Jones River Ecology

JRWA Letter to NOAA: Re: Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation

2012-02-07T14:13:00.000-05:00

February 6, 2012

CERTIFIED MAIL and email

Ms. Mary Colligan

Assistant Regional Administrator

Protected Resources Division

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration

Fisheries Service

Northeast Regional Office

55 Great Republic Drive

Gloucester MA 01930-2276

Re: Endangered Species Act, Section 7Consultation:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth,Massachusetts: Relicensing

Dear Ms. Colligan:

We are writing about the Section 7 consultation by theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station(PNPS) in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Thisconsultation is required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.S. §§1536 et seq. As you may know, the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is conducting re-licensing proceedings on PNPS’s operatinglicense. The license expires on June 8,2012 and the licensee, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) seekspermission to continue operating for another 20 years. See, Pilgrim LR Proceeding, 50-293-LR,06-848-02-LR, NRC Docket No. 50-293. Since it began operation in December, 1972,PNPS has been using once-through cooling water from Cape Cod Bay anddischarging pollutants to the Bay.

Our research appears to show that the NMFS has yet to concurwith the NRC’s July 2007 “biological assessment” under the ESA, nor has NMFS issuedits own biological opinion or otherwise concluded an informal consultation. Thelast relevant communication in the relicensing proceeding record is a January23, 2007 letter from NMFS stating ‘[c]omments relative to the Section 7Endangered Species Act consultation will be provided by NMFS ProtectedResources Division under separate cover.” NUREG-1437, Supp. 29, page E-45. [1] Wehave been unable to locate a NMFS concurrence letter or any subsequent commentsfrom NMFS on the NRC biological assessment for PNPS.

If NMFS has yet tomake its decision on whether to concur with the NRC’s biological assessment, weurge the NMFS to withhold concurrence at this time, for the reasons statedbelow. If NMFS has concurred, we requestthat the concurrence letter be placed in the NRC docket as part of the recordin NRC’s operating relicensing proceeding.

Relevant Law

The ESA regulations at 50 CFR 402.14(a) provide in pertinentpart,

“[e]ach Federal agency shall review its actions at theearliest possible time to determine whether any action may affect listed species or critical habitat. If such adetermination is made, formalconsultation is required, except as noted in paragraph (b) of thissection.”

The two exceptions in 50 CFR 402.15(b) provide,

“(1) A Federal agency need not initiate formal consultationif, as a result of the preparation of a biologicalassessment under § 402.12 or as aresult of informal consultation with the Service under § 402.13, theFederal agency determines, with thewritten concurrence of the Director, that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any listedspecies or critical habitat.” In this case, the Director is the assistant administrator of NMFS. 50 CFR 402.02. (emphasis supplied)

The NRC has determined that ten federally listed endangered or threatened species that areunder full or partial NMFS jurisdiction “maybe affected by continuing operations of PNPS.” NUREG-1437, p. E-73. The NMFS also informed the NRC that Cape CodBay is critical habitat for the Northern right whale. See, NMFS letter to NRC,June 8, 2006, NUREG-1437, p. E-15. ESAconsultation is also required on this critical habitat in its own right as wellas on the ten listed species. The NRC has not addressed the critical habitatfor Northern right whales in the 2007 biological assessment.

In its 2007 biological assessment, NRC determined thatoperation of PNPS for another 20 years “would not have any adverse impact onany threatened or endangered marine aquatic species.” NUREG-1437, p. E-73. On this conclusion, the NRC is required toinitiate a formal consultation, obtain NMFS concurrence on the 2007 biologicalassessment, or otherwise conclude an informal consultation.

Relevant Facts

PNPS is located on Cape Cod Bay and withdraws up to 510million gallons per day (mgd) of oncethrough cooling water from the Bay. Under the federal Clean Water Act and itsstate

counterpart, PNPS has an NPDES permit. This permit expired on April 29, 1996, buthas been administratively extended by U.S. EPA for 16 years.[2] The state water quality

certification is also expired. In addition to NPDES regulated pollutants, liquidscontaining radioactive wastes are also discharged to Cape Cod Bay under NRC regulations.The NPDES permit allows Entergy to discharge to Cape Cod Bay least 510 mgd of heatedcondenser cooling water (daily maximum), 255 mgd of thermal backwash (dailymaximum), 19.4 mgd of service cooling water (monthly average), .06 mgd of makeup water (daily maximum), 4.1 mgd of intake screen wash, and stormwater runoff fromat least four storm drains.

As described by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court inupholding the state’s authority to regulate the PNPS intake and discharges,“the environmental impact of these systems is staggering.” Entergy Nuclear Generation Company vs.Department of Environmental Protection, SJC-10732, 2011 Mass. Lexis 163,April 11, 2011. The state’s highest court further stated:

“As the sources referenced by the department indicate, theecological harms associated with CWISs are well understood. The intake of waterby a CWIS at "a single power plant can kill or injure billions of aquaticorganisms in a single year." Riverkeeper, Inc. v. United States Envtl.Protection Agency, 475 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2007), rev'd in part on othergrounds, Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498, 173 L. Ed.2d 369 (2009). See Riverkeeper, Inc. v. United States Envtl. ProtectionAgency, 358 F.3d 174, 181 (2d Cir. 2004). In light of the SJC’s ruling, a careful ESA consultation is warranted.

In the PNPS relicensing process, Energy prepared an EnvironmentalReport (ER) that the NRC used, along with other information, as the basis forits final environmental impact statement. NUREG-1437, p. E-53. The NRCagency staff then produced the 2007 biological assessment based on the finalenvironmental impact statement.

Entergy has submitted a NPDES renewal application toEPA. Entergy makes no secret about itsposition that it should not be required to change its operating methods toreduce its environmental impacts on Cape Cod Bay.[3]The pending NPDES permit renewal process, which Entergy is likely to delay bychallenging any efforts to require operational changes to its water use anddischarge, should not drive NMFS’s consultation process. Entergy itself has argued against a delay in asimilar nuclear power plant relicensing proceeding.[4]While we are not suggesting that NMFS has delayed its concurrence decisionpending EPA action on the NPDES permit and State Water Quality Certification,we are simply pointing out Entergy’s position that NMFS should not delay itsdecision.

Deficiencies inNRC’s Biological Assessment

It is our view that NMFS concurrence with the NRC’sbiological assessment is unwarranted and would be inconsistent with theESA. The assessment relies almostentirely upon information produced by Entergy’s consultants and ignoresscientifically and commercially available data. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). Thespecies and habitat data is clearly not sufficient to make an informed decisionas to the effects of PNPS’s operations. Bob Marshall Alliance v. Watt,685 F. Supp. 1514, (D. Mt. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part and rev’d inpart on other grounds, 852 F.2d 1223 (9^th Cir.) cert. den. 489 U.S. 1066 (1989).[5] The NRC’s biological assessment ignores readilyavailable data from such organizations as the Whale and Dolphin ConservationSociety (WDCS), Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, and others that wouldprovide specific information about the impacts of PNPS on listed species.

