COONAMESSETT RIVER RESTORATION
WORKING GROUP
ANNUAL REPORT
to the
FALMOUTH BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Outline -- November 1, 2004
Full Report -- February 14, 2005
Virginia Valiela, Chair
Jeff Williams, Vice-Chair
MaryKay Fox
Katie Lund
Joe Netto
Greg Pinto
David Smith
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and Goals
 Maps of Cranberry Bogs along the Coonamessett River
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Charter of the Coonamessett River Restoration Working
Group
1.2 Meetings and Public Involvement
1.3 Brief History of the Town-Owned Cranberry Bogs,
1971-2003
2.0 History and Resource Inventory of the Coonamessett River
2.1 Geologic History and Watershed Features
2.2 Physical Characteristics
2.3 Biological Community and Riparian Habitats
2.3.1 Riparian Habitats
2.3.2 Aquatic Community
2.3.3 Fish Habitat
2.3.4 Fisheries
2.4 History of Human Development and Uses
3.0 Natural Resource Management Issues
3.1 Fisheries
3.1.1 Fish Habitat
3.1.2 Aquatic Community Health
3.2 Water Quality
3.2.1 Temperature
3.2.2 Nutrients
3.2.3 Oxygen Capacity of the River
3.3 Hydrology
3.4 Riparian Buffers
3.5 Bog Soil & Peat Measurements
3.6 Wildlife
3.7 Cranberry Farming
3.7.1 Water Management
3.7.1.1 Flood Management: Frost & Pest Protection,
Leaf Litter & Trash Removal
3.7.1.2 Water Control Structures
2
3.7.1.3
3.7.1.4
Irrigation Management
Water Resource Protection and
Enhancement
3.7.2 Insect Management and Intergrated Pest
Management
3.7.2.1 Disease Management: Chemigation/Pesticide
Application, Mixing, Loading and Storage
3.7.3 Nutrient Management for Nitrogen and Phosphorus
3.7.4 Wildlife Habitat Management
3.7.5 Sanding and Composting Cranberry Leaves
3.7.6 Weed Management
3.7.7 Renovating Cranberry Bogs
3.8 Invasive Vegetation
4.0 State/Federal Coordination and Technical Assistance
4.1 Background
4.2 U. S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources
Conservation Service
4.3 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management/Wetlands
Restoration Program(WRP)
4.4 Information Meeting with Regulators, July 9, 2004
5.0 Recommendations
5.1 Proposals for Improvements to the Coonamessett River
5.1.1 Proposals for structural Improvements
5.1.2 Proposals for Restoration of Wetlands along the River
5.1.3 Proposals for Berms along the River or Move the
River
5.1.4 Input from the General Public: Local Residents and
Private Growers
5.2 Working Group Goals and Recommendations
5.2.1 Goals
5.2.2 Recommendations for Each Bog & Section of the
River
5.2.3 Discussion of the Two Demonstration Projects
5.2.4 Recommendations to the Selectmen
6.0 Implementation
6.1 Feasibility Study for Demonstration Projects on Hold
3
Attachments
Executive Summary
Working Group Goals
Chapter 1
1.1 Working Group Charter Mission Statement
1.2 Article 61 of 1971 Annual Town Meeting
1.3 Conservation Commission Management Plan 1972
Chapter 3
3.1 S. Hurley River Temperatures: Comparison of Coonamessett
River with Unaltered Cape Cod Rivers
3.2 S. Hurley River Temperatures: Comparison of Coonamessett
River Lower Bogs to Upper Bogs
3.3 Coonamessett River Baseline Nutrient Data
3.4 Coonamessett River Baseline Groundwater Upwelling in
Perimeter ditches (USGS)
3.5 Coonamessett River Depth Profile (1200 ft) Comparison Between
Lower Bog and River Section Below Catch Area Flume
3.6 Coonamessett River Channel Depth Comparison of Lower
Bog and River Section Below Catch Area Flume.
3.7 Cranberry Bog Yield Totals (1993-2004)
3.8 Water Control Structures throughout the Coonamessett River
Chapter 5
5.1 Final Matrix Tables
5.2 R. Charles Martinsen’s River Recommendations Letter
5.3 “Principles and Specific Recommendations”-April 26, 2004
Working Group Report #1 to the Board of Selectmen
5.4 Bog Preservationist Group Berming Recommendations in the
Working Group’s 1st Report to the Board of Selectmen, April 26,
2004
5.5 USDA NRCS updated calculations of Tailwater Recovery Ponds
5.6 Working Group Goals
5.7 Coonamessett River Bog acreage: Total and Percentage for each
Demonstration Project
5.8 Working Group Recommendations to the Board of Selectmen
Map: 5.1 Map of Demonstration Projects
4
Appendices
1. Summary of Meeting Dates and Presentations
2. Contents of the Working Group Library
3. Dennis LeBlanc Power Point Presentation
4. Chuck Katuska Power Point Presentation
5. Woods Hole Group Report 2003
6. Horsley Witten Group Report 2004
7. Bog Soil and Peat Measurements USDA 2004
Plans included in the Binder*
*The
Binder is on file in the Selectmen’s Office, Reference Desk of the Falmouth Public Library
East Falmouth Public Library, and the Working Group Library at the Conservation Commission.
