Hull MA Revetment
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL I\4ARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 0 1 930-227 6
Dr. Charles N. Fanis Acting Chief, Permits and Enforcement Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA01742-2751
APrì
B
zots
Re: NAE-2016-185, Crescent Beach Revetment, Hull, MA Dear Dr. Farris: We have reviewed the General Permit application NAE-2016-185, for the Town of Hull, to modify an existing revetment and seawall along Crescent Beach, Hull, Massachusetts. The proposed work includes extending the revetment approximately 30 linear feet (LF) waterward of tné existing revetment toe for an approximately 1,000 linear foot (LF) section, maintaining an approximut.ty OSO LF revetment section within the existing footprint, and raising the existing seawall to an elevation of 23' MLW. The proposed revetment work includes the excavation of 2,50-0 cubic yards (Cy) of material and the placement of 6-7 ton "rough faced" arïnor stones set perpendiculár to the revetment slope. The proposed 30 LF revetment extension would place fill ou.iu total of 31,451 square feet (SF) of intertidal and subtidal essential fish habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act require Federal agencies to consult with one another on projects like this. Because the project involves EFH, the consultation process is guided by the EFH reguiatory requirements under 50 CFR 600-920, which mandates the preparation of EFH urr.r.-.nls and geneially outlines your obligations. Based on the information we have been provided, we are providi-ng the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.
General Comments A total of 25 managed fish species have mapped EFH in the project vicinity and may be adversely impacted by the proposed revetment extension into tidal watêrs. The intertidal and shallow subtiáal habitat that is currently proposed to be filled has been described, and observed, to consist of predominantly sandy substrate with areas of mixed gravel, cobble, and boulder habitats. It appears likely that a majority of the boulders within the proposed footprint expansion area have been dislocated from the existing revetment. However, some of the-bouldeis may be an extension of the complex, natural rocky habitat immediately adjacent to the existing revetment on the western side. Based on the site and habitat characteristics, the existing intertidalãnd shallow subtidal habitat within the proposed footprint expansion is consistent with multiple juvenile and adult managed fish species. Of particular concem are juvenile fish species that utiliz,e intêrtidal and shallow subtúal sandy and mixed gravel/rocky habitats as foraging and refuge habitats, including juvenile Atlantic cod, windowpane flounder, little skate, winter skate, white hake, ocean pout, pollock and winter flounder.
It is well established that intertidal zones serve as areas of refuge from predation and foraging habitat for juvenile fish during periods of high tide (Helfman et al. 2009). The importance of sanã aãd rocky
intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats for many of these managed fish species, and for prey speci that serve as a component of EFH for multiple managed fish spècies, ure dis.ursed in détaii in a
J
recent NOAA-NMFS publication (Stevenson et al.2014). Typically, high energy sandy habitats have lower structural complexity, fish species abundance, and benthic fauna densities when compared to more structurally complex habitat types. However, they serve as "essential" habitats for multiple managed fish species and the proposed revetment extension would adversely impact EFH for these species. A recent publication highlights that such factors often lead to the misconception that these habitat types are of lower ecological value compared to other habitat types and discusses the importance of these habitat types within the New England region (Kritzer et al. 2016). For evade predation, -unugèd fish species that utilize burial within sandy habitats as a mechanism to proposed loss of the the flounder, such ás windowpane flounder, little skate, winter skate, and winter lower intertidal and shallow subtidal sandy habitat presents an adverse impact to their juvenile EFH'
Of additional concern is the loss of foraging habitat for juvenile Atlantic cod that occurs within the proposed footprint extension. The New England Fishery Management Council has recently ápproved, and submitted for our review, a revised juvenile cod EFH designation and proposed nèãrshore juvenile cod habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) which extends along the coastline from MHW to 20 meters in depth. The proposed juvenile cod EFH description, which the proposed HAPC is a subset of, specifically refers to the importance of sandy habitats for juvenile cod foraging: "in the absence ofpredators ffuvenile cod] also utilize adjacent un-vegetated sandy habitats for feeding" (OA2 FEIS). The current project design extends the revetment footprint approximately 30 linear feet waterward of the existing footprint, shifting the MHW and ML'W contour lines also waterward, resulting in a permanent loss of EFH. We previously recommended that an altemative which incorporates natural iocky habitat features into the final design be evaluated and pursued. The incorporation of natural rocky habitat features would increase structural complexþ within the footprint extension and serve to offset the loss of EFH. It does not appear that such an alternative has been evaluated, nor is mitigation for the permanent loss of EFH being proposed.
