods incorporation into stream and stormwater flows. are available for viral monitoring without great ex­ Coliform contaminationfromstor m runoffhas been pense and specialized laboratories. Several prob­ identified as the primary cause of shellfish closures lems surround the use of coliform bacteria as a in Massachusetts (Heufelder 1988; Weiskel et al. monitoring tool. As intestinal bacteria, they are only 1996), and apparently in Buzzards Bay as well. It indicators ofpathoge n inputs. This method gives no appears that bacteria associated with animal wastes indication of toxic inputs or nutrient or oxygen con­ are washed from impermeable surfaces (roads), ditions, which ultimately structure the ecological whichfrequently drain directly into the surface wa­ health of an environment and the viability of benthic ters of an embayment. This helps to explain the re­ communities and economic species offish and shell­ lationship between increasing nonurban population fish. More importantlyfroma monitoring standpoint, (Fig. 6.1) and area of shellfish closures because the the presence of coliform bacteria does not mean amount of impermeable land surface is related to that viruses are present or even that human wastes development. are involved. Attempts to identify more specific While potential coliform contaminationfrom hu­ bacterial indicators have as yet been unsuccessful, man wastes is also related to development, the only with no organism determined to be specific to hu­ mechanism for transport involves breakout and sur­ man sources nor as easily measured as fecal face flow from septic tanks since coliforms appear coliforms and as cost effective as coliform monitor­ to migrate less than 2 mfrom residential subsurface ing. At least for the near future, regulators and man­ disposal sites even if discharge is directly to the agers have decided to remain conservative in pro­ water table (Weiskel et al. 1996). In addition, tecting Buzzards Bay's residents and visitors, main­ coliform closures occur in areas already served with taining the use of fecal coliforms to identify poten­ sewers as well as in areas of on-site disposal. Re­ tial threats to the public health. cent studies that compare the ratio of fecal coliform High levels of coliform bacteria usually result in to fecal streptococci may be useful as fecal strep­ two regulatory actions:first,closur e of shellfish beds tococci are often considered better indicators for to harvesting to minimize threats to public health human wastes. Case studies characterizing the through consumption; and second, closure of wa­ sources of fecal coliform in storm water for the wa­ ters to swimming to minimize direct contact with tershed of Bourne showed these ratios to be quite contaminated waters. Shellfish depuration is low, indicating only very limited instances of 126 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 contamination by human wastes (Gale Associates closures around the bay over the past few decades. 1989inSAIC 1991). In a similar study for Buttermilk These closures affect the recreational and commer­ Bay, most ofthe bacterial loading could be cial shellfisheries and restrict many water-based accounted for by dog waste (Heufelder 1988). In­ activities such as swimming and snorkeling. Increases puts from agricultural activities, notably dairy and in restriction of shellfishing and swimming with in­ beef industries as found within the Westport River creased growth ofthe nonurban population within watershed, may be locally important as an addi­ the watershed are resulting in increased attention to tional source of coliform bacteria, as increased lev­ land use and management objectives to protect both els of coliform have been observed in the Westport the public health and shellfishing, one ofthe most River. Without quantitative assessment of sources, important economic resources Buzzards Bay has management can focus on the wrong sources, but to offer. Fortunately coliform contamination, while within the Buzzards Bay system determination of restricting resource use (swimming,fishing, etc.), the importance of surface runoffhas led to a prior­ does not seriously impact the ecosystem and ani­ ity to address surface-water discharges through mal species ofthe bay waters. The consequence is rapid infiltration beds and is already showing posi­ thatfinding and preventing future inputs will result in tive results. New methodologies to deal with stormwater are being considered by several towns rapid "recovery" ofthe bay's resources. around Buzzards Bay. The town of Bourne recently installed an innovativefiltration system that treats 7.3. Nutrient Loading initial road runoff (about thefirstfe w centimenters of stormwater runoff, which contains most ofthe The primary sources of anthropogenic nitrogen pollutants) before it reaches bay waters, thefirst in inputs to Buzzards Bay are sewage treatment facili­ what is planned to be many stormwater remediation ties, on-site septic treatment of waste, and fertiliz­ projects around the bay. ers added to lawns, golf courses, and agricultural The difficulties in identification of specific sources land (Fig. 6.4; Table 6.2). This nitrogen enters bay of coliform bacteria have led researchers and regu­ waters through direct discharge, groundwater trans­ lators to also consider other potential direct dis­ port, or stream flow (which often are supplied by charges. Discharge of untreated boat waste, while groundwater). Overall, Buzzards Bay is well-flushed not significant to nutrient loading baywide (cf. Chap­ and at present maintains high levels of water qual­ ter 6), is an important potential coliform and patho­ ity. The smaller coves and embayments surround­ gen source. Although there has been an increase in ing the bay, however, are the most sensitive to ad­ the use of pump-out facilities for boat wastes, el­ ditional nutrient inputs due to their shallow nature evated levels of coliform bacteria are still evident in and generally low-flushing characteristics (Table many marina areas. Recognition ofthe impact of 1.3). These subsystems are ofthe greatest concern direct discharges is leading to zero discharge regu­ as they support most ofthe commercial and recre­ lations for Buzzards Bay; in 1992 the town of ational shellfishing industries as well as much ofthe Wareham had its coastal waters designated as a recreational activity around the bay, and most of Federal "no discharge area" by the EPA, the first the increasing population is settling in these areas such designation on the East Coast. This designa­ (Fig. 1.5). New Bedford Harbor and Buttermilk tion prohibits discharge of untreated and treated Bay are examples of embayments that have experi­ boat wastes and involves increasing boat pump- enced high nitrogen inputs and are therefore con­ out facilities and providing an expanded boater edu­ sidered to be relatively impacted, New Bedford via cation program. its point source outfall and Buttermilk Bay via Regardless ofthe source of bacterial contami­ groundwater-transported inputs. nation in Buzzards Bay waters, it is clear that there At present, only about 53% ofthe area in the has been a significant increase in shellfish bed Buzzards Bay watershed suitable for building has ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY. An Estuarine Profile 127 been developed (Buzzards Bay Project 1990); this eutrophication in Buttermilk Bay. Working with town translates into a potential doubling of nutrients to officials, local and regional planners in the towns the bay at maximum development. Because vari­ have adopted local zoning overlay districts, which ous embayments are showing the signs of incipient rezone areas within the subwatershed in an attempt cultural eutrophication, the nearshore areas will suffer to minimize new sources of nitrogen to Buttermilk significant habitat degradation without some form Bay. of nitrogen management. Several mechanisms of With the goal of assessing water quality condi­ nutrient management can be enacted with the aim tions baywide, the Buzzards Bay Project and the of allowing watershed development to continue but Coalition for Buzzards Bay, in cooperation with the in a fashion that mitigates potential damage to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, initiated a estuarine system. The goals of managers, environ­ citizen-based water quality monitoring program in mentalists,fishermen, and local citizens converge in 1992 aimed primarily toward monitoring nitrogen that degradation ofthe embayments does not just and oxygen conditions in the numerous nitrogen- affect ideological conservationism. Degradation also sensitive coves and embayments around the bay. directly impacts jobs related to fisheries within the Not only does this project provide important infor­ bay and on offshore species that rely on the bay mation for the long-term assessment of coastal wa­ and its marshes for portions of their life cycles, and ter quality in Buzzards Bay, but it also stimulates the property values (e.g., capital investments) of all interest and education ofthe local citizens in pro­ ofthe private citizens within the watershed. There­ tecting the environmental health of their nearshore fore, it is in the personal and financial interest ofthe coastal waters. general population to support environmental man­ Technological advances may also increase the agement programs that protect resources or carrying capacity ofthe watershed. New systems remediate degraded areas ofthe Buzzards Bay sys­ are becoming available that remove nitrogen and tem. The increasing awareness ofthe need for re­ phosphorus from wastewater. These systems can source management, particularly watershed nitro­ be added predischargefromoutfall s or can be used gen management, is being demonstrated by town on a small scale in the more sensitive areas of spe­ governments, the growth of citizens' groups aimed cific subwatersheds. Investigation is also continuing at distributing information, and the active participa­ into the design of septic systems that are cost- tion of individual citizen-based monitoring programs effective and can remove nitrogen by stimulating mi­ on a bay-wide scale (through the Buzzards Bay crobial denitrification before discharge ofthe efflu­ Project) and by individual towns (e.g., Falmouth). ent to groundwater. However, one ofthe essential Through individual efforts and as part of larger requirements to proper management is the deter­ cooperative efforts ofthe Buzzards Bay Proj ect and mination ofthe assimilative capacity of individual the Coalition for Buzzards Bay, towns within the embayments. While it may seem costly, this ap­ Buzzards Bay watershed are now working toward proach actually represents a fraction ofthe expen­ more effective management strategies to minimize diture required in the prevention or remediation of additional nitrogen inputs into the waters ofthe bay. nutrient loading. Given the expense of wastewater Through these efforts, local by-laws and regional treatment systems it is inefficient to improve treat­ management plans for the bay that take into ac­ ment over present systems in all areas within the count the variety of land uses (Table 7.1), economic bay system. The proper method is to determine the structure, and specific limitations (for instance, ad­ allowable nitrogen input and the locations where ministrative orfinancial) of these different commu­ post-discharge magnification ofthe input is greatest nities are being developed. An example of this is and focus the efforts there. For instance, given the the cooperation between three towns, Bourne, heavy metal, PCB, oil, and other inputs to New Wareham, and Plymouth, to address the increasing Bedford Outer Harbor and the relatively limited area 128 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Table 7.1. Land use within the Buzzards Bay watershed. Adapted from Buzzards Bay Project (1990) Whole basin Whole basin 0.8 km Land use type area (ha) (%) buffer area (ha) (%) Developed Residential (all) 13,881 132 5,976 27.4 Commercial 977 0.9 468 2.1 Industrial 558 0.5 278 1.3 Urban open 1,849 1.7 372 1 7 Transportation 1.422 1.3 198 09 Waste disposal 333 0.3 28 01 Mining 641 0.6 141 0.6 Subtotal 19,661 185 7,461 34 1 Vegetated or Open Cropland 3.746 3.5 1,003 4.6 Pasture 2,493 2.4 442 20 Forest 65,219 61.6 8,874 40 6 Nonforested wetland 1,929 1.8 236 1 1 Open land 5,130 4.8 1,123 5.1 Woody perennial 4,449 4.2 203 ' 0.9 Salt marsh 1,986 1 9 1,823 8.3 Recreational 1,353 1.3 712 3.3 Subtotal 86,305 81 5 14,416 65.9 Total 105,966 100 0 21.877 100 0 of ecological impact ofthe existing greater than 60­ biggest challenges facing coastal communities to­ year-old outfall, it is not ecologically or economi­ day. Joint cooperation between local and regional cally efficient or an example of careful resource man­ managers, regulators, and land planners is crucial agement to expend the more than $60 million re­ to accomplishing ecosystem-level environmental quired to move the outfall. Management must begin protection in the coastal zone. For Buzzards Bay, to focus on maximizing the resources ofthe entire environmental policy is set at several levels of gov­ bay system, in essence getting the biggest ecologi­ ernment. Federal and state regulations set the gen­ cal profit for the investment. In the case ofthe New eralframework primarily for point-source pollutant Bedford outfall extension, afractionofth e funding inputs, while local and regional agencies tend to set required for "the pipe" might be better used to save the standards for nonpoint-source pollutant inputs or remediate an equal area ofthe bay to full re­ (e.g., groundwater). Because ofthe changing land source utilization. While a regional focus is difficult use patterns around Buzzards Bay, environmental to achieve, thefirst steps have clearly been taken. management must be directed not only at current The potential for success in this area may be in­ demands and problems, but also toward resolving creased by the view that citizensfromal l ofthe bay's accumulated impacts from the past and to antici­ communities share in the use ofthe bay proper and pating future demands, which may either protect or are becoming sensitive to the cumulative effects of harm coastal resources. Although regulations are in their local inputs. effect to accomplish these objectives, local gov­ Meeting the demands for public access while ernmentsfrequently lack the analytical, administra­ ensuring environmental protection is one ofthe tive, or political capacity to implement these ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY An Estuarine Profile 129