1. “Fisheries Recommendations: Improving Habitat in the Coonamessett River”
by Chuck Martinsen, Assistant Director, Dept. of Natural Resources
Presentation 10/21/04
2. “A Restoration Plan for the Coonamessett River: Options for the demonstration
project in the lower Coonamessett River” developed by the Coonamessett River
Park Coalition, Mass Wetland Restoration Program, Falmouth Dept. of Natural
Resources, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service
Presentation 10/10/04
3. “A Demonstration Plan for the Middle Bog: A Plan for Co-existence” and
“Management Plan for Flax Pond Bog 1+2” by The Bog Preservation Group, the
Handy Cranberry Trust, and Natural Resource Conservation Service 10/28/04
5
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Charter of the Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group
The Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group (Working Group) was created in October
2003 by the Falmouth Board of Selectmen. Our charter was “to begin the development of a
conservation, restoration and management plan for town-owned land on the Coonamessett River”
(Attachment 1.1). Our task was to prepare and present to the Falmouth Board of Selectmen “a
range of options for the phased restoration of the Coonamessett River” from its headwaters on the
Coonamessett Pond south to the Great Pond estuary.
The Selectmen interviewed fifteen applicants and selected five citizens with diverse backgrounds.
A member of the Board of Selectmen and a member of the Conservation Commission rounded
out the group. These two members were elected as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively. As
required in the charter, the Working Group has provided the Selectmen with three status reports
within the one-year timeframe. This Annual Report completes the work outlined to the
Selectmen on November 1, 2004.
The Full Report is contained in a binder that will be placed on file in the Selectmen’s Office, the
Reference Desk of the Falmouth Public Library, the East Falmouth Public Library, and the
Working Group Library in the Conservation Commission offices. Also included in the binder
are:
 Two maps (Lower, Middle, & Reservoir bogs and the Flax Pond bogs; and the
Upper Bogs)
 Matrix (2 pages) dated 11/1/04 prepared by the Working Group, which summarizes
all of the options presented to the Working Group and the compromise option
recommended by the Working Group.
 Fisheries Recommendations: Improving Habitat in the Coonamessett River” by
Chuck Martinsen, Assistant Director, Dept. of Natural Resources
 “A Restoration Plan for the Coonamessett River” by the Coonamessett River Park
Coalition, Mass Wetland Restoration Program, Falmouth Dept. of Natural Resources,
and the Natural Resource Conservation Service
 “A Demonstration Plan for the Middle Bog: A Plan for Co-existence” and
“Management Plan for Flax Pond Bog 1+2” by the Bog Preservation Group, the
Handy Cranberry Trust, and Natural Resource Conservation Service
Copies of the Executive Summary and Goals will be sent to all Town Meeting Members and
posted on the Working Group’s website http://www.town.falmouth.ma.us/depart.php?depkey=
coonamesse.
1.2
Meetings and Public Involvement
The Working Group decided to meet twice a month, on Thursdays, because of the complexity of
the issues involving land uses along the Coonamessett River, the sheer volume of technical
information that needed to be processed, and the large number of interested citizens and
stakeholders. In total there were 26 meetings, site visits and workshops, plus three major
presentations (Status Reports) to the Selectmen (see Appendix 1 for a list of meeting dates and
speakers). A summary report was given to the November 8, 2004 Annual Town Meeting. The
Conservation Commission members have also been provided with regular updates and materials
developed by the Working Group.
6
The very first meeting of the Working Group was a public hearing where all citizens interested in
any aspect of the River were invited to speak. This was followed by a publicly-advertised and
well-attended site visit and on-foot inspection of all 56 acres of town-owned cranberry bogs from
Lower Bog north to the Baptiste Bogs, and the Flax Pond bogs on the east side of John Parker
Road. Since that tour, two members of the Working Group have also waded down the entire five
miles of the River.
The Working Group has made a diligent effort to be open and accessible, and to provide the
public with useful information in a variety of ways. At all meetings, an hour or more was
available for Public Comment on any or all topics. All meetings were televised and replayed on
Falmouth cable TV. A webpage was set up on the Town of Falmouth’s web site at
www.town.falmouth.ma.us with postings for agenda, minutes, many power point presentations, and
an inventory of information located at the Working Group Library. As key documents were
developed and approved – such as the Goals, Status Reports, and later the Recommendations –
these were also posted on the webpage. The Conservation Commission provided space in their
offices for a Working Group Library which houses copies of the tapes, power point presentations,
reports, pertinent data, and technical literature. See Appendix 2 for a current listing of the
contents of the Library.