Some specific deficiencies in the NRC’s biologicalassessment are listed below. This is nota comprehensive list.

First, thebiological assessment unlawfully limitsthe geographical area it covers. The action area forpurposes of the ESA is defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as “all areas to be affecteddirectly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely theimmediate area involved in the action.” The NRC has improperly attempted to limitthe scope of its biological assessment to “near PNPS” or “at PNPS.” See e.g.,E-66, p. E-67, E-68, E-73. One reasonthis is improper is highlighted by comments by the Massachusetts Office ofCoastal Zone Management (CZM) on Entergy’s Clean Water Act 316 demonstrationreport. Exhibit 1, hereto, June 27, 2000 letter. CZM has stated that the thermal loading fromthe PNPS may impact “hundreds of acres of Cape Cod Bay.” Thus, it is this agency’s position thatEntergy’s operations at PNPS affect not just the area “at” or “near” PNPS but“hundreds of acres of Cape Cod Bay”. While CZM’s comments relate to Entergy’sCWA compliance, it is also relevant to the assessment of impacts on listedspecies and critical habitat in Cape Cod Bay.

CZM stated Entergy’s impingement events may impact “food webdynamics in the region of Cape Cod Bay near the Entergy-Pilgrim station” and “atleast one modeling study predicts that hundreds of acres of Cape Cod Bay mayincrease by one degree Celsius or more due to thermal loading from thedischarge….” It cites “evidence that therate of fish impinged by the continuous action of the cooling water intakestructures is thousands to tens of thousands per year….” The NRC has notaddressed how thermal loading, impingement, and entrainment impact the foodweb, food supply for the listed species and critical habitat.

Second, the biological assessmentignores scientific data readily available aboutwhale activity in the area. Forexample, a quick review of available data produced this photo of a federallyendangered fin whale (balaenopter physalus) in front of PNPS. The NRC’sbiological assessment contains a scant half page of “assessment” of the impactsof PNPS on the fin whale. NUREG-1437, p.E-71.

Photocourtesy of Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. A view of PNPS from CapeCod Bay is also shown in another photo, which provides a clearer picture of thefour tanks at PNPS also shown in the WDCS photo. From the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2008/11/nuclear_watchdo.html

Third, NRC’s Biological Assessment as to the effects on sea turtles is contradictoryand lacking in specific habitat data. Itrelies on stranding data, and on Entergy’s monitoring data. p. E-66. It states, “The applicant has been monitoringaquatic communities in western Cape Cod Bay since 1969. No Federally endangered or threatened specieshave ever been observed in Cape Cod Bay near PNPS, or in the facility intakeand discharge areas, during the duration of these studies.”

The reliance on Entergy’s “monitoring” is totally misplacedbecause Entergy’s monitoring covers only fisheries and plankton – not turtlesor whales. Based upon our preliminaryreview of the 77 Environmental Monitoring Reports prepared by PNPS in the lastforty years, we have found no requirement that the presence of sea turtles orwhales be documented or reported.[6] Therefore, these reports cannot form the basisof a reasonable biological assessment regarding sea turtles.

Further, the NRC’sstatement about the absence of listed species near PNPS is at odds with thestatement in the EIS at NUREG-1437, page E-65 that a federally endangeredloggerhead turtle was stranded .63 miles south of PNPS on Priscilla Beach in2003. Finally, asNMFS has noted, sea turtles have been impacted by other nuclear power plants onthe East Coast. See, e.g. Nov. 21, 2006NMFS Biological Opinion for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

Fourth,the NRC biological assessment fails to address the fact that river herring are now considered a candidatespecies under the ESA. 76 Fed. Reg. 67652, 67656 (Nov. 2, 2011). About two months ago, NMFS announced a 90-dayfinding for a petition to list

Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and bluebackherring (Alosa aestivalis), collectively referred to as riverherring, as threatened under the ESA and to designate critical habitat

concurrent with a listing. 76 Fed. Reg. at 67652. NMFS’sESA determination on river herring is due by August 5, 2011.[7]

According to the NRC, alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) “is one of the most commonly impinged speciesat PNPS (ENSR 2006). Alewife larvae andjuveniles have been collected in the PNPS entrainment sampling. Juveniles and/or adults have beenconsistently collected in the PNPS impingement sampling program. Over the last 25 years (1980 to 2005),alewives have had the third highest number of individuals impinged at PNPS,based on annual extrapolated totals (Normandeau 2006b).” NUREG-1437, p. 2-34.This assessment raises several serious questions. For example, the NRC states that alewife“spawning occurs in freshwater rivers and streams,” p 2-34, but then sayslarvae are found in the entrainment sampling at PNPS. It seems extraordinary that larvae would beentrained at PNPS’s saltwater intake, several miles from suitable freshwaterhabitat in the area such as Eel River and Jones River. This raises the question, which has not beenassessed, as to whether PNPS thermal discharges are disrupting alewifereproduction.

Entergy’s own records show that during a ten-year period,1994 to 2004, 46,286 alewife and 16,188 blueback herring were impinged at PNPS,for a total of 62,474 river herring.

These facts stand in stark contrast to the wholly inaccuratepredictions on the impact to alewife from PNPS in the mid-1970s. In 1975, PNPS’s consultant Stone and Websterstated that over the 40 year operation of PNPS (1972 to 2012) impingement and entrainmentwould result in a loss of 29,410 alewife.[8]Worse yet, this prediction was based on the operation of two nuclear generating units at PNPS – the second one was notbuilt. The impingement numbers for alewife (42,286) and blueback herring(16,188) from 1994 to 2004, a ten year period, were 1.5 times as many alewifeimpinged as predicted for the full 40 year time period.

In relation to the total Jones River river herring stock, PNPS’simpingement and entrainment numbers are significant. In 2004 alone, PNPS impinged 2,192 riverherring (alewife and blueback herring). In the following year, 2005, the total estimated Jones River riverherring stock was 804 – therefore in 2004, PNPS impinged 2.75 times as manyfish as the entire Jones River river herring run the next year (2005).