regulations outside of major pollution events. As nu­ major coastal storms. Because there are often sub­ trient-related water quality degradation is becom­ stantialfinancial incentives, many of these cases are ing increasingly apparent in the smaller harbors and carried through the various levels ofthe legal sys­ embayments ofthe bay, sound environmental man­ tem, being financially difficult for local or regional agement policies must be implemented that allow governmental boards and agencies to pursue. In light for the intelligent use of these areas while ensuring of several severe storms that have hit Buzzards Bay their protection. over the past two decades, however, the problem has been made at least temporarily apparent, and 7.4. Relative Sea-level increased efforts have been made to educate cur­ rent and prospective owners of waterfront prop­ Rise erty about the short- and long-termrisks of living directly on the water. Although ample scientific evidence exists to sup­ Much ofthe attention given to the problems of port the contention that relative sea level is rising waterfront development is focused on building that along the Buzzards Bay shoreline (Figs. 6.5 and occurs directly on coastal dunes or banks; how­ 6.8), few management strategies are in place to deal ever, a significant amount of development also oc­ with the resulting changes that will ultimately occur along the bay's coast. The desirability of waterfront curs along the wetlands found behind barrier property has led to significant development along beaches. With rising sea level, barrier beaches natu­ the water's edge, in some cases fortified by sea­ rally migrate landward as do the wetlands behind walls or revetments to protect these properties from them (Fig. 6.10). Many ofthe marsh-front devel­ storm or erosional damage. Although these con­ opments have hard structures for protection against structions provide some protection against storm major storms, in essence preventing the landward related wave activity, they cannot provide long-term migration ofthe wetland over time. Increased rec­ protection againstrising sea levels. ognition ofthe importance of intertidal wetlands to coastal ecology has resulted in more attention to New approaches are being considered to re­ extending buffer zones and developing new ap­ strict or lessen new development along barrier proaches to management that take into account the beaches; however recent court cases (i.e., Lucas long-term need for wetlands to migrate landward. vs. South Carolina Coastal Council, U.S. Su­ preme Court, July 1992) have called into question Building seawalls and armoring the coast in the the right of regulatory boards and agencies to re­ face of a continuallyrising bay and periodic storm strict economically productive uses of properties events may provide a temporary local solution to without compensatory payment. Other ongoing land loss by erosion and flooding. Nevertheless over cases involve the right (or lack thereof) of land­ the long term the Buzzards Bay watershed will di­ owners to protect their property under emergency minish in size, and the salt marshes, barrier dunes, situations, whichfrequently involve construction of and beaches will continue the retreat that they be­ hard structures currently restricted or prohibited by gan shortly after Buzzards Bayfirst became an es­ state or local law. Currently, new construction of tuary. seawalls, revetments, and the like is generally pro­ Buzzards Bay and its watershed have been con­ hibitedfromcoasta l dunes but can be permitted on tinually changing since their formation 16,000 years coastal banks around Buzzards Bay. Unfortunately, ago, but the rate of alteration has been accelerating since many of these hard structures were estab­ since the colonial era. Human activities have been lished before current restrictions were put in place, readily apparent in their effects on terrestrial sys­ much ofthe regulation regards repair and replace­ tems with the original forests being cut for lumber ment and is often on a case-by-case basis, fre­ and cleared for agricultural fields, which are now quently under emergency situations as the result of reverting to forest or being developed for residential 130 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31 settlement. In contrast, the marine systems ofthe efforts and faith this monograph would never have bay have experienced much less alteration. The Buz­ been produced. We also thank our friends and col­ zards Bay estuary sailed by Gosnold in 1602, by leagues who provided library research, data, and the Wareham-built whaling ship Pocahontas leav­ insights and allowed the reproduction of various ing on her maiden voyage in 1821, and by the tables andfigures. Much ofthe information on Buz­ Woods Hole research vessel Asterias plying the zards Bay is spread throughout the technical and waters in the 1930's has presented virtually the same regulatory literature and is therefore not readily avail­ face through centuries, with all these ships travers­ able. The Buzzards Bay Project (BBP) and its di­ ing similar habitats and aquatic ecosystems. But by rector J. Costa were especially helpful in providing the time the R/V Asterias was decommissioned in BBP technical information and reports; the latel980's, several significant oil spills had M. Rasmussen and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay occurred, PCB and heavy metal contamination was were also very helpful. At the Massachusetts state apparent in the New Bedford region, and more and local level, L. Gil ofthe Division of Water Pol­ importantly, subtle changes were being observed in lution Control and G. Heufelder of Barnstable County Health have been studying aspects ofthe the ecology of some of the sensitive shallow water quality ofBuzzards Bay for many years. They embayments ofthe bay. provided access to data and reports that we other­ It is now clear that significant threats to the pro­ wise may have missed, and S. Cadrin ofthe Divi­ ductivity and diversity ofthe bay's animal and plant sion of Marine Fisheries waded through reams of communities exist, stemming primarily from in­ fisheries data to answer our questions. The Massa­ creased nutrient loading to bay waters. Nutrient in­ chusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species puts in excess ofthe assimilative capacity ofthe Program was very helpful with our search for infor­ system are locally altering habitat quality and re­ mation on endangered species, and our thanks go sulting in restructuring of system ecology. But nutri­ to B. Blodgett and H. Heusmannfrom the Massa­ ents, unlike toxics, are natural parts ofthe biotic chusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife for their systems and therefore need to have their inputs time and information. We are indebted to B. Kolb managed, not stopped. Major removal of existing of Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., with whom nutrient pools is not necessary. While managing the we worked on the New Bedford Outfall ecological current and future nutrient loads to levels tolerable studies and who provided much ofthe best data on . to the nearshore systems ofBuzzards Bay will be outfall and pollutant sources and distributions, and difficult, the initial steps have been made, and the to the Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust, which pro­ ecological and economic benefits are becoming vided private support for some ofthe original data apparent. Given the resilience ofthe marine eco­ gathering in our ecological research on aspects of systems ofBuzzards Bay and the ongoing manage­ nutrient pollution around Buzzards Bay. We also ment of development-related impacts, we can hope owe a debt of gratitude to D. Ross and the Woods that before the recently commissioned R/V Asterias Hole Oceanographic Institute Sea Grant Program, (II) is retired, it will be used to quantify the recov­ which has supported many of our coastal research ery of currently impacted marginal systems and con­ projects, helping us to gain a better understanding tinue to document the relatively pristine nature of ofthe response of these systems to anthropogenic Buzzards Bay proper. impacts. Acknowledgments We thank the many scientists, students, and scholars in the Woods Hole community who have First and foremost we thank Rebecca J. Howard expended so much time on research into the ecol­ ofthe National Biological Service for her help, ex­ ogy ofthe Buzzards Bay ecosystem. Noteworthy treme patience, and encouragement during the in this regard are J. Teal, C. Taylor, and G Hampson preparation of this manuscript. Clearly without her ofthe Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, with ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuanne Profile 131