Improving coastal resiliency is a goal for many local, state, and federal agencies, including ours' One goãl of o,r. National Habitat Strategic Plan (NOAA Fisheries Habiøt Enterprise Strategic Plan,2016ZOZO) is to increase resilience of coastal ecosystems, communities, and economies through habitat conservation. This project is one of the first large-scale coastal resiliency projects we have reviewed in this region within an exposed, high energy environment. We recognizethat "living shorelines" in direct exposure, high energy environments may not be a feasible alternative, and hardened structures may be .r.".sury for the protection of existing infrastructure and private properties. However, in ordêr to minimize direct adverse impacts and loss of EFH that would occur as a result of constructing a hardened shoreline, impacts to EFH will need to be addressed and mitigated for on a project-byproject basis to insure that resiliency of coastal ecosystems are enhanced as well. For this project, we recognize the importance and need to address the ongoing deterioration of the existing revetment and the coastal flooding concerns for private properties and infrastructure landward of the revetment. However, as currently proposed, direct adverse impacts to EFH would occur. An alternative that incorporates more natural rocky habitat features into the revetment footprint could offset the adverse effects of the proposed revetment extension. For example, if large boulders were placed within, or on top of, the new revetment footprint in a manner that creates microhabitats through variations in vertical relief, such a design would provide EFH for some of the managed fish species that have designated EFH within the project area. Specifically, incorporating such ñatural rocky habitat features into the design would provide EFH for juvenile Atlantic cod, pollock, ocean pout, and red hake. Over time, we would expect the created microhabitats would
support the establishment of macroalgae and potentially trap sandy sediments within crevices. Depending on the extent that sandy material is captured and maintained within the created microhabitats, those areas would have the potential to function as predator refuge for juvenile windowpane flounder and skates that occur within the shallow subtidal areas during periods of high tide. The proposed project would minimize sediment and debris overwash into Straits Pond, part of the state designated Weir River ACEC. Currently, it does not appear that Straits Pond is mãpped as suitable for shellfish resources and the tidal prism within the pond is restricted ,via atide gate, to two feet. Due to the highly restricted tidal prism, it is unlikely that Straits Pond serves as EFH for many managed fish species. While we are supportive of minimizing overwash events that transport urban debris into Straits Pond, the benefit to managed flrsh species EFH is likely minimal, and wè cannot concur that this adequately mitigates for the direct loss of 31,450 sF of EFH.
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation The project area has been designated as EFH under the MSA for multiple federally-managed species. We have determined that the proposed project would have significant adverse effects on EFH,through the loss of tidal habitats. We recommend pursuant to Section 305(bX4XA) of the MSA that you adopt the following EFH conservation recommendations:
1.
The proposed revetment extension should be revised to incorporate natural rocky habitat features that will provide microhabitats through the incorporation of variations in vertical relief, andlor other measures, to offset the loss of EFH resulting from the proposed placement of fill for the revetment expansion.
2'
Compensatory mitigation should be provided for all remaining adverse impacts and loss of EFH. A mitigation plan should be developed and provided for agency review and approval.
Please note that Section 305(bX4XB) of the MSA requires you to provide us a detailed written response to these EFH conservation recommendations, including a description of measures you adopt for avoiding, mitigating or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In the case of a response thåt is inconsistent with our recommendations, Section 305(bX4XB) of the MSA also indicatesihat you must explain your reasons for not following the recommendations. Included in such reasoning would be the scientific justification for any disagreements with us over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate or ofßet such effects pursuant
to 50 CFR 600.920(k). Please also note that a distinct and further EFH consultation must be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(l) if new information becomes available or the project is revised in such a manner that affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommendations.