Fifth, the NRC improperly excluded potential impacts fromEntergy’s dredging project

from the biologicalassessment. The EIS states, “otheractivities that may affect marine

aquatic resources in Cape CodBay include periodic maintenance dredging….However,

based on discussions with plantpersonnel, there are no plans for dredging of the intake embayment or dischargecanal at PNPS.” NUREG-1437, p. 4-75. Thisis inaccurate. In

2012, Entergy is scheduled todredge the intake channel. It haspermission from the state

to dredge 43,200 cubic yards ofin-situ sediments plus a potential 11,000 cubic yards of

over dredge.[9] Entergyrequested and received a waiver of the state requirement for an

[1] Unless otherwise noted, citations are toNRC’s “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of NuclearPower Plants, Supplement 29, Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, FinalReport, July 2007,” NUREG-1437, and its Appendices. (NUREG-1437). Available on line:http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement29/index.html;Vol. 1 ML 071990020; Vol. 2 Appendices ML 071990027.

[2] Jointly issued State Permit No. 359 and Federal Permit No. MA 0003537. TheNPDES permit is based on a daily plant operating capacity of 655 MW. See, Aug.30, 1994 Modification of NPDES permit. Following a power optimization overhaul in 2003, Entergy is nowproducing 715 MW daily. NUREG-1437, p.1-8. The annual capacity factor for 2010was 98.5%, meaning that PNPS operated at 100% capacity for 98.5% of thetime. Entergy “Marine Ecology Study”No. 77, Annual Report for 2010, p. 2. This raises questions about whether the annual quantity thermaldischarges and discharges of other pollutants has been higher in recent years,including 2010, given the increased annual operating capacity.

[3] See, e.g., ENSR and EntergyCorp., “Application of a Comprehensive Framework for Assessing AlternativeCooling Water Intake Structure Technologies Under 316b”,http://www.gunderboom.com/PDFfiles/ENSR%20Technical%20Paper.pdf

[4] Letter from Goodwin Proctorto NRC, Sept. 6, 2011 on Indian Point reactors.http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1125/ML11257A103.pdf

[5] In this case, the court ruled the Departmentof Interior violated ESA by failing to gather species and habitat datasufficient to make informed biological assessment of effects of oil and gas leasingin National Forest area, because such failure during agency planning processcreates likelihood of future conflict as development proceeds and, in effect,gives development priority over endangered species.

[6] The monitoring is done underEntergy’s NPDES Permit, Paragraphs A.8.b & e, and Attachment A, Paragraph 1.F.

[7] The decision on listingriver herring could be made before the NRC makes its decision on PNPS’ nuclearplant operating relicensing. The dutyto consult with NMFS under the ESA can be ongoing, and consultation must bereinitiated under certain circumstances. 50 CFR 402.16. If the listing decision on river herring ismade before June 8, 2012, a new consultation must be initiated.

[8] “316 Demonstration for Pilgrim Nuclear PowerStation, Units 1 and 2, July 1975”, prepared by Stone & Webster EngineeringCorporation, p. 7-4.

[9] See, MassachusettsEnvironmental Policy Act Certificate, EEOEA #14744.

GROUPS SAY ENDANGERED SPECIES AT RISK FROM ENTERGY’S PILGRIM STATION

2012-02-07T13:57:00.000-05:00

GROUPS SAY ENDANGERED SPECIES AT RISK FROMENTERGY’S PILGRIM STATION

Ask federal agency to assess impact onfish, whale habitat, and rare turtles

Contacts:

Jones River WatershedAssociation Pilgrim Watch

Pine duBois,781-424-0353 Mary Lampert

Meg Sheehan,508-259-9154 www.pilgrimwatch.org

www.jonesriver.org

Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear power station on the shoresof Cape Cod Bay in Plymouth, Massachusetts may be impacting endangered specieslike the fin whale, loggerhead turtles, the critical habitat for the endangeredNorthern right whale, and river herring. In a letter to National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Jones River Watershed Association andPilgrim Watch say the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) likely violatedthe federal Endangered Species Act in the relicensing process by ignoringpotential impacts to the endangered species and their habitat. Letter available at: http://www.jonesriver.blogspot.com/

Entergy, a Louisianabased corporation, has a license to operate the Plymouth nuclear plant but itexpires in June 2012. Entergy has askedthe NRC to extend the license for another 20 years. The groups say Entergy’s license should notbe extended until it upgrades the cooling water system that takes water fromCape Cod Bay and discharges harmful pollution, potentially impacting theendangered species and their habitat.

“Since 1972, Pilgrim has been taking a half billion gallons a day of sea water fromCape Cod Bay, running it through the nuclear reactor system to cool it down, anddumping it back into the Bay. This wateris super heated and polluted. For decades, Entergy has been sucking inand killing hundreds of thousands of fish and larvae, and millions of fish eggsand plankton every year with this process. This is an outdated and destructivemethod and has created a killing zone in Cape Cod Bay,” said Pine duBois of theJones River Watershed Association in Kingston. “Local groups, towns, andthe state are putting time and money into preserving and restoring our riversand bays. Entergy is undermining this work with its destructive operatingmethods. If Entergy wants to keeping running Pilgrim for another 20years, it must upgrade the cooling water system to stop this unnecessarydestruction of marine life and properly assess endangered species impacts.” she added.

"Cape Cod Bay isa national treasure. It is critical habitat for endangered whales andsome of the planet's most endangered turtles migrate through. This yearwe've seen unprecedented numbers of dolphins stranded in Cape Cod Bay. Our laws that protect these species should be rigorously upheld andactions that jeopardize these species should be thoroughly reviewed,” said MaryLampert of Pilgrim Watch. “This is just one more way that Entergy, withthe complicity of the NRC, is evading public scrutiny and federal and staterequirements today, and planning to continue to do so over the next 20 years,”she added.

###

2012-01-24T08:09:00.004-05:00

TODAY:

MASSPIRG and Environment Massachusetts to release study at press conference in Plymouth TODAY (12/24/2012)
Massachusetts Research and Policy Center representatives will be joined by local environmentalists near the Pilgrim nuclear power plant Tuesday to release a new report which includes data on how nuclear power threatens the Commonwealth's drinking water. The report can be found here (Summary and full report)

The official report will be released on Tuesday, January 24, at 12 p.m. by the Manomet Lobster Pound - almost overlooking Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station - and the press conference will include comments from MASSPIRG's Patrick Nagle, Mackenzie Clark of Environment Massachusetts, Anna Baker of Pilgrim MUST, Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch and Pine Dubois from the Jones River Watershed Association.

Mussels

2011-09-29T14:11:00.001-04:00

Mussels have been on my mind lately. Those of you who've seen me walking around in a sling this week know why. But yesterday it was mussels of a different sort that I was thinking about.