whom we have collaborated for many years, D. Aubrey Consulting Inc. 1991. Determination of Terkla and P. Doeringer of Boston University who flushing rates and hydrographic features on se­ worked with us on the economic impacts of envi­ lected Buzzards Bay embayments. Technical re­ ronmental change for the bay, and J. McDowell for port to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- making available technical data on scallop fisheries Battelle Ocean Sciences. Battelle Ocean Sci­ and pollutants. D. Bourne and B. Livingstone were ences, Duxbury, Mass. of great assistance in providing historic texts and Aubrey, D. G, and P. E. Speer. 1984. Updrift their own insights onfisheries and the early days of migration of tidal inlets. Journal of Geology the bay. Finally, we thank our lab group—S. Brown- 92:531-545. Leger, N. Millham, D. Schlezinger, D. White, and Bailey, W. 1968. Birds ofthe Cape Cod National M. Zinn—for putting up with us during data gather­ Seashore and Adjacent Areas. Eastern National ing and writing. Park and Monument Association, South Wellfleet, This manuscript was processed for printing us­ Mass. 120 pp. ing Pagemaker software at the National Wetlands Baird, S. F. 1873. Report on the condition ofthe Research Center by Sue Lauritzen. This manuscript sea fisheries ofthe south coast of New England is contribution number 8177from the Woods Hole in 1871 and 1872. Pages 173-181 m Report of the U.S. Fish Commission, 1871-1872. U.S. Fish Oceanographic Institution. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, U.S. Govern­ ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 940 pp. References Banta, GT.,A. E. Giblin, J. E. Hobbie, and J. Tucker. 1990. Benthic respiration and nitrogen Adams, S. M. 1976. The ecology of eelgrass, release in Buzzards Bay, Mass. Report to U.S. Zostera marinafishcommunities . PartJJ: Func­ Environmental Protection Agency-Buzzards Bay tional analysis. Journal of Experimental Marine Project. Biology 22:269-291. Baumann, R. H., J. W Day, Jr., and C. A. Miller. Anderson, D., D. Aubrey, M. A. Tyler, and D. 1984. Mississippi deltaic wetland survival: sedi­ Wayne-Coats. 1982. Vertical and horizontal dis­ mentation versus coastal submergence. Science tributions of dinoflageUate cysts in sediments. Lim­ 224:1093-1095. nology and Oceanography 27:757-765. Belding,D. L. 1916. Special report relative to the Anraku, M. 1964a. Influence ofthe Cape Cod fish and fisheries ofBuzzards Bay. Massachu­ Canal on the hydrography and on the copepods setts Board of Commissioners on Fisheries and in Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay, Massachu­ Game, House Report No. 1775, Boston, Mass. setts. I. Hydrography and distribution of copep­ 134 pp. ods. Limnology and Oceanography 9:46-60. Bengtsson, B. E. 1980. Long term effects of PCB Anraku, M. 1964b. Influence of the Cape Cod (Clophen A50) on growth, reproduction and Canal on the hydrography and on the copepods swimming performance in minnow Phoxinus in Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay, Massachu­ phoxinus. Water Research 14:681-687. setts. II. Respiration and feeding. Limnology Bigelow, H.B., and WC.Schroeder. 1953. Fishes and Oceanography 9:195-206. ofthe Gulf of Maine. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser­ Atwood, M. 1870. Remarks of Mr. Atwood, of vice Bulletin Vol. 53. 755 pp. the Cape District, in relation to the petition to pro­ Bigelow, H. B., and W. W. Welsh. 1924. Fisher­ hibit net and seine fisheries. Pages 117-124 in ies ofthe Gulf of Maine. Page 123 in Bulletin of Report ofthe U.S. Fish Commission 1871 -1872. the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Vol. 40, Part I. 567 U.S. Fish Commission of Fish and Fisheries, U.S. pp. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Black, D. E., D. K. Phelps, and R. L. Lapan. 1988. 940 pp. The effect of inherited contamination on egg and 132 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

larval winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes Bums, K. A., and J. M. Teal. 1979. The West americanus. Marine Environmental Research Falmouth oil spill: hydrocarbons in the salt marsh 25:45-62. ecosystem. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Sci­ Blumer, M., J. Sass, G. Souza, H. Sanders, F. ence 8: 349-360. Grassle, and G. Hampson. 1975. The West Buzzards Bay Project. 1986. Buzzards Bay project Falmouth oil spill. Woods Hole Oceanographic annual report 1986. Lloyd Center for Environ­ Institution Technical Report 72-19. 60 pp. mental Studies, South Dartmouth, Mass. 25 pp. Bourne, D.W. 1983. The fisheries. Pages 160­ Buzzards Bay Project. 1987. Buzzards Bay project 172 in M. Smith, editor. Woods Hole Reflec­ annual report 1987. Lloyd Center for Environ­ tions. William Sullwold Publishing Inc., Taunton, mental Studies, South Dartmouth, Mass. 27 pp. Mass. Buzzards Bay Project. 1989. Buzzards Bay project Braatz, B. V, and D. G. Aubrey. 1987. Recent annual report 1988-1989. Lloyd Center for En­ sea level change in eastern North America. Pages vironmental Studies, South Dartmouth, Mass. 27 29-46 in D. Nummendal, O. H. Pilkey, and J. D. pp. Howard, editors. Sea levelfluctuation and coastal Buzzards Bay Project. 1990. Buzzards Bay com­ evolution. Society of Economic Paleontologists prehensive conservation and management plan. and Mineralogists Special Publication No. 41, Buzzards Bay Project, Marion, Mass. 215 pp. Tulsa, Okla. Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. 1990. Phase 2 Breder, C. M., Jr. 1922. Some embryonic and effluent outfall facilities plan for the City of New larval stages ofthe winter flounder. Bulletin U.S. Bedford, Massachusetts. Boston, Mass. 280 Bureau of Fisheries 38:311-316. pp. Brereton, J. 1602. Abriefe and true relation ofthe Capuzzo, J. M. 1984. Bay scallop fishery: prob­ discoverie ofthe north part of Virginia. Pages lems and management. Woods Hole Oceano­ 29-31 in L.A. Dexter, editor. The Gosnold dis­ graphic Institution Technical Report No. WHOI­ coveries in the North Part of Virginia, 1602, now 84-38. Woods Hole, Mass. Cape Cod and the islands, Massachusetts: ac­ Capuzzo, J. M., G R. Hampson, and R. E. Taylor, cording to the relations by Gabrial Archer and Jr. 1982. Seeding program for the bay scallop: Jon Brereton. Universal Tag, Inc., Stanbridge, comparison of local bays, Falmouth, MA. Woods Mass. 66 pp. Hole Oceanographic Institution Sea Grant An­ Buchsbaum, R., and I. Valiela. 1987. Variability in nual Report 1982. Woods Hole, Mass. the chemistry of estuarine plants and its effect on feeding by Canada geese. Oecologia 73:146­ Capuzzo, J. M., and R.E.Taylor, Jr. 1979. Pre­ 153. liminary investigations of local populations ofthe Bue, C. D. 1970. Stream flow from the United bay scallop Argopecten irradians irradians States into the Atlantic Ocean during 1931 -1960. Lamark. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu­ Contributions to the hydrology ofthe United tion Sea Grant Annual Report 1979. Woods Hole, States. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Mass. Paper 1899-1. 36 pp. Casper, E. M., W. C. Dennison, E. J. Carpenter, Bumpus, D. F. 1973. Arms of the sea. Coastal V. M. Bricel, J. G. Mitad, S. H. Kuenster, D. A. and offshore environmental inventory: Cape Cotflesh, and M. Dewey. 1987. Recurrent and Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. University of persistent brown tide blooms perturb coastal ma­ Rhode Island Marine Publication Series No. 2. rine ecosystems. Estuaries 10:284-290. Marine Experiment Station 1-34-1-36. Chamberlain, B. B. 1964. These fragile outposts: Kingston, R.I. 38 pp. a geological look at Cape Cod, Martha's ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 133