Endangered Species Act A consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, may be necessary. Under the ESA, if the proposed project has the potential to affect listed species, and it is being approved, permitted or funded by a Federal agency, the lead Federal agency, or their designated non-Federal representative, is responsible for determining whether the proposéd action is likely to affect the listed species. In this situation, you are responsible for this determination. If you determine the proposed action may affect listed species under our authority, the determination aiong with justification for their determination should be sent to the attention of the ESA Section 7
Coordinator, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Protected Resources Division (PRD), 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. After reviewing this information, we would then be able to conduct a consultation under section 7 of the ESA. If you determine the proposed action will not affect listed species under our authority, no further consultation with us is necessary. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kevin Madley (978-282-8494; kevin.madle)'@noaa. gov ).
Conclusion In summary, we recommend that the project be revised to incorporate natural rocky habit¿t features to offset permanent adverse impacts to EFH, and compensatory mitigation should be provided for any remaining adverse impacts. We look forward to your response to our EFH conservation recommendations on this project. Should you have any questions about this matter, please contact Alison Verkade af. 97 8-281 -9266 or (alison.verkade@noaa. gov).
Louis A. ChiMella Assistant Re gional Administrator for Habitat Conservation
Kevin Madley, PRD Kevin Kotelly, USACOE Ed Reiner, USEPA Kate Ostrikis, MA DMF Kathryn Ford, MA DMF Ken Chin, MA DEP Robert Boeri, MA CZM Tom Nies, NEFMC
References
Helfman, G., Collette, 8. 8., Facey, D.E., and Bowen, B. W. 2009. The diversity of hshes: biology, evolution, and ecology. John Wiley & Sons.
Kritzer, J. P., Delucia, M.8., Greene, E., Shumway, c., Topolski, M. F., Thomas-Blate, J Chiarella, L.4., Davy, K.B. and Smith, K.2016. The Importance of Benthic Habitats for Coastal Fisheries. B
ioScience, 66(4),
27 4 -284.
Stevenson, DK, S Tuxbury, MR Johnson, C Boelke .2014. Shallow Water Benthic Habitats in the Gulf of Maine: A Summary of Habitat Use by Common Fish and Shellfish Species in the Gulf of Maine. Greater Atlantic Region Policy Series 14-01. NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. 77pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL I\4ARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 0 1 930-227 6
Dr. Charles N. Fanis Acting Chief, Permits and Enforcement Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA01742-2751
APrì
B
zots
Re: NAE-2016-185, Crescent Beach Revetment, Hull, MA Dear Dr. Farris: We have reviewed the General Permit application NAE-2016-185, for the Town of Hull, to modify an existing revetment and seawall along Crescent Beach, Hull, Massachusetts. The proposed work includes extending the revetment approximately 30 linear feet (LF) waterward of tné existing revetment toe for an approximately 1,000 linear foot (LF) section, maintaining an approximut.ty OSO LF revetment section within the existing footprint, and raising the existing seawall to an elevation of 23' MLW. The proposed revetment work includes the excavation of 2,50-0 cubic yards (Cy) of material and the placement of 6-7 ton "rough faced" arïnor stones set perpendiculár to the revetment slope. The proposed 30 LF revetment extension would place fill ou.iu total of 31,451 square feet (SF) of intertidal and subtidal essential fish habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act require Federal agencies to consult with one another on projects like this. Because the project involves EFH, the consultation process is guided by the EFH reguiatory requirements under 50 CFR 600-920, which mandates the preparation of EFH urr.r.-.nls and geneially outlines your obligations. Based on the information we have been provided, we are providi-ng the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.
General Comments A total of 25 managed fish species have mapped EFH in the project vicinity and may be adversely impacted by the proposed revetment extension into tidal watêrs. The intertidal and shallow subtiáal habitat that is currently proposed to be filled has been described, and observed, to consist of predominantly sandy substrate with areas of mixed gravel, cobble, and boulder habitats. It appears likely that a majority of the boulders within the proposed footprint expansion area have been dislocated from the existing revetment. However, some of the-bouldeis may be an extension of the complex, natural rocky habitat immediately adjacent to the existing revetment on the western side. Based on the site and habitat characteristics, the existing intertidalãnd shallow subtidal habitat within the proposed footprint expansion is consistent with multiple juvenile and adult managed fish species. Of particular concem are juvenile fish species that utiliz,e intêrtidal and shallow subtúal sandy and mixed gravel/rocky habitats as foraging and refuge habitats, including juvenile Atlantic cod, windowpane flounder, little skate, winter skate, white hake, ocean pout, pollock and winter flounder.