A big component of the restoration design is the installation of three riffles. These riffles are critical to the restored channel in several ways. Most importantly they control the grade of the river as it slopes through the site. By controlling the grade these riffles ensure that there is adequate water depth for fish to pass even at the lowest typical flows. They can be thought of as 3 big 'steps' that raise the water through this relatively steep section of the Jones. In this picture you can see the furthest upstream riffle immediately following its construction yesterday (9/29). The carefully selected and placed stone will ensure that sufficient upstream water depths are maintained and that fish can swim up the channel.

These riffles are a centerpiece of the design and when the project is complete the will contribute to improved habitat for a wide range of aquatic wildlife. Of course, construction is a disruptive business. The last thing we want to do is negatively impact wildlife while we are working to protect it. So early yesterday, as the water levels were adjusted to allow for the riffle install, we went on mussel patrol. Mussels can move surprisingly fast for a bivalve but sometimes they just can't keep up. We walked the site where the water had been drawn down and relocated any of the mussels that were ending up high and dry.

Turtle, snail, and fish patrols were part of the process too. And everything was safely relocated away from the construction activities. It's been amazing to see how quickly some animals have been to take advantage of the improved channel.

UN-Dam It!

2011-09-20T22:07:00.002-04:00

That's been our slogan throughout the project and now it's a reality. If you blinked you missed it. Working around some issues SumCo decided to dig into the dam this morning (9/20). Lack of rebar and breakable concrete made the demo easier than expected and over the course of the day they had the whole thing out. While there is still a lot of work to do to make this a successful restoration, the dam was the symbolic obstacle. And it's gone...

Underway!

2011-09-16T16:44:00.003-04:00

JRWA has had the Wapping Road Dam in its sites for a long time. There has been decades of talk about how to remove this obstruction in river, or at least get fish past it. In June of 2007 the Massachusetts Riverways Program (now the Division of Ecological Restoration) hired an engineer to conduct a preliminary assessment of the dam and suggest some alternatives for fish passage. The resulting report suggested several options - including full removal of the dam. In September of 2007 JRWA officially created their Ecology Program. One of the Program's first missions was to follow up on this preliminary report and take it to the next level. And the first step in doing so was to secure funding for further analysis. In 2008 JRWA was successful in securing finding from the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment to conduct a Feasibility Study on the alternatives at the site. The Feasibility Study report was finalized in the spring of 2009 with a conclusion that full dam removal was the preferred option to meet all of the environmental, economic, and safety goals of the project.

With a clear plan in mind, the next step was to prepare the complex engineering designs and proceed the layers of required permitting. In July 2009 JRWA received funding from the Open Rivers Initiative to conduct these aspects of the project. Open Rivers Initiative is a federal program that provides technical expertise and financial assistance to remove dams and barriers and restore habitat for the many species that migrate between the ocean and the nation’s freshwater rivers and streams. This initiative contributes to sustainability of U.S. fisheries, provides an economic boost for communities, and improves public safety. In 2010 Open Rivers Initiate again funded the project - this time to provide the resource to actually implement the restoration effort.

Meanwhile, the project continued to receive support from the Division of Ecological Restoration who have come through with invaluable technical expertise and frequent, well-timed state funding. Massachusetts Environmental Trust has also provided state funding that provided the opportunity for monitoring and local outreach. All the while the Town of Kingston has worked as an active partner. The Town worked with the JRWA and the property owner to secure a riverfront parcel which will recognize the historic aspects of the site and provide public access. The property owner, Dan Galambos, graciously donated the full proceeds of the land sale back to the project to provide critical local funds.

The project has continued to escalate in terms of local support. Upcoming posts will describe the critical donations by private and public organizations to make this project really come to life. Check back frequently for status updates with lots of pictures and videos! It's on...Un Dam It!

Intern Corner: River Herring

2010-02-10T14:54:00.000-05:00

This week we have a piece written by a pair of Mass Maritime Academy students who are spending their winter break with us. Cadet Michael Kerrigan is a Junior at the Academy and is fulfilling his co-op requirement here at the Landing. Cadet Holly McLaughlin is a freshman who is volunteering to help us out.

Enjoy...

Many rivers and streams are nurseries to different juvenile fish. The reason for this is because they provide protection from predators and provide ideal spawning grounds. Some of these areas can be strictly salt or fresh water flowing, but some are a mixture of both. These areas are commonly known as estuaries. An estuary is a transition zone from where freshwater flows to seawater. This prevents predators from going up these types of rivers and streams because their bodies can't handle the transition of salinity. These types of rivers are very significant because problems continue to grow along them and affect wildlife, specifically populations of spawning fish such as river herring.

River herring are migratory fish that travel in various amounts known as schools. There are normally two fish species linked together when using the term river herring, Alewife (Alosa psuedoharengus) and Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). Alewives can live up to 10 years, grow as large as 36cm, and spawn in early spring when water temperatures are between 60F (16C) and 66F (19C). While blueback herring live up to 8 years, grow up to 40cm, and spawn a little later than Alewives in spring when water temperatures are between 70F (21 C) and 75F (24C) .They are both also anadromous fish, which means they are one of the many types of fish that travel up rivers or streams to spawn and then travel out to sea. Although this process seems fairly simple, in some cases it isn't. River herring face many obstacles between the ocean and their spawning grounds causing a continual decline in population .Most herring return to their natal spawning ground, but due to various human activity, they can not reach their destination. This includes, but is not limited to the water quality of the area, over fishing and bycatches, and loss of habitat. All of these factors can be related to anyone living on or near a river.

There are many contributions that can cause a decline in water quality. Along rivers there are recreational activities, houses, and businesses, which all effect the condition of the water. Among some of the recreational activities are boaters, which can be seen as a contributor to water pollution. A lot of boating activity in an area constitutes a problem as well because the river is faced with constant engine idling, harmful bilge pump outs, and oil or gas spills and leaks. Also, many boaters have small portable toilet systems and do not take the proper measures to go to a pump out station as directed. Instead many pump them directly overboard with no treatment leaving sewerage in the area. Houses along the river can be a cause of sewerage infiltrating the river as well. Many of the houses in the area have septic systems with leaching fields. Leaching field discharge often finds its way to bodies of water. Also, when the river has high tides it can flood septic systems and pull back pollution as the tide retreats. Even with homes that had septic systems that have recently connected to the sewerage line can still pose problems. This is because although the system isn't geting anything put into it the leaching fields are still discharging and the soils around them take time to be flushed out. Also, homes around the river have sediment runoff into it. All runoff is, is when it rains or water is applied to a surface it will find low points normally leading to a river or stream and carry material with and substances with it. With homes this can cause problems because many people apply lawn fertilizer, pesticides, and have fluids leaking out of there cars. All of these substances can eventually make there way through runoff to a stream or river. Some businesses produce water pollution as well because they are allowed to discharge small amounts into rivers causing further contamination. All of these factors contribute to water quality. The fish cannot return in order to spawn if the water is not clean enough.