1.3
Brief History of the Town-Owned Cranberry Bogs, 1971-2003
The Town purchased 110 acres of bogs and upland along the Coonamessett River “for
conservation purposes” pursuant to Article 61 of the 1971 Annual Town Meeting (Attachment
1.2). The Town paid the Cranberry Corporation of America $187,500. At that time the bogs
along John Parker Road and Flax Pond were 70 years old. The Swift Brother’s had constructed
the larger bogs in the 1890’s out of the mill ponds of two defunct woolen mills. The purchase
also included the Thompson bogs on Thomas Landers Road.
The Conservation Commission prepared a “Conservation Management Policy for the
Coonamessett River Property of the Town of Falmouth (Attachment 1.3). The Policy
encompassed five components including “Cool-Water River”, “Wetland Thickets along the
River”, and “Cranberry Bogs under Cultivation”. The cranberry component was accomplished by
leasing the bogs to Handy Cranberry Trust, which has farmed the land ever since. The objectives
outlined in the “Cool-Water River” and “Wetland Thickets” components have not been achieved
even though the Policy stated “…fishery management is considered to be the primary use of the
river.”
In 1978 the Town purchased 22 acres of bogs and upland located south of Hatchville Road from
Amelia Baptiste. These bogs were also leased to Handy Cranberry Trust, making a total of
approximately 56 acres of Town-owned cranberry bogs along the Coonamessett River. There are
also eleven acres of private bogs north of Sandwich Road; three parcels are also farmed by Handy
Cranberry Trust and one bog is organically grown.
Over the ensuing thirty years since the original purchase, the concerns of citizens, Conservation
Commission members, and the Herring Warden began to mount as the fisheries and river habitat
declined. There was dissatisfaction with the terms of the lease, some management practices of
the grower, insufficient oversight by the Town, and a fish kill in the River in May 1985 due to an
accidental spill of the pesticide Diazinon.
In 1996 the Selectmen appointed a sub-committee of the Conservation Commission to monitor
operations of the town-owned cranberry bogs, compliance with conditions in the lease, and
payments to the Town. The Cranberry Bog Sub-committee was formed in response to a letter
7
written by the League of Women Voters in 1995. At that time, the League was concerned about
pesticide use on town-owned bogs and called for establishment of a review committee in
accordance with the terms of the lease. In August 1996 when contamination from a fuel spill at
Massachusetts Military Reservation was found to be upwelling in the Baptiste bogs, the Bog Subcommittee also began tracking the contamination and containment efforts of the military
contractor, the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence. All the town bogs on the River
were taken out of production until 2000 when data showed that EDB was non-detect.
Uncertainties associated with the EDB contamination led the Bog Sub-committee to begin a
broader discussion of the health of the River, long-term effects of chemical contamination on the
ecosystem, and the future of cranberry growing on “flow-through” bogs that did not meet
recommended Best Management Practices. In May 1999, the Town held a workshop that
included experts in agriculture (conventional and organic), wetland ecology, hydrology, aquatic
ecology, and fisheries biology. Following the workshop, the Bog Sub- committee developed a set
of recommendations/goals. The goals were presented to the Conservation Commission in
January 2000. No further action was taken. In the fall of 2001, the ConCom voted to disband the
Bog Sub-committee and establish a committee to restore the River, but no further action was
taken.
Beginning in 2002, the Board of Selectmen took the lead. They held two public forums, similar
to the earlier workshop, with invited speakers/experts on important aspects of fisheries, habitat
improvement, and cranberry production. Specifications for the operation of the bogs were rewritten and clarified in 2003. Reporting requirements were tightened, the leases where changed to
licenses (Article 43, 11/17/03), the terms of the licenses were shortened from ten years to 2-4
years, an annual review provision was added, and supervision by a Bog Manager was funded with
$10,000 (Article 19, 4/13/04). In 2003 the Handy Cranberry Trust was again the only bidder. A
four-year license (2004-2007) was awarded for the bogs north of Sandwich Road, and a two-year
license (2004-2005) was awarded for the bogs south of Sandwich Road. All licenses are subject
to an annual review and extension on a year by year basis.
Meanwhile, several petition articles were presented to Town Meeting by various groups
supporting either wetlands restoration or cranberry farming:
4/8/03 Special Town Meeting Article 17 Plan for conservation & restoration of Town-owned
bogs on Coonamessett River. Passed 147 to 54
11/17/03 Annual Town Meeting Article 47 Affirm support for agriculture & cranberry
cultivation on Lower, Middle and Reservoir bogs.