Vineyard and Nantucket. Natural History Press, 1995. Managing anthropogenic nitrogen inputs Garden City, N.Y. 327 pp. to sensitive embayments: technical basis of a man­ Chittenden, M.E. 1972. Salinity tolerance of young agement strategy adopted for Buzzards Bay. Es­ blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis. Transactions tuaries. In press. ofthe American Fisheries Society 101:123-125. Costa, J. E., B. L. Howes, A. E. Giblin, and I. Ciavattieri, F. J., and S. L. Stockinger. 1988. New Valiela. 1992. Monitoring nitrogen and indica­ Bedford Harbor Project Management Case tors of nitrogen loading to support management Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency action in Buzzards Bay. Pages 497-529 in Pro­ Region I and EBASCO, Boston, Mass. 11 pp. ceedings ofthe International Symposium on Eco­ Clayton, G, C. Cole, S. Murawski, and J. Parrish. logical Indicators. Elsevier, New York. 1978. Common marinefishes of coastal Massa­ Cottam, C. 1933. Disappearance of eelgrass along chusetts. Institute for Man and Environment Pub­ the Atlantic coast. U.S. Department ofAgricul ­ lication R-76-16. University of Massachusetts, ture. Plant Disease Reporter 17:46-53. Amherst. 231 pp. Dale,B. 1976. Cyst formation, sedimentation and Collings, W. S, C. Copper-Sheehan, S. C. Hughes, preservation: factors affecting dinoflagellate as­ and J. L. Buckley. 1983. The spatio-temporal semblages in recent sediments from distribution of American lobster, Homarus Trondheimsfjord, Norway. Review of americanus, larvae in the Cape Cod Canal and Paleobotany and Palynology 22:39-60. approaches. Pages 35-40 in M. J. Fogarty, edi­ Davis, B. M. 1913. General characteristics ofthe tor. Distribution and relative abundance of Ameri­ algal vegetation ofBuzzards Bay and Vineyard can lobster, Homarus americanus, larvae: New Sound in the vicinity of Woods Hole. U.S. Fish England investigations during 1974-79. National and Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin 31:443-544. Oceanographic andAtmospheric Administration Davis, R. A., Jr. 1985. Coastal sedimentary Technical Report National Marine Fisheries Ser­ environments. Springer-Verlag, New York. 716 vice SSRF-775. pp. Conomos, T. J., R. E. Smith, and J. W Gartner. Davis, R.B. 1989. Historic fisheries of Buzzards 1985. Environmental setting of San Francisco Bay. Technical report submitted to Camp, Bay. Hydrobiologia 129:1-12. Dresser, and McKee, Inc., Boston, Mass. 25 Cooper, R. A. 1961. Early life history and spawn­ pp. ing migration ofthe alewife, Alosa aestivalis. Dennison, W. C, and R. S. Alberte. 1985. Role M.S. thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. of daily light period in depth distribution ofZoster a 58 pp. marina L. (eelgrass). Marine Ecology Progress Costa, J. E. 1988a. Distribution, production and Series 25:51-61. historical changes in abundance of eelgrass Dennison, W. C, and R. S. Alberte. 1986. {Zostera marina L.) in southeastern Massachu­ Photoadaptation and growth of Zostera marina setts. Ph.D. thesis, Boston University, Mass. 396 L. (eelgrass) transplants along a depth gradient. pp.' Journal ofExperimental Marine Biology and Ecol­ Costa, J. E. 1988b. Eelgrass in Buzzards Bay: ogy 98:265-282. distribution, production and historical changes in Driscoll, E.G 1967. Attached epifauna-substrate abundance. Environmental Protection Agency relations. Limnology and Oceanography 12:633­ Publication BBP-88-05. 204 pp. 641. Costa, J. E., B. L. Howes, D. Aubrey, M. Frimpter, Driscoll, E.G. 1972. Oxygen, salinity, pH A. Giblin, D. Janik, N. MacGaffey, and I. Valiela. and temperature variation in the bottom 134 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

water ofBuzzards Bay. Biological Bulletin Farrington, J. W, and J. M. Capuzzo. 1990. Toxic 143:459. chemicals in Buzzards Bay: sources, fates and Driscoll, E. G. 1975. Sediment-animal-water in­ effects. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Pro­ teraction, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Journal tection Agency - Buzzards Bay Project. Lloyd of Marine Research 33:275-302. Center for Environmental Studies, South Driscoll, E. G, and D. E. Brandon. 1973. Mol­ Dartmouth, Mass. lusc-sediment relationships in northwestern Buz­ Farrington, J. W, B. W. Tripp, A. C. Davis, and J. zards Bay, Massachusetts, USA. Malacologia Sulanowski. 1984. One view ofthe role of sci­ 12:12-46. entific information in the solution of enviro-eco­ Driscoll, E. G, and R. A. Swanson. 1973. Diver­ nomic problems. Pages 47-59 in L. Chao and sity and structure of epifaunal communities on W Kirby- Smith, editors. Proceedings ofthe mollusk valves, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. International Symposium on Utilization of Coastal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, and Ecosystems: Planning, Pollution and Productiv- Palaeoecology 14:229-247. ity,21-27Nov. 1982, Rio Grande, Brazil. Editora Emerson, B. K. 1917. Geology of Massachu­ da FURG, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil. setts and Rhode Island. U.S. Geological Survey Farson,R.H. 1993. Cape Cod Canal. Second Bulletin. 597 pp. Edition. Cape Cod Historical Publications, Emery, K. O. 1969. A coastal pond: studies by Yarmouthport, Mass. 177 pp. oceanographic methods. American Elsevier, New Fawsett, M. 1990. Cape Cod Annals. Heritage York. 80 pp. Books, Inc., Bowie, Md. 184 pp. Emery, K. O. 1979. A small Indian midden in Field, G W. 1913. Alewife fishery of Massachu­ Quissett. Salt Pond Sanctuaries Annual Report, setts. Transactions of the American Fisheries So­ 1979, Falmouth, Mass. 17 pp. ciety43:143-152. Emery, K. O., and D. G Aubrey. 1991. Sea lev­ Fish, C. J. 1925. Seasonal distribution ofthe plank­ els, land levels andtide gauges. Springer-Verlag, ton ofthe Woods Hole region. U.S. Fish and New York. 237 pp. Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin 41:91-179. Estrella, B. T., and D. J. McKieman. 1988. Mas­ Freeman, F. 1862. History of Cape Cod. Pri­ sachusetts Coastal Commercial Lobster Trap vately printed. Reprinted 1990 Parnassus Book Sampling Program, May-November 1987. Di­ Service, Yarmouthport, Mass. 93 pp. vision of Marine Fisheries, Commonwealth of Frimpter, M. H., J. J. Donohue IV, and M. V. Massachusetts, Boston. 32 pp. Rapacz. 1990. A mass-balance nitrate model Estrella, B. T., and D. J. McKieman. 1989. Catch for predicting the effect of land use on ground­ per unit effort and biological parametersfromth e water quality. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Massachusetts coastal lobster {Homarus Report 88-493. 36 pp. americanus) resource: description and trends. Germano, F. 1992. A brief history of shellfishing in National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Ad­ Buzzards Bay. Buzzards Bay Current (Newslet­ ministration Technical Report National Marine ter ofthe Coalition for Buzzards Bay) 4:9-11. Fisheries Service No. 81. 67 pp. Giese, G. S. 1989. Implications of predicted rise Fairbanks, R. B., W. S. Collings, and W T. Sides. in relative sea level for uses ofBuzzards Bay 1971. An assessment ofthe effects of electrical coastal uplands. Report to the U.S. Environmen­ power generation on marine resources in the Cape tal Protection Agency - Buzzards Bay Project. Cod Canal. Division Marine Fisheries. Com­ Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South monwealth of Massachusetts, Boston. 48 pp. Dartmouth, Mass. 32 pp. ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY- An Estuarine Profile 135