River herring are an easy species to be targeted as bycatch. This is because they travel in schools that can be made up of large numbers. As they move closer to there spawning grounds they become more confined as the river narrows, making them an easier target for fishermen. Besides just river herring which go upstream to spawn, there is also the Atlantic Herring (Clupea Harengus) which are strictly marine fish which have some restrictions on harvesting but not a total closure to the fishery. This is where most of the bycatch takes place and the fish are taken. River Herring have harvesting bans which restrict fishermen from catching them. River Herring populations have been drastically decreasing. For example, fishery landings have declined from 40,000 tons in the 1950s to less than 3,500 tons in 2005 (FAO, 2007). This is why rather than being a targeted species, they are often bycatch, getting caught in gear such as gillnets and midwater trawls.

In the early 1900's, as industry grew, the more people harvested hydro power off of rivers for convenience in factories. With many of these factories gone, still standing dams are left behind. This interrupts the natural flow of the river as well as the habitat of everything that lives in or around the area. Dams make it impossible for the herring to migrate back to their original spawning grounds. Although some actions have been taken to allow fish to pass, there is still no solution to the problem. Fish ladders are one of the solutions, but they do not solve the problem because fish can be too weak to swim up or locate them. If fish ladders are present and hydro power is being generated, they still pose a threat for many reasons. Herring are a velocity species, which will cause them to swim closer to the turbines. As they get closer to the turbines, they will be in the tail race where over oxidization of the water occurs. The herring may also swim up into the
turbine discharge tube, which will either kill them or lead them to a dead end. Some actions put into place are installing metal screens, so the fish don't have access to these areas, but they are not very reliable.

The obstacles that the river herring population face can be prevented. Many of these problems can be addressed with simple procedures. For instance, in boating aspects, funnels can be used to avoid spillage, safer chemicals can be used when cleaning, and catching bilge water while discharging can be helpful. To address the septic system problems, connecting to the town sewerage would be ideal. When doing any yard work or maintenance be cautious of any harmful chemicals used or put down and also check your cars periodically for leaks or drips that could be going onto the ground. Although the cost is high, dam removal would be an great solution for dams that are nonfunctional. Most obstacles river herring face can be eased and if we all do our part we can help rebuild their population.

Don't be fooled

2010-01-29T09:39:00.003-05:00

What a difference a day makes. At this time of year it's more apparent than ever. We've had a stretch of warm weather and although we knew better many of us were thinking spring. But the reality is that water temperatures are down near the 30 mark and it only takes a bit of cold air to freeze us in again.

Sand Tiger Sharks.

2010-01-19T10:54:00.001-05:00

Our annual meeting will be held on January 24, 2010. One of the featured speakers will be Jeff Kneebone of Division of Marine Fisheries. Jeff will be discussing his current PhD research on Sand Tiger Sharks. To pique your interest and give you a bit of background, I'm reposting a DMF summary of the project. This was was originally prepared by DMF in 2008 and featured on our website....

The sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) is a large coastal species that ranges from the Gulf of Maine south to the Gulf of Mexico along the east coast of the United States. They are commonly found in inshore waters ranging from 6 – 600 feet in habitats such as surf zones, shallow bays and estuaries, rocky and coral reefs and near shipwrecks. Sand tigers can be identified by the presence of two large dorsal fins, a large anal fin, large thin teeth, dusky spots along the side of the animal and black coloration at the tips of the fins.

Sand tiger sharks in New England:

Sand tiger sharks are seasonal visitors to New England waters during the warmer months of June – November. In the early to mid 1900’s sand tiger sharks were considered to be one of the most common shark species in New England waters and both commercial and recreational fishermen caught large numbers of individuals as far north as southern Cape Cod Bay. During this time, a directed commercial fishery was established in Nantucket Shoals, however, this fishery was short lived due to rapid depletion of the local stock. Unfortunately, increased fishing pressure on the species along the entire east coast of the United States during the mid – late 1900’s severely depleted sand tiger populations, including those around New England. In 1997 as a precaution to stop fishing mortality, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prohibited sand tiger sharks from being targeted and retained in both commercial and recreational fisheries. In 2005, Massachusetts state law also prohibited the targeting and retention of sand tiger sharks in state waters.

During the last few years, an increasing number of juvenile sand tiger sharks are being incidentally caught in Massachusetts coastal waters, particularly along the south shore in Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury (PKD) Bay. Interestingly, occurrence of sand tiger sharks in this region appears to be a relatively new phenomenon as local fishermen claim they have never seen this species in this region until recent years.

Our Research:

Over the last few years the Massachusetts Shark Research Program (MSRP) has worked with commercial and recreational fishermen in the region to investigate the presence and abundance of sand tiger sharks in Massachusetts state waters. Based on recent catch records, most of the sharks inhabiting the region are young of the year (newborn) individuals. While the lack of large females in Massachusetts precludes the use of Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury Bay for parturition (birth), it appears as though these coastal waters provide secondary nursery habitat for sand tigers that move north from southeastern pupping grounds. Given their increasing numbers in PKD Bay, this embayment may be the most important secondary nursery area for this species north of Delaware Bay.
At present, the MSRP has a study underway goaled at investigating regional movement, habitat use and the effects of capture of sand tiger sharks inhabiting New England coastal waters. Working in conjunction with local commercial and recreational fishermen, the MSRP is actively tagging sand tiger sharks with acoustic telemetry tags to quantify both regional and large-scale movement patterns and habitat use. Each acoustic tag emits a unique coded signal that can be picked up by a series of underwater receivers (listening stations) located in fixed positions within Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury Bay and Massachusetts coastal waters. If a shark swims within range of a receiver, the unique signal of its acoustic tag will be logged and stored as a data point on the receiver. Periodically the data logged by the receivers will be downloaded onto a computer and analyzed to generate information on regional movement, habitat use and overall ecology. Fortunately, receiver arrays maintained by other researchers in other regions (i.e. Delaware Bay and North Carolina) are capable of detecting fish tagged in New England waters, allowing for the potential to learn about large-scale movements of these young fish.

Data to date

In September 2008, three sand tigers were tagged with acoustic tags within PKD Bay. In the few weeks during which they remained in the Bay, various receivers logged 2,727 detections and provided some interesting information about habitat utilization. Interestingly, one fish tagged in the Jones River in early September was detected in a receiver array near the entrance to Pamlico Sound (Cape Hatteras, North Carolina) during mid-January.