It is well established that intertidal zones serve as areas of refuge from predation and foraging habitat for juvenile fish during periods of high tide (Helfman et al. 2009). The importance of sanã aãd rocky
intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats for many of these managed fish species, and for prey speci that serve as a component of EFH for multiple managed fish spècies, ure dis.ursed in détaii in a
J
recent NOAA-NMFS publication (Stevenson et al.2014). Typically, high energy sandy habitats have lower structural complexity, fish species abundance, and benthic fauna densities when compared to more structurally complex habitat types. However, they serve as "essential" habitats for multiple managed fish species and the proposed revetment extension would adversely impact EFH for these species. A recent publication highlights that such factors often lead to the misconception that these habitat types are of lower ecological value compared to other habitat types and discusses the importance of these habitat types within the New England region (Kritzer et al. 2016). For evade predation, -unugèd fish species that utilize burial within sandy habitats as a mechanism to proposed loss of the the flounder, such ás windowpane flounder, little skate, winter skate, and winter lower intertidal and shallow subtidal sandy habitat presents an adverse impact to their juvenile EFH'
Of additional concern is the loss of foraging habitat for juvenile Atlantic cod that occurs within the proposed footprint extension. The New England Fishery Management Council has recently ápproved, and submitted for our review, a revised juvenile cod EFH designation and proposed nèãrshore juvenile cod habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) which extends along the coastline from MHW to 20 meters in depth. The proposed juvenile cod EFH description, which the proposed HAPC is a subset of, specifically refers to the importance of sandy habitats for juvenile cod foraging: "in the absence ofpredators ffuvenile cod] also utilize adjacent un-vegetated sandy habitats for feeding" (OA2 FEIS). The current project design extends the revetment footprint approximately 30 linear feet waterward of the existing footprint, shifting the MHW and ML'W contour lines also waterward, resulting in a permanent loss of EFH. We previously recommended that an altemative which incorporates natural iocky habitat features into the final design be evaluated and pursued. The incorporation of natural rocky habitat features would increase structural complexþ within the footprint extension and serve to offset the loss of EFH. It does not appear that such an alternative has been evaluated, nor is mitigation for the permanent loss of EFH being proposed.
Improving coastal resiliency is a goal for many local, state, and federal agencies, including ours' One goãl of o,r. National Habitat Strategic Plan (NOAA Fisheries Habiøt Enterprise Strategic Plan,2016ZOZO) is to increase resilience of coastal ecosystems, communities, and economies through habitat conservation. This project is one of the first large-scale coastal resiliency projects we have reviewed in this region within an exposed, high energy environment. We recognizethat "living shorelines" in direct exposure, high energy environments may not be a feasible alternative, and hardened structures may be .r.".sury for the protection of existing infrastructure and private properties. However, in ordêr to minimize direct adverse impacts and loss of EFH that would occur as a result of constructing a hardened shoreline, impacts to EFH will need to be addressed and mitigated for on a project-byproject basis to insure that resiliency of coastal ecosystems are enhanced as well. For this project, we recognize the importance and need to address the ongoing deterioration of the existing revetment and the coastal flooding concerns for private properties and infrastructure landward of the revetment. However, as currently proposed, direct adverse impacts to EFH would occur. An alternative that incorporates more natural rocky habitat features into the revetment footprint could offset the adverse effects of the proposed revetment extension. For example, if large boulders were placed within, or on top of, the new revetment footprint in a manner that creates microhabitats through variations in vertical relief, such a design would provide EFH for some of the managed fish species that have designated EFH within the project area. Specifically, incorporating such ñatural rocky habitat features into the design would provide EFH for juvenile Atlantic cod, pollock, ocean pout, and red hake. Over time, we would expect the created microhabitats would
support the establishment of macroalgae and potentially trap sandy sediments within crevices. Depending on the extent that sandy material is captured and maintained within the created microhabitats, those areas would have the potential to function as predator refuge for juvenile windowpane flounder and skates that occur within the shallow subtidal areas during periods of high tide. The proposed project would minimize sediment and debris overwash into Straits Pond, part of the state designated Weir River ACEC. Currently, it does not appear that Straits Pond is mãpped as suitable for shellfish resources and the tidal prism within the pond is restricted ,via atide gate, to two feet. Due to the highly restricted tidal prism, it is unlikely that Straits Pond serves as EFH for many managed fish species. While we are supportive of minimizing overwash events that transport urban debris into Straits Pond, the benefit to managed flrsh species EFH is likely minimal, and wè cannot concur that this adequately mitigates for the direct loss of 31,450 sF of EFH.