Giese, G S., and D. G. Aubrey. 1987. Losing Hough, J. L. 1940. Sediments of Buzzards Bay, coastal upland to relative sea-level rise: three sce­ Massachusetts. Journal of Sedimentary Petrol­ narios for Massachusetts. Oceanus 30:16-22. ogy 10:19-32. Gill, L. W. 1988. Buzzards Bay cranberry bog Howes, B.L. 1993. Water quality monitoring of input study. Environmental Protection Agency Aucoot Cove, Massachusetts. Report to the U.S. special water quality study, EPA Region 1. Environmental Protection Agency—Buzzards Bay Goode, G B. 1879. The natural and economical Project. Lloyd Center for Environmental Stud­ history ofthe American menhaden. Report ofthe ies, South Dartmouth, Mass. 37 pp. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries for 1877. Howes, B. L., D. W. Bourne, and N. P. Millham. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1992. An assessment of nutrient loading to D.C. 529 pp. West Falmouth Harborfromth e Falmouth Tech­ Goode, G. B. 1887. The Fisheries and Fishery nology Park and other sources. Technical report Industries ofthe United States. U.S. Govern­ to the Falmouth Economic Development and In­ ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 808 pp. dustrial Corporation, Falmouth, Mass. 16 pp. Goodman, P. J., and W.T.Williams. 1961. Inves­ Howes, B. L., J. W. H. Dacey, and D. D. tigations into "die-back" in Spartina townsendii: Goehringer. 1986. Factors controlling the growth physiological correlates of "die-back." Journal form of Spartina alterniflora: feedbacks be­ ofEcology49:391-398. tween above-ground production, sediment oxi­ Outsell, J. S. 1930. Natural history of the bay dation, nitrogen and salinity. Journal of Ecology scallop. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Bulletin 46:569­ 74:881-898. 632. Howes, B. L., and D. D. Goehringer. 1992. Hampson, G R., and E. T. Moul. 1978. No.2 Falmouth pond watchers: update on citizen vol­ fuel oil spill in Bourne, Massachusetts: immedi­ unteer monitoring of water quality in Falmouth's ate assessment ofthe effects on marine inverte­ coastal ponds. Report to the Town of Falmouth brates and a three year study of growth and re­ and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Sea covery ofa salt marsh. Journal ofthe Fisheries Grant Program, Woods Hole, Mass. 64 pp. Research Board of Canada 35:731-744. Howes, B. L., and C. D. Taylor. 1989. Nutrient Hankin, A. L., L. Constantine, and S. Bliven. 1985. regime of New Bedford Outer Harbor: relating Barrier beaches, salt marshes and tidal flats. to potential inputs and phytoplankton dynamics. Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies and Mas­ Final technical report to Camp, Dresser, and sachusetts Coastal Zone Management Publica­ McKee, Inc., Boston, Mass., for the City of New tion 13899-27-600-1-85 CR. 27 pp. Bedford and U.S. Environmental Protection Herr,P. B. 1984. Cape Cod Growth Forecasts. Agency. 130 pp. Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod, Howes, B.L., and C.D.Taylor. 1990. Nutrient Orleans, Mass. regime of New Bedford Outer Harbor: infaunal Heufelder, G R. 1988. Bacterial monitoring in But­ community structure and the significance of sedi­ termilk Bay. U.S. Environmental Protection ment nutrient regeneration to water column nutri­ Agency Technical Report EPA 503/4-88-01.98 ent loading. Final technical report to Camp, pp. Dresser, and McKee, Inc., Boston, Mass., for Hoffman, J. S., J. B. Wells, and J. G. Titus. 1986. the City of New Bedford and U.S. Environmen­ Future global warming and sea levelrise.Page s tal Protection Agency. 310 pp. 245- 266 in G. Sigbjamason, editor. Iceland Howes, B. L., and C. D. Taylor. 1991. Nutrient Coastal and River Symposium, Reykjavik. Na­ regime of New Bedford Outer Harbor: summer tional Energy Authority. oxygen conditions relating to potential water 136 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

column stratification. Final technical report to LeBlanc, D. R., J. H. Guswa, M. H. Frimpter, and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., Boston, Mass., C. J. Londquist. 1986. Groundwater resources for the City of New Bedford and U.S. Environ­ of Cape Cod, Massachusetts: hydrologic investi­ mental Protection Agency. 310 pp. gation atlas. U.S. Geological Survey Report HA­ Howes, B. L., and J. M. Teal. 1992. Nitrogen 692, Washington, D.C. 4 sheets. balance ofa Massachusetts cranberry bog. Re­ Lee, C, R. Howarth, and B. Howes. 1980. Ste­ port to the U.S. Environmental Protection rols in decomposing Spartina alterniflora and Agency—Buzzards Bay Project. Lloyd Center the use of ergosterol in estimating the contribu­ for Environmental Studies, South Dartmouth, tion of fungi to detrital nitrogen. Limnology and Mass. 34 pp. Oceanography 25:290-303. Howes, B. L., and J. M. Teal. 1994. Oxygen loss Lee, V. 1980. An exclusive compromise: Rhode from Spartina alterniflora and its relation to Island coastal ponds and their people. Coastal rhizosphere waterlogging. Oecologia 97:431 ­ Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, 438. Kingston. 47 pp. IEP, Inc. 1988. Wetland Study Report for the Levinton, J. S., and R. K. Bambach. 1970. Some New Bedford Superfund Site. ReporttotheU.S. ecological aspects of bivalve mortality patterns. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Mass. IEP, American Journal of Science 268:97-112. Northborough, MA. 102 pp. Levinton, J. S., and R. K. Bambach. 1975. Acom­ Jordan, T. E., and I. Valiela. 1982. A nitrogen parative study of Silurian and recent deposit feed­ budget ofthe ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa, ing communities. Paleobiology 1:97-124. and its significance in nitrogen flow in a New En­ Lux, F. E., G F. Kelly, and C. L. Wheeler. 1983. gland salt marsh. Limnology and Oceanography Distribution and abundance of larval lobsters 27:75-90. {Homarus americanus) in Buzzards Bay, Mas­ Kaye, CA. 1964. Outline of Pleistocene geology sachusetts, during 1976-79. Pages 29-33 in M.J. of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Pages Fogarty, editor. Distribution and relative abun­ 134-139 in U. S. Geological Survey Professional dance of American lobster, Homarus Paper 501-C. americanus, larvae: New England investigations Kimball, E. F. 1892. On the shores of Buzzards during 1974-79. National Oceanographic and Bay. The New England Magazine 7:23-38. Atmospheric Administration Technical Report Kitteridge, H. C. 1930. Cape Cod, its people and National Marine Fisheries Service SSRF-775.64 their history. Parnassus Imprints, Orleans, Mass. pp. 344 pp. Lyman, T. 1872. On the possible exhaustion of Larson, G. J. 1980. Non-synchronous retreat of sea-fisheries. Pages 112-116 in Report ofthe ice lobesfrom southeastern Massachusetts. Pages U.S. Fish Commission 1871-1872. U.S. Fish 101-114 in G J. Larson and B. D. Stone, edi­ Commission of Fish and Fisheries, U.S. tors. Late Wisconsonan Glaciation of New En­ Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. gland. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, 940 pp. Iowa. Marcus, N. 1984. Recruitment of copepod nau­ Lebida, R. C. 1969. The seasonal abundance and plii into the plankton: importance of diapause eggs distribution of eggs, larvae and juvenilefishes in and benthic processes. Marine Ecology Progress . the Weweantic River Estuary, Massachusetts, Series 15:1984. 1966. M.S. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Marcus, N., and C. Fuller. 1989. Distribution and Amherst. 59pp. abundance of eggs of Labidocera aestiva ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY An Estuanne Profile 137