During the 2009 season, the MSRP will continue tagging sand tiger sharks with acoustic transmitters within PKD Bay. Working in conjunction with the Jones River Environmental Heritage Center, the MSRP also hopes to periodically maintain captive sand tiger sharks in a holding tank located at the Jones River Landing for experimental purposes as well as for public outreach.

If you would like more information about this project or would like to report information about sand tiger shark occurrence in Massachusetts waters, please contact the Massachusetts Shark Research Program at 508-910-6329 or 508-693-4372.

References

Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. 53:74

Gilmore, R.G., J.W. Dodrill, and P.A. Linley. 1983. Embryonic development of the sand tiger
shark Odontaspis taurus (Rafinesque). Fishery Bulletin 81:201-225.

Skomal, G.B. 2007. Shark nursery areas in the coastal waters of Massachusetts. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 50:17-33.

Eels

2009-11-28T09:17:00.003-05:00

When we talk about the fish in the Jones we often focus on river herring. Those of you who have participated in the fish counts at Elm St are familiar with these flashy fish that shoot up the ladder (in far fewer number than we hope for). But while we watch for these swift swimmers there is another species of fish more subtly moving up the river.

American eels (Anguilla rostrata)are another essential part of the Jones River ecology. Like river herring, american eel populations have recently declined. The same types of threats have impacted both of these species - migration obstacles (dams), over harvesting, water quality, and reduced habitat to name a few. However, so little is known about eels that it has been difficult for scientist to pinpoint population numbers, trends, and impacts.

Both river herring and eels fall into the category of 'diadromous' fish, meaning that they spend part of their life in salt water and part in fresh water. Most of us are familiar with how this relates to river herring, salmon, and other fish that afe born in freshwater, migrate out to sea, then return years later to spawn in the same waters where they were born. These are a subset of the diadromous known as 'anadromous'. Eels fall into the other subset - 'catadromous' fish. Eels are born somewhere out in the Sargasso Sea, a region out in the middle of the North Atlantic. The tiny newborn eels then find their way all the way back to the eastern coast of the Americas. For reasons unknown, they branch off and swim up thousands of different rivers along the coast. They continue to migrate upstream as far as possible until finding good safe habitat to grow. Female eels may spend as much as 40 years in our local streams and lakes growing to up to 5 feet. Then on a dark rainy fall night (when you are least likely to notice) masses of eels slither back down the rivers and head out to the Sargasso to spawn and start it all over again.

This year, JRWA and DMF have begun tracking eels in our watershed. We had some fun wrangling eels over 2 1/2 feet long. We unexpectedly found thousands of eels trying to climb the Wapping Road Dam when the water levels dropped. In 2010 we'll be increasing our efforts to understand local Eel populations. And of course we are working hard to revive the conditions needed for their survival.

River Safari Part 2

2009-06-04T10:40:00.009-04:00

....and that was just the beginning (see Part 1 below). After reemerging at my truck on Grove St we were able to drop the trash we had picked up and shed a few layers. Although, with poison ivy threatening from all angles I decided to stay fairly bundled up. We did a short assessment of the road and railroad culverts then headed to Three Rivers Basin to carry on down the river.

Here we opted for the canoe again. After paddling a short ways up Jones River Brook, we headed back into the main channel and pushed downstream. There are some very nice, secluded stretches of river here with diverging channels and low marsh all around. Eventually though, we came to an impassable wall of thorns. Now it was time to ditch the canoe and head out on foot again. Pine assured that it was "only about 600-ft" to the final culvert we were seeking to inspect. Hmmmm, may need to remeasure that Pine! The terrain in the old cranberry bog is soft, wet, hummocky grass that ranges from knee to head high. In between each small tuft of unstable high grass is mud that threatened to steal the hip waders at each step.

It seemed like many miles and many hours, but mostly it was just the tough terrain. Eventually we reached the final culvert. In the end, we were all pleased to see that although the going is pretty rough for people, there does not appear to be any major impediments to fish passage. As Brad put it "There is a lot of work to be done in here but there is no 'project'". Essentially this means that with some chainsaws, brush cutters, and a few gallons of DEET a team of volunteers could clear this stretch of river without needing heavy equipment, funding, or high paid specialists. Boy scout project anyone?!?

I could keep going with this story, but these pictures should be worth a few thousand words....

River Safari Part 1

2009-05-20T14:05:00.008-04:00

I think of the South Shore as being a fairly crowded place. Nice...but crowded. But every now and then you find yourself in some pretty wild places. Monday was one of those days. With all of our plans to remove the Wapping Road Dam, the next big question is: so what will fish encounter once they can get up there? It's been along time (at least 85 years) since any anadromous fish swam past Wapping Road. Division of Marine Fisheries (and the rest of us) were very interested in having a first hand look at the condition of the river above the dam. Obstructions, rapid changes in elevation, loss of channel definition, and other factors could have serious impacts on the ability of fish to make it upstream....and the success of our restoration efforts.

So, only one way to find out. The day started out much colder and much rainier than the forecasters predicted. So after suiting up in scavenged raincoats and trash bags we jumped in the canoe to conduct our first headwater spawning habitat assessment of 2009. (Maybe more about these assessments in another post some day).

The lake work was uneventful...and then we headed into the wilds of the Jones River. It was only a matter of minutes before Brad (Brad Chase DMF) and I lost Pine in the jungle. We headed back to the truck thinking she had too. No luck. So we dove back into the woods. After about 15 minutes we started to hear more splashing and breaking branches than what we were doing ourselves. So in knee deep mud we reconnected with Pine. At this point it was clear that we had no intentions of stopping. So they carried on while I went back to leave a truck at our next intersection about 3/4 of a mile downstream. Once parked I decided to head upstream. The choices were:
1) In the river. Fairly clear sailing except that the soft bottom threatened to turn thigh deep water into neck deep at water at any step.
2) Along the bank. somewhat dryer than the first option but much muddier, much thornier, and way more poison ivy.
3) Along a trail about 60yrds away from the river.
Although option #3 was by far the easiest it kind of missed the point. So I opted for a combination of 1 and 2.

With phone, watch, and GPS buried deep in pockets under my coat and waders I had no idea how much time had passed when I finally heard Brad and Pine Picking their way downstream. I stopped and hid quietly behind a tree hoping to scare them as they got closer. Instead, I starting looking around at all the water and woods and spooked myself. I kept thinking "I'm glad I'm not doing this in Alaska". That was right about the time I heard Brad say to Pine "I'm glad I'm not doing this in Florida."