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation The project area has been designated as EFH under the MSA for multiple federally-managed species. We have determined that the proposed project would have significant adverse effects on EFH,through the loss of tidal habitats. We recommend pursuant to Section 305(bX4XA) of the MSA that you adopt the following EFH conservation recommendations:
1.
The proposed revetment extension should be revised to incorporate natural rocky habitat features that will provide microhabitats through the incorporation of variations in vertical relief, andlor other measures, to offset the loss of EFH resulting from the proposed placement of fill for the revetment expansion.
2'
Compensatory mitigation should be provided for all remaining adverse impacts and loss of EFH. A mitigation plan should be developed and provided for agency review and approval.
Please note that Section 305(bX4XB) of the MSA requires you to provide us a detailed written response to these EFH conservation recommendations, including a description of measures you adopt for avoiding, mitigating or offsetting the impact of the project on EFH. In the case of a response thåt is inconsistent with our recommendations, Section 305(bX4XB) of the MSA also indicatesihat you must explain your reasons for not following the recommendations. Included in such reasoning would be the scientific justification for any disagreements with us over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate or ofßet such effects pursuant
to 50 CFR 600.920(k). Please also note that a distinct and further EFH consultation must be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(l) if new information becomes available or the project is revised in such a manner that affects the basis for the above EFH conservation recommendations.
Endangered Species Act A consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, may be necessary. Under the ESA, if the proposed project has the potential to affect listed species, and it is being approved, permitted or funded by a Federal agency, the lead Federal agency, or their designated non-Federal representative, is responsible for determining whether the proposéd action is likely to affect the listed species. In this situation, you are responsible for this determination. If you determine the proposed action may affect listed species under our authority, the determination aiong with justification for their determination should be sent to the attention of the ESA Section 7
Coordinator, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Protected Resources Division (PRD), 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. After reviewing this information, we would then be able to conduct a consultation under section 7 of the ESA. If you determine the proposed action will not affect listed species under our authority, no further consultation with us is necessary. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kevin Madley (978-282-8494; kevin.madle)'@noaa. gov ).
Conclusion In summary, we recommend that the project be revised to incorporate natural rocky habit¿t features to offset permanent adverse impacts to EFH, and compensatory mitigation should be provided for any remaining adverse impacts. We look forward to your response to our EFH conservation recommendations on this project. Should you have any questions about this matter, please contact Alison Verkade af. 97 8-281 -9266 or (alison.verkade@noaa. gov).
Louis A. ChiMella Assistant Re gional Administrator for Habitat Conservation
Kevin Madley, PRD Kevin Kotelly, USACOE Ed Reiner, USEPA Kate Ostrikis, MA DMF Kathryn Ford, MA DMF Ken Chin, MA DEP Robert Boeri, MA CZM Tom Nies, NEFMC
References
Helfman, G., Collette, 8. 8., Facey, D.E., and Bowen, B. W. 2009. The diversity of hshes: biology, evolution, and ecology. John Wiley & Sons.
Kritzer, J. P., Delucia, M.8., Greene, E., Shumway, c., Topolski, M. F., Thomas-Blate, J Chiarella, L.4., Davy, K.B. and Smith, K.2016. The Importance of Benthic Habitats for Coastal Fisheries. B
ioScience, 66(4),
27 4 -284.
Stevenson, DK, S Tuxbury, MR Johnson, C Boelke .2014. Shallow Water Benthic Habitats in the Gulf of Maine: A Summary of Habitat Use by Common Fish and Shellfish Species in the Gulf of Maine. Greater Atlantic Region Policy Series 14-01. NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. 77pp.