(Copepoda: Calanoida) in the bottom sediments Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 33:511­ ofBuzzards Bay, Massachusetts, USA. Marine 558. Biology 100:319-326. Moss, S., and J. Hoff. 1989. The finfish resources Massachusetts Audubon Society. 1990. Birding ofBuzzards Bay. Report submitted to U.S. Cape Cod. Arey's Pond Press, South Wellfleet, Environmental Protection Agency Region I, Mass. Boston, MA. EPA CX812850-01-0. 80 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Qual­ pp. ity Engineering. 1975. Buzzards Bay Water NOAA/EPA Team on Near Coastal Waters. 1989. Quality Survey Data. Water Quality Section, Strategic assessment of near coastal waters sus­ Massachusetts Division Water Pollution Control, ceptibility of east coast estuaries to nutrient dis­ Westborough, Mass. 136 pp. charges: Pessamaquoddy Bay to Chesapeake Massachusetts Department of Environmental Qual­ Bay. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin­ ity Engineering. 1978. Guide to the coastal wet­ istration and U.S. Environmental Protection lands regulations. Division of Wetlands, Bos­ Agency. 37 pp. ton, Mass. 158 pp. Nixon, S. W. 1982. The ecology of New England Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program. 1987. high salt marshes: a community profile. U.S. Fish Massachusetts rare and endangered wildlife: the and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services plymouth red-bellied turtle. Massachusetts Di­ FWS/OBS-81/55. 70 pp. vision of Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Mass. Nye,W 1889. Notes on the fisheries ofBuzzards 4 pp. Bay and vicinity. U.S. Fish Commission Bulletin Mather, K. F., R. P. Goldthwait, and L. R. 87-11:160. Thiesmeyer. 1942. Pleistocene geology of west- O'Brien, G 1990. A guide to nature on Cape Cod em Cape Cod. Geological Society of America and the islands. Penguin Press, New York. 240 Bulletin53:1127-1174. pp. Mayer, G 1982. Ecological stress and the New Oldale, R.N. 1992. Cape Cod and the Islands: York Bight: science and management. Estua­ the geologic story. Parnassus Imprints, East Or­ rine Research Federation, Columbia, S.C. 82 pp. leans, Mass. 208 pp. Meinkoth, N. A. 1981. The Audubon Society Oldale, R. N., and C. R. Tuttle. 1964. Seismic field guide to North American seashore crea­ investigations on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. tures. A. Knopf, New York. 813 pp. Pages 118-122 in U.S. Geological Survey Pro­ Mendelssohn, 1. A., and E. D. Seneca. 1980. The fessional Paper465-D. influence of soil drainage on the growth ofthe Orson, R., and B. L. Howes. 1992. Salt marsh salt marsh cordgrass Spartina alterniflora in development at Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts: in­ North Carolina. Estuarine and Coastal Marine fluence of geomorphology on long-term plant Science 11:27-40. community structure. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Moog, P.L. 1987. The hydrogeology and fresh­ Science 35:453-471. water influx to Buttermilk Bay, MA, with regard Payne, P. M., C. Coagan, F. Wenzel, M. A. Buchler, to the circulation of coliforms and pollutants: a andA. L. Hankin. 1994. Status and assessment model study and development of methods for ofthe marine mammal and marine turtle species general application. M.A. thesis, Boston Uni­ ofBuzzards Bay, Massachusetts: an historical versity, Mass. 166 pp. and present overview. U.S. Environmental Pro­ Moore, J. R., III. 1963. Bottom sediment tection Agency—Buzzards Bay Project, Marion, studies, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Mass. 58 pp. 138 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

Pearce, J. B. 1969. Thermal addition and the Rhoads, D. C, and J. D. Germane. 1982. Char­ benthos, Cape Cod Canal. Chesapeake Science acterization of benthic processes using sediment 10:227-233. profile imaging: an efficient method of remote PerlmuttenA. 1939. An ecological survey of young ecological monitoring ofthe seafloor (REMOTS fishand eggs identifiedfrom tow-netcoUections. Pages System). Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:115­ 11-71 wAbiologjcal survey ofthe saltwatersofLong 128. Island, 193 8, Part 2. N. Y Conservation Department Rhoads, D. C, and J. D. Germano. 1986. Inter­ Supplementto 28th Annual Report, New York. 327 preting long-term changes in benthic community pp. structure: a new protocol. Hydrobiologia Perskey, J. H. 1986. The relation of ground­ 142:291-308. water quality to housing density, Cape Cod, MA. Rhoads, D.C, and D.J. Stanley. 1965. Biogenic U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investi­ graded bedding. Journal of Sedimentary Petrol­ gative Report 86-4093. 28 pp. ogy 35:956-963. Peterson, R. T. 1980. Afieldguid e to the birds: Rhoads, D. C, and D. K. Young. 1970. The influ­ eastern birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, ence of deposit-feeding organisms on sediment Mass. 384 pp. stability and community trophic structure. Jour­ Peterson, S. J. 1975. The seasonal abundance nal of Marine Research 28:150-177. and distribution offish eggs, larvae and juveniles Roman, M. R., and K. R. Tenore. 1978. Tidal in the Merrimack River estuary, Massachusetts, resuspension in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. I. 1974-75. M.S. thesis, University of Massachu­ Seasonal changes in the resuspension of organic setts, Amherst. 170 pp. carbon and chlorophyll a. Estuarine, Coastal and Poole, A. F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and un­ Shelf Science 6:37-46. natural history. Cambridge University Press, New SAIC 1991. Characterization of pollutant inputs York. 246 pp. to Buzzards Bay. Report to U.S. Environmental Potter, W. 1991. The fall of Cape Cod. Page 15 Protection Agency—Buzzards Bay Project. in L. Steward, editor. Hurricane Bob: New Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South England's nightmare. BD Publishing, Charleston, Dartmouth, Mass. 89 pp. S.C. 63 pp. Saila, S.B. 1961. The contribution of estuaries to Potter, W, and L. Steward. 1991. Facing the the offshore winterflounderfishery in Rhode Is­ past: revisiting the hurricanes ofthe Atlantic. land. Proceedings ofthe Gulf and Caribbean Fish­ Pages 5-14 in L. Steward, editor. Hurricane Bob: eries Institute 14:95-109. New England's Nightmare. BD Publishing, Saila, S. B., and S. D. Pratt. 1973. Mid-Atlantic Charleston, SC. 63 pp. Bight fisheries. Pages 134-156 in S.B. Saila, Redfield, A. C. 1953. Interference phenomena in editor. Coastal and offshore environmental in­ the tides ofthe Woods Hole region. Journal of ventory, Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Marine Research 12:121-140. Marine Publication Series No. 2, University of Redfield, A. C. 1967. Postglacial change in sea Rhode Island, Kingston. 528 pp. level in the western North Atlantic ocean. Sci­ Salinas, L. M., R. D. DeLaune, and W. H. Patrick, ence 157:687-690. Jr. 1986. Changes occurring along a rapidly sub­ Redfield, A. C. 1972. Development of a New merging coastal area: Louisiana, USA. Journal England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs of Coastal Research 2:269-284. 42:201-237. Sanders, H.L. 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzards Rhoads, D.C. 1963. Rates of sediment reworking Bay. I. Animal-sediment relationships. Limnol­ by Yoldia limatula in Buzzards Bay, Massachu­ ogy and Oceanography 3:245-258. setts, and Long Island Sound. Journal of Sedi­ Sanders, H.L. 1960. Benthic studies in Buzzards mentary Petrology 33:723-727. Bay. III. The structure ofthe soft-bottom ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY: An Estuarine Profile 139

community. Limnology and Oceanography5:138­ Spaulding, M. L., and R. B. Gordon. 1982. A 153. nested numerical tidal model ofthe southern New Sastry, A. N. 1966. Temperature effects on re­ England Bight. Ocean Engineering 9:107­ production of the bay scallop, Aequipecten 126. irradians (Lamarck). Biological Bulletin Strahler, A. N. 1966. A geologist's view of Cape 130:118-134. Cod. Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y. 115 pp. Sastry, A. N. 1968, The relationships among food, Strother, D. H. 1860. A summer in New England temperature and gonad development ofthe bay (Buzzards Bay). Harper's Monthly 21:442. scallop Aequipecten irradians (Lamarck). Sumner, F. B., R. C Osbum, and L. J. Cole. 1913. Physiological Zoology 41:44-53. A biological survey ofthe waters of Woods Hole Sears, J. R., and H. S. Parker. 1981. Marsh grass and vicinity. Parti: U.S. Bureau of Fisheries die-back in the South Nonquitt, Massachu­ Bulletin 31:544. setts salt marsh—a preliminary survey and Taylor, CD., and B.L.Howes. 1994. Effect of study. Nonquitt Association, Nonquitt, Mass. samplingfrequency on measurements of seasonal 52 pp. primary production and oxygen status in nearshore Short, F. T., A. C Mathieson, and J. I. Nelson. coastal ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress 1986. Recurrence ofthe eelgrass wasting dis­ Series 108:193-203. ease at the border ofNew Hampshire and Maine, Teal, J. M. 1986. The ecology of regularly flooded U.S.A. Marine Ecology Progress Series 29:89­ salt marshes of New England: a community pro­ 92. file. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Signell, R. P. 1987. Tide-and wind-forced cur­ Report 85(7.4). 61pp. rents in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Woods Teal, J. M., J. W. Farrington, K. A. Bums, J. J. Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report Stegeman, B. W. Tripp, B. Woodin, and C. 87-15. Woods Hole, Mass. 86 pp. Phinney. 1992. The West Falmouth oil spill after Sindermann, C J. 1979. Pollution associated dis­ 20 years: fate of fuel oil compounds and effects eases and abnormalities offish and shellfish: a on animals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24:607­ review. Fishery Bulletin 76:1 -36. 614. Smayda,T. J. 1990. Assessment of primary pro­ Teal, J. M., and J. Kanwisher. 1966. Gas trans­ ductivity and eutrophication potential in New port in the marsh grass Spartina alterniflora. Bedford Outer Harbor in response to nutrient Journal of Experimental Botany 17:355-361. regime and potential inputs. Appendix F in Camp, Teal, J. M., and S. B. Peterson. 1991. The next Dresser, and McKee, Inc. Phase 2 effluent out­ generation of septage treatment. Research fall facilities plan for the City of New Bedford, Journal ofthe Water Pollution Control Federa­ Massachusetts. Boston, Mass. tion 63:83-89. Smith, R. L., B. L. Howes, and J. H. Duff. 1991. Teal, J. M., and M. Teal. 1969. Life and death of Denitrification in nitrate-amtaminated groundwa­ the salt marsh. Ballantine Books, New York. 274 ter: occurrence in steep vertical geochemical gra­ pp. dients. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Terkla, D. G, P. B. Doeringer, J. M. Teal, B. L. 55:1815-1825. Howes, C. Evans, R. Bluffstone, and P. Weiskel. Smith, W. G 1970. Spartina "die-back" in Loui­ 1990. Economic growth and environmental siana marshlands. Coastal Studies Bulletin 5:89­ change in Buzzards Bay. Report to the Jessie B. 96. Cox Charitable Trust, Boston, Mass. Volumes I Souza, G. 1984. Bay scallop fishery: problems and II. 187 pp. (Vol. I), 224 pp. (Vol II). and management. Woods Hole Oceanographic Thayer, G. W, W. J. Kenworthy, and M. S. Institution Technical Report 84-38, Woods Hole, Fonseca. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass mead­ Mass. 48 pp. ows of the Atlantic Coast: a community profile. 140 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 31