More to come in Part 2

Silver Lake High School in the Cranberry Watershed Preserve

2009-04-03T13:12:00.009-04:00

While we are busy with our efforts to remove the dam at Wapping Road we are also working on restoring other portions of the watershed. Our most active site right now is the lower portion of Pine Brook. Pine Brook and the Jones River are both coldwater, groundwater fed streams. Pine Brook contains some of the best potential for aquatic species habitat in the system that could serve as a source of ecological recovery of the Jones. Today, Pine Brook suffers from a number of impairments including reduced flows, a series of small barriers and restrictions, limited stream bank vegetation and cover, and poor water quality. At least eight small barriers exist on Pine Brook (debris dams, culverts, and flow diversions for historic cranberry bogs). The impoundments and channelized brook present poor fish habitat as temperatures are unnaturally high and dissolved oxygen is often quite low. Now that these bogs are no longer active and the land is owned by the town, these structures may be removed to restore natural flow throughout the brook. We are currently working to determine the flows necessary to enhance and maintain the habitat conditions necessary to support native fish fauna. The goal is also to increase the amount of habitat available to the fish and mussels in Pine Brook and Jones River within the range of available flows to enhance the resilience and survival of the species.

'Approximate' location of the Preserve.

One of the best things we have going for us here is that the town owns a huge portion of land that Pine Brook runs through…the Cranberry Watershed Preserve. Because of the public landownership there is a high potential for successful and rapid implementation of restoration plans.

An exciting part of the project is the opportunity to partner with the teachers and students at Silver Lake High School. The Preserve is literally in the backyard of the school and makes for a great outdoor classroom. The school’s horticulture program students are conducting species inventories and water quality testing, while the video program is documenting all of the activities and starting to create short films that will be available on line. We’ll get them posted as soon as they are available. Yesterday we went out and did recon of the site with some of the students and discussed the baseline monitoring needs.

Big Night!

2009-03-31T05:46:00.002-04:00

Well that must have done it. One more warm rainy night. Of course.....I missed it. But reports from Pine and Dan Wells are that the slamanders are out. Pine saw several yellow-spots in here secret Vernal Pool (I'm sure she'll divulge if you ask her). And Dan said he caught many in his study traps near the river. No blue-spots though.

They will be in the pools for a couple of weeks. So if you have favorite vernal pool head out to see them for yourself.

Big night?

2009-03-30T09:00:00.003-04:00

No this isn't a Monday morning post about some wild weekend party. At least not for me. The "Big Night" is that first warm (>40F) rainy night in the spring when all of the amphibians come out of their woodland hiding places to converge on their favorite vernal pool. Here they all meet up for a once-a-year breeding event. This is one of the great facts we learned at Jessica Tenzar's talk at the Landing last Thursday. For the second year in a row Jess came to teach us about vernal pools, the animals that live in them, and what we can do to protect them. This year Jess added a discussion about her own research. Although her field methods had some folks squirming in their seats, it was very cool to learn how stable isotopes of Carbon and Nitrogen within the bodies of salamanders can actually show us exactly what they are feeding on throughout their lives.

The timing of the talk was just right. Not only is it the season for vernal pools throughout the Northeast, but we happen to be in the middle of a survey for the endangered Blue-spotted salamander near the Wapping Road Dam (see post from last week). So we are wating for that Big Night and waiting to see what we find. But the Big Night can be elusive. We had rain on the Thursday night of Jessica's talk. But it wasn't as much as predicted and no salamanders or wood frogs showed up in our survey area. So then we had our fingers crossed for the rains this weekend. Saturday night and Sunday were POURING and it was warm(ish). But still nothing. Our salmander survey expert Dan Wells tells me that it may have started raining too late on Saturday night. It usually needs to start before dusk.

So we'll keep waiting and watching.

First day of Spring!

2009-03-23T13:37:00.004-04:00

Friday was the first day of spring! With a busy of weekend of spring chores I couldn't post until now, but I certainly couldn't let it pass unnoticed either.

Obviously the onset of spring is an exciting time for us at the Watershed Association. (Although, I have to admit I'm a little sad to see the slopes up north turning brown and green. Still a few more weeks left though). Although winter's grip has been slow to release this year I've still started to see the signs slowly emerging. Out in the bay I've started seeing spider crabs and horseshoe crabs moving around a lot more. I've also picked up a few flounder while working the oyster beds in the past 2 weeks. On the river, almost all of the snow is finally gone. Flows are high as the ground and surfaces releases all of the ice they've been holding. In my yard, the crocus and even a few forsythia are blooming. In the woods the vernal pools are full and ready for the 'big night'. Speaking of which, don't forget to stop by for Jess Tenzar's vernal pool talk this Thursday night at 7:00 (more info here).

Skunk cabbage budding by the river

Beaver practicing?

Of course, this is all just the slow start of things to come. Spring has an accelerating trajectory and in no time everything will be in full swing. Of course one of the highlights for us will be the herring run. The river herring, smelt, and other fish are already on their way and will start showing up in the river in the next few weeks. We will see them congregating at the bottom of the Elm St Dam. Then, when the water temperature is just right, they will all start racing up the ladder. You can help us capture the details of this critical ecological event by getting involved in our herring count (info here). It's a great way to get personally in tune with the natural cycles of the river while generating important data on the health of this species.

Final Feasibility Study

2009-03-20T13:16:00.003-04:00

This post backtracks a little bit. But since I didn't post much over the winter I thought it would be worthwhile to give a brief summary of some activities. I'll try to get a few more of these out over the next few weeks....

Throughout 2008 JRWA worked closely with a team of partners to conduct a feasibility study for restoration options at the Wapping Road. The project involved a big group of private, local, state, and federal partners. This included Jones River Realty Trust (the property owner), the Town of Kingston (Cons. Comm.), Division of Marine Fisheries, the Riverways Program, and NOAA Marine Fisheries. The bulk of the technical work was conducted by Milone & MacBroom Inc, a well known river restoration firm. Our study was guided by a specific set of goals for the river:

1. Restore the river habitat back to a more natural environment.
2. Reduce operation and maintenance requirements of the Wapping Road Dam.
3. Promote long-term sustainability at the dam and of the river system.
4. Avoid or mitigate impacts to the Wapping Road Bridge relative to scour and stability.
5. Create a condition that is compatible with the adjacent mill buildings, considering
structural stability as well as ongoing and future operations.
6. Pass target fish species, including alewife, blueback herring, American eel, and sea lamprey.
7. Improve the upstream water quality in the Jones River.
8. Maintain or enhance habitat for rare species that may occur in the project area.
9. Promote recreational use of the river (i.e., canoeing and kayaking).

The study assessed the engineering, biological, ecological, economic, and logistical issues surrounding a variety of alternatives for the site. The alternatives considered included doing nothing, installing a fish ladder, installing a bypass channel, installing a roughened ramp, removing portions of the dam, and removing the entire dam. After weighing the pros and cons of each alternative, it was determined that full removal of the dam would best meet the project goals.

If you want some more detail, please take a look at the Final Feasibility Study Report.

Salamander surveys start

2009-03-16T20:37:00.010-04:00

As we move forward with the Wapping Road Dam project we have a lot of permitting to take care of and a lot of regulatory compliance to be clear on. One of the really import ones is with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). This program is part of the State's Division of Fish and Wildlife. They watch out for all of the species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern. On the "Special Concern" list is the blue-spotted salamander (Ambystoma laterale). NHESP keeps maps of where potential habitat for these species exists. These maps show that the areas around the Jones River near the Wapping Road Dam might have habitat for these little guys. These salamanders use vernal pools and floodplain pools near rivers for breeding. There is concern that when the dam is removed and the water levels drop it might impact these important pools.

NHSEP has come out to see the site and they are excited about the overall ecological benefits that the project presents. But we do need to assess the potential impact to the blue-spots. The Riverways Program has stepped up to help us with this issue. They are funding a survey to identify specific habitat for the salamanders and determine if they are in the area and using the pools for breeding. An expert on these species (Dan Wells of Hyla Ecological Services) has been hired to come out and conduct the surveys. The first day of the survey was today and consisted of a site reconnaissance of the entire area. Pine and I did the walk with Dan today, here's where we went....

We had an interesting walk and identified several areas that have the potential to support blue-spot breeding. The next steps will be to set some traps to count catch and count salamanders, identify actual breeding pools through egg mass surveys, and figure out how the draw dawn will impact the pools. This will be happen over the next few weeks as the weather warms and the salamanders start moving. We'll keep you posted.

In the meantime...we'll be hosting a talk at the Landing by Jessica Tenzar. Jessica is an expert in salamanders and vernal pools. She will be discussing how to identify and certify vernal pools. She will also be presenting some of her new data that reveals the distances that salamanders travel to feed. This data suggests that existing regulations on vernal pool buffers may not be protective enough. Join us at 7:00pm on Thursday, March 26th to hear more.

Back again

2009-03-16T20:23:00.004-04:00

It's been a while. Lots and lots of activities and progress since the last entry. But a good deal of it has been of the desk work variety which doesn't lend itself to good pictures and exciting posts. Not that hasn't been interesting and important. The feasibility study for Wap[ing Rd Dam has been completed and the final report has been delivered. The 'preferred alternative' is full dam removal and we are now working to make that happen.

Winter is holding on. But spring will break through soon and there will be a lot of activity around the river. Stay tuned as a bunch of projects get really rolling.

Fish lecture at the Landing

2008-07-09T20:24:00.002-04:00

I just wanted to throw out another reminder that Brad Chase of MA Division of Marine Fisheries will be speaking at the Landing on Thursday 7/10/08. Brad has done years of study throughout the state, and has focused quite a bit on the Jones. He'll be giving an update on how anadromous fish are doing throughout the region and how we compare to those trends.

Along those lines...the Kingston Reporter was nice enough to interview me a for a piece they ran last week covering the issue of river herring declines http://www.wickedlocal.com/kingston/news/x1470896934/Where-are-they

Hope to see you all tomorrow night.

Love these summer days

2008-06-17T20:22:00.004-04:00

I love these long hot summer days. The water temps have really soared in the past week or so. Along with the warm temperatures comes a lot of activity – animals, plants, and people.

The bay is packed with pogies (menhaden) and the stripers and other bigger fish are actively hunting them down. The last few years we’ve had big menhaden runs and I suspect that has contributed to the Sand Tiger Sharks that have turned up in the bay and the river. On the other hand, it appears that the total count for our Elm St herring count was pretty low. We haven’t quite finalized the numbers, but it doesn’t look good. There has been a lot of concern about river herring stocks in the past few years, as a result of both degraded spawning habitat and offshore takes (http://www.herringalliance.org/). Brad Chase will be doing a talk about the status of Jones River fish on July 10th. I’m sure he’ll have some valuable insights.

Like the animals, the JRWA groups have been revved up by the summer weather. We’ve kicked into gear with our water quality monitoring. In mid May Bill G. and I paddled from the Elm St dam to the Wapping Rd dam to have a look at this somewhat hidden stretch of river. With the Wapping Rd dam feasibility study getting under way this summer we wanted to look for any obstructions or other issues that might impact the flow assessments. Things seemed to be in good shape, although we probably caught the last window of opportunity before things became too overgrown to make it up the river. Later in May we initiated our nutrient sampling program for the river and Silver Lake. We’ve been able to piggyback this sampling onto to the Division of Marine Fisheries rapid assessment program for the lake. By conducting these programs in concert we gain much more information for each assessment. These sampling programs will continue through the summer and I expect that we’ll add a few more elements as we go along.

Have to start somewhere....

2008-05-16T17:47:00.000-04:00

WOW we've had a lot going on in the past year or so! Things having been moving extremely fast (mostly in a forward direction). I know people are interested in keeping pace with all of this, and we certainly want to spread the word. The website has been fantastic and Petra, Iris, and others have done a great job keeping it current. We constantly get positive feedback and it is always exciting to hear people say that they check it out on a regular basis. Heck, my mom would rather get the details about upcoming events from the website than straight from me. (hi mom!)

Activities at Jones River Landing are pretty diverse: Boatbuilding, recreation, ecology, restoration, the River Store, lectures, fundraisers, potlucks, and a whole bunch of other stuff that's just good fun. I love the diversity at the Landing and as a board member it’s very exciting to see movement on all fronts. However, in the role of Ecology Program Director I have a specific focus…the health, ecology, and restoration of the river.

So that’s what this blog is all about – my own focused attention on river ecology issues. My hope is to keep this updated regularly with notes from the river. I expect to have quite a wide range of posts, from casual observations to detailed program notes. I hope it will be a place where people can find some interesting details that encourage them to seek me out at the Landing. I hope to get feedback that helps broaden my understanding and awareness of the watershed. There are so many well trained and thoughtful eyes in this community that continually enlighten me. I hope to spark even more of that through this little journal.

This is literally my first ever blog post. I can’t promise anything about the frequency or quality of my posts. But I will definitely try to keep it up. Although the plan is to focus on the ecology component, everything at the Landing is so interconnected (isn’t that ecology?) that I’m sure I’ll often touch on other pieces. So here we go….