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biologi­ Economic Development Administration, U.S. cal Services FWS/OBS-84/02. 147 pp. Dept. of Commerce, Grant No. 01-6-01369. Thomas, J. D. 1990. Cranberry harvest: a history 47 pp. of cranberry growing in Massachusetts. Weaver, G. 1984. PCB contamination in and Spinner Publications, Inc., New Bedford, Mass. around New Bedford, Massachusetts. Environ­ 224 pp. mental Science and Technology 18:22A-27A. Thoreau, H. D. 1966. Cape Cod. Apollo Edi­ Weiskel,?. K. 1991. Septic effluent and ground­ tions, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. water quality, Buttermilk Bay drainage basin, 319 pp. Massachusetts. Ph.D. thesis, Boston University, Trull, P. 1992. A guide to the common birds of Mass. 175 pp. Cape Cod. Shank Painter Printing Co., Inc., Weiskel, P. K., and B. L. Howes. 1991. Quanti­ Provincetown, Mass. 72 pp. fying dissolved nitrogenflux through a coastal wa­ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Roseate tershed. Water Resources Research 27:2929­ tem recovery plan - northeast population. U.S. 2939. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Mass. Weiskel, P. K., and B.L.Howes. 1992. Differ­ 78 pp. ential transport of sewage-derived nitrogen and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endan­ phosphorus through a coastal watershed. Envi­ gered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 ronmental Science and Technology 26:352-360. Code of Federal Regulations 17.11 and 17.12. Weiskel, P. K., B. L. Howes, and G R. Heufelder. 42 pp. 1996. Coliform contamination of a coastal Valiela, I., J. Costa, K. Foreman, J. M. Teal, B. L. embayment: sources and transport. Environmen­ Howes, and D. G Aubrey. 1990. Transport of tal Science and Technology. In press. groundwater bome nutrients from watersheds Werme, C.E. 1981. Resource Partitioning in a and their effects on coastal waters. Biogeochem­ Salt Marsh Fish Community. Ph.D. thesis, Bos­ istry 10:177-197. ton University, Mass. 126 pp. Valiela, I., and J. M. Teal. 1979. The nitrogen White, J. J. 1870. Cranberry Culture. Orange budget of a salt marsh ecosystem. Nature JuddandCo., New York. 210 pp. 280:652-656. Whitlach, R. B. 1982. The ecology of New En­ Valiela, I., J. M. Teal, and W. J. Sass. 1975. Pro­ gland tidalflats: a community profile. U.S. Fish duction and dynamics of salt marsh vegetation and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services and the effects of treatment with sewage sludge: FWS/OBS-81/0I. 125 pp. biomass, production and species composition. Wieser, W. 1960. Benthic studies in Buzzards Journal of Applied Ecology 12:973-982. Bay. II. The meiofauna. Limnology and Ocean­ VanLuven, D. 1991. More than sandy beaches. ography 5:121-137. Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod Wilcox, W.A. 1887. Buzzards Bay and its tribu­ Bulletin 11. Shank Painter Printing Co., Inc., taries. Pages 668-670 in G. B. Goode, editor. Provincetown, Mass. Thefisheriesan dfisheryindustrie s ofthe United Veatch,A. C. 1906. Outlines of the geology of States. Volume 1, Section 5. U.S. Government Long Island. U.S. Geological Survey Profes­ Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 808 pp. sional Paper 44:26-32. Wilson, J. O., I. Valiela, and T. Swain. 1985. Walsh, D. T, J. L. Madison, L. C. Vanderhoop, J. Sources and concentrations of vascular plant Jeffers, D. Luce, and L. Fisk. 1978. The material in sediments ofBuzzards Bay, Massa­ Wampanoag Fisheries Proj ect: shellfish protec­ chusetts, USA. Marine Biology 90:129-137. tion improvement at Gay Head, Martha's Vine­ Woodworth, J. B., and E. Wigglesworth. 1934. yard, Massachusetts. First annual report to the Geology and geography ofthe region including ECOLOGY OF BUZZARDS BAY An Estuarine Profile 141

Cape Cod, the Elizabeth Islands, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, No Man's Land, and Block Island. Museum Comparative Zoology Mem­ oirs Vol. 52. 322 pp. r REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form approved OMB No 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection Is estimated to average 1 hour per response. Including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathenng and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Blank) September 1996

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Ecology ofBuzzards Bay An Estuarine Profile

6. AUTHOR(S) B.L. Howes and D.D. Goehringer

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Biological Department Coastal Ecological Research Institute Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution at Woods Hole Woods Hole, MA 02543 Woods Hole, MA 02543

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES 10. SPONSORING, MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department ofthe Interior National Biological Service Biological Report 31 Washington, DC 20240 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Release unlimited. NTIS, DoDD

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) Buzzards Bay remains one of the few relatively pristine bays in the metropolitan corridor from Washington to Boston The bay and its surrounding marshes and uplands have provided a variety of biotic resources not only to European settlers over nearly 400 years but also to the Native Americans who relied on this estuary for thousands of years before them. Today the uplands are divided between 18 communities, and while the bay is still exploited for its biotic resources, its aesthetic and recreational values add to the growing concern to preserve its environmental quality At the same time, it has become clear that the health of the Buzzards Bay ecosystem, like almost all estuarine systems, is controlled not just by processes within the bay waters themselves but also by inputs from the surrounding uplands as well Therefore, to properly understand and manage this system, it is important to detail activities and land use patterns within the watershed as well as within the tidal reach of the bay waters This combined watershed-bay system is referred to as the "Buzzards Bay Ecosystem" and is the necessary frame of reference for understanding the biotic structure of the bay and for managing and conserving its resources This community profile provides an overview of the ecology of the Buzzards Bay ecosystem It is not intended to represent an all-inclusive review of the literature, instead it is an attempt to present key features of the bay in a readily accessible form and to summarize the dominant ecological processes that structure the bay environment Because the current and future environmental health of these types of embayments can be directly influenced by activities within contributing watersheds, understanding the interactions between land and sea is an important component to understanding the ecosystem as a whole The subjects addressed in this profile, therefore, focus not only on the open bay waters but also on the ecology of Buzzards Bay within its watershed including management issues and the difficulties in balancing demands for access and development while protecting water quality

14. SUBJECT TERMS (Keywords) 15. NUMBER OF PAGES vi+ 141 pp. Buzzards Bay, estuarine ecology, ecosystem, watershed 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT THIS PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

Standard Form 298 (rev 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18 The following is a list of community/estuarine/ecological profiles produced by the National Wetlands Research Center since 1979. Individual titles may be available at Federal depository collections in academic libraries and municipal public libraries, may be borrowed through mterlibrary loan using any public, academic, or other library offering interlibrary loan services, or may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (See inside front cover for more information about NTIS ordering). 1 The Ecology of Open-bay Bottoms of Texas: A Community Profile, by N.E Armstrong. 1987. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 12). 104 pp 2 The Ecology of Intertidal Oyster Reefs ofthe South Atlantic Coast. A Community Profile, by L M Bahr and WP. Lanier 1981 US. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-81/15. 105 pp. 3 The Ecology of Humboldt Bay, California: An Estuarine Profile, by R.A. Bamhart, M.J Boyd, and J J Pequegnat. ! 992. U S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 1 121 pp. 4 Ecology of Maritime Forests ofthe Southern Atlantic Coast-A Community Profile, by VJ Bellis 1995. National Biological Service Biological Report 30. 99 pp. 5 The Ecology of Barataria Basin, Louisiana- An Estuarine Profile, by W.H. Conner and J.W. Day, Jr. 1987. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.13). 165 pp 6 The Ecology of Albemarle Sound, North Carolina- An Estuarine Profile, by B.J. Copeland and R G Hodson. 1983 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-83/01.68 pp. 7 The Ecology ofthe Pamlico River, North Carolina- An Estuarine Profile, by B J. Copeland, R.G Hodson, and S.R. Riggs 1984. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/06. 83 pp. 8 The Ecology of Peat Bogs ofthe Glaciated Northeastern United States: A Community Profile, by A W H Damman and T.W French. 1987. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.16). 100 pp. 9 The St Marys River, Michigan: A Community Profile, by W.G Duffy and T.R. Batterson. 1987 US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 10) 138 pp 10 The Ecology of Pools 11-13 ofthe Upper Mississippi River: A Community Profile, by J.W. Eckblad. 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 8). 88 pp 11 The St. Clair River and Lake St Clair, Michigan-An Ecological Profile, b Ty A Edsall and B.A Manny. 1988. US. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.3) 130pp 12 The Ecology of Riparian Habitats ofthe Southern California Coastal Region. A Community Profile, by P.M Faber, E Keller, A. Sands, and B.M. Massey 1989 US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.27) 152 pp. 13 The Ecology of Giant Kelp Forests in California: A Community Profile, by M.S Foster and D.R Schiel. 1985. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 2). 152 pp 14 The Ecology of Petroleum Platforms in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico: A Community Profile, by B.J. Galloway and GS. Lewbel. 1982 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/27. 91 pp. 15 The Ecology of Patterned Boreal Peatlands of Northern Minnesota A Community Profile, by PH. Glaser. 1987. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 14). 98 pp. 16 Ecology oRef d Maple Swamps in the Glaciated Northeast. A Community Profile, by F.C. Golet, A.J.K Calhoun, W.R. DeRagon.DJ Lowry, and A.J. Gold 1993. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 12 151pp. 17 The Ecology of Delta Marshes of Coastal Louisiana A Community Profile, by J.G Gosselink. 1984. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-84/09. 134 pp. 18 The Ecology of Rubble Structures ofthe South Atlantic Bight: A Community Profile, by M E. Hay and J P Sutherland. 1988. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.20). 67 pp 19 The Ecology ofthe Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta A Community Profile, by B. Herbold and P.B. Moyle 1989. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 22). 106 pp. 20 The Ecology of Coastal Marshes of Western Lake Erie. A Community Profile, by C E. Herdendorf. 1987 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.9). 240 pp. 21 The Ecology oLakf e St. Clair Wetlands- A Community Profile, by C.E Herdendorf, CN Raphael, and E. Jawarski. 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 7) 187 pp. 22 The Ecology ofTundra Ponds ofthe Arctic Coastal Plain-A Community Profile, by J E. Hobbie 1984 US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-83/25 52 pp 23 The Ecology ofthe South Florida Coral Reefs: A Community Profile, by W C Jaap 1984. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/08. 138 pp. 24 The Ecology of Pools 19 and 20, Upper Mississippi River A Community Profile, by L.A. Jahn and R.V Anderson. 1986. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 6) 142 pp 25 The Ecology of San Francisco Bay Tidal Marshes: A Community Profile, by M Josselyn 1983 U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-83/23 102 pp. 26 Prairie Basin Wetlands of the Dakotas: A Community Profile, by H A Kantrud, GL Krapu, and GA Swanson 1989 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 28) 111 pp. 27 The Ecology of Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands: A Community Profile, by A.D Laderman. 1989. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 21) 114 pp. 28 The Ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida- An Estuarine Profile, by R.R Lewis III and E.D. Estevez 1988. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.18) 132 pp 29 The Ecology othf e Apalachicola Bay System: An Estuarine Profile, by R J Livingston 1984. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/05. 148 pp. 30 The Ecology ofthe Detroit River, Michigan: An Ecological Profile, by B.A. Manny, T.A Edsall, and E Jaworski. 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.17). 86 pp. 31 The Ecology of Stream and Riparian Habitats ofthe Great Basin Region: A Community Profile, by GW. Mtnshall, S.E. Jensen, and WS Platts. 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.24). 142 pp. 32 The Ecology ofthe Soft-bottom Benthos of San Francisco Bay: A Community Profile, by F.H Nichols and M.M. Pamatmat. 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.23). Originally 85(7.19) 73 pp. 33 The Ecology of New England High Salt Marshes: A Community Profile, by S.W Nixon. 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-81/55.70 pp. 34 The Ecology ofthe Mangroves of South Florida: A Community Profile, by WE. Odum, CC Mclvor, and T.J Smith III. 1982. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-81 /24.154 pp. 35 The Ecology of Tidal Freshwater Marshes ofthe United States East Coast: A Community Profile, by W.E. Odum, T.J. Smith III, J K. Hoover, and C C. Mclvor 1984 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-83/17. 176 pp 36 The Ecology of Mugu Lagoon, California: An Estuarine Profile, by C P. Onuf. 1987. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.15) 122 pp. 37 The Ecology of Intertidal Flats of North Carolina: A Community Profile, by C.H Peterson and N.M. Peterson. 1979 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-79/39.73 pp. 38 The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows in the Pacific Northwest A Community Profile, by R.C. Phillips. 1984. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-84/24 39 The Ecology of Tidal Marshes ofthe Pacific Northwest Coast. A Community Profile, by D.M. Seliskar and J L. Gallagher. 1983 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/32.65 pp. 40 The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina Bays: A Community Profile, by R.R. Sharitz and J.W Gibbons. 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/04 93 pp. 41 The Ecology of Estuarine Channels ofthe Pacific Northwest Coast- A Community Profile, by CA. Simenstad 1983 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program F WS/OBS-83/05.181 pp. 42 Hydrick Hammocks- A Guide to Management, by R.W Simons, S.W. Vince, and S.R Humphrey. 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.26 Supplement). 89 pp. 43 The Ecology of Irregularly Flooded Salt Marshes ofthe Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: A Community Profile, by J P. Stout 1984. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 1). 98 pp. 44 The Ecology of Regularly Flooded Salt Marshes of New England A Community Profile, by J.M. Teal 1986 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7 4) 61 pp. 45 The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows ofthe Atlantic Coast A Community Profile, by GW. Thayer, W.J Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonseca 1984 U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-84/02.147 pp 46 The Ecology of Hydrick Hammocks- A Community Profile, by S.W. Vince, S.R Humphrey, and R W. Simons. 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.26). 81 pp. 47 The Ecology of Bottomland Hardwood Swamps ofthe Southeast: A Community Profile, by C.H. Wharton, W.M. Kitchens, E.G. Pendleton, and T. W Sipe. 1982. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-81/37. 133 pp. 48 The Ecology of New England tidal Flats: A Community Profile, by R.B. Whitlatch. 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-81/01 125 pp 49 The Ecology of Pacific Northwest Coastal Sand Dunes: A Community Profile, by A M. Wiedemann 1984. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-84/04.130 pp 50 Tidal Salt Marshes ofthe Southeast Atlantic Coast: A Community Profile, by R.G Wiegert and B.J. Freeman. 1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.29) 70 pp. 51 The Ecology of Southern California Coastal Salt Marshes'A Community Profile, by J B. Zedler. 1982. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-81/54.110 pp. 52 The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California- An Estuarine Profile, by J.B. Zedler. 1986 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.5). 104 pp. 53 The Ecology of Southern California Vernal Pools: A Community Profile, by J.B. Zedler. 1987 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.11). 136 pp. 54 The Ecology ofthe Seagrasses of South Florida: A Community Profile, by J.C. Zieman. 1982. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/25.150pp 55 The Ecology ofthe Seagrass Meadows ofthe West Coast of Florida: A Community Profile, b J.Cy . Zieman and R T. Zieman. 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.25). 155 pp. National Wetlands Research Center

Production Staff Other Production Assistance Chief, Technical Technical Editors Mary Catherine Hager, Support Office GayeS.Farris Lafayette, Louisiana, and Writer/Editor BethA.Vairin Daryl S. McGrath, Visual Information Johnson Controls World Services Specialist Susan M. Lauritzen Technical Typist Shannon E. Price, Editorial Assistant Rhonda F. Davis Johnson Controls World Services Technical Illustrator Natalie Y. Gormanous, Johnson Controls World Services

NOTE: Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S Government U.S. Department of the Interior National Biological Service

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department ofthe Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This responsibility includes fostering the sound use of our lands and water resources; pro­ tecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and pro­ viding for the enjoyment of life through outdoor rec­ reation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participa­ tion in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation com­ munities.