Passed 126 to 74
11/17/03 Annual Town Meeting Article 48 Use bog receipts to fund a management plan for
Lower, Middle & Reservoir bogs. Indefinitely postponed.
11/8/04 Annual Town Meeting Article 68 John Parker/Old Barnstable Neighborhood Assoc.
concerning Lower Bog. Withdrawn by the petitioners and indefinitely postponed
In order to establish a clear process for reviewing the concerns, issues, and factual
information relating to the town-owned bogs, the Selectmen created a seven-member citizen
study group in the Fall of 2003. The Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group
(Working Group) was given one year to study the problems, prepare options, and make
recommendations on phased implementation and funding to restore the Coonamessett
River.
The report is structured as follows:
8





Section 2 discusses the Resource Inventory that has been collected to date on the
Coonamessett River watershed. Many of the documents are in the Working Group’s
Library in the Conservation Commission offices in Town Hall.
Section 3 identifies specific Resource Management Issues that came forward during
the public meetings.
Section 4 describes Inter-Agency Coordination which will be very important as the
Demonstration Projects move forward through the permitting and funding phases.
Section 5 contains the Working Group’s Recommendations based on the options
provided by interested parties and the technical data reviewed by the Working Group.
Section 6 discusses Implementation of those Recommendations and next steps as to
how the two Demonstration Projects would be carried out.
The Working Group will recommend that the Board of Selectmen place an article on the
April 2005 Special Town Meeting warrant in support of the two Demonstration Projects:
berms for Middle Bog and Flax Pond Bog #1; wetlands restoration for Lower Bog and Flax
Pond Bog #2.
9
2.0 HISTORY AND RESOURCE INVENTORY OF COONAMESSETT RIVER
2.1
Geologic History and Watershed Features
The straight and relatively narrow Coonamessett River valley, like many others in Falmouth and
Mashpee, is geologically an unusual river-wetland system extending about six miles from Route
151 south through the Coonamessett Pond to the Great Pond estuary. River valleys in other parts
of the country form wide flood plains by periodic river flooding and erosion of the banks and
uplands. The origins of the Coonamessett valley floodplain, however, are very different. It was
formed by groundwater upwelling and spring-sapping processes that started as the Ice Age was
coming to an end about 15,000 yrs ago. Massive continental glaciers occupied Buzzards Bay and
Cape Cod Bay, sea level was 400ft lower, and large volumes of melt water ran off the glaciers as
the climate warmed. These spring sapping processes dominated by large volumes of groundwater
flow are still active in Falmouth and the rest of Cape Cod today. Great Pond, an extension of the
Coonamessett valley, was flooded and evolved into an estuary as sea level rose over the past
5,000 years.
A presentation by Denis LeBlanc of the USGS to the Working Group emphasized that geologic
studies show that very large volumes of subsurface groundwater flow from recharge areas on the
Mass Military Reservation (MMR) southward down gradient under gravity-driven hydraulic head
pressure. Groundwater flow rates are fairly slow (~1 to 2 ft/day). Flow rates are normally higher
near the river and ditches where groundwater upwelling occurs. Ultimately the groundwater
discharges to Great Pond and to near shore areas of Vineyard Sound all along the south coast
(Appendix 3).
The Coonamessett Pond, Coonamessett River and the network of bog drainage ditches are
depressions where the land surface intersects the groundwater table. Coonamessett Pond and Flax
Pond are kettle holes left in the outwash plain by stranded ice blocks from the retreating glaciers.
All of these filled ponds, river and ditches are surface expressions of the massive body of
groundwater that fills the entire length and width of the Coonamessett valley from the MMR to
the Vineyard Sound coast.
The Coonamessett River is described by geologists as a classic “gaining stream”, meaning that
the river is directly connected with and intersects the water table and groundwater flow. The
result is that the river is dominated by high groundwater flow that progressively increases from
north to south at rates of about 0.5 million gallons per day at Coonamessett Pond to more than 7
million gallons per day at Lower Bog near Route 28. Since groundwater is the main source of
surface water in the river, the volume of flow varies directly with groundwater levels that rise and
fall depending mainly on precipitation. The Coonamessett is the third largest groundwater fed
river system on Cape Cod, below the Mashpee and Quashnet River systems (Appendix 3).
2.2 Physical Characteristics
The Coonamessett River valley is approximately six miles long, one-quarter mile wide and
exhibits a drop in altitude of 40 feet from Coonamessett Pond to the Great Pond. It is underlain by
thick deposits of glacial outwash sand and gravel sediments (~150 feet thick). These sediments
are highly porous and permeable to groundwater flowing down gradient. Exact details about the
river and associated wetlands prior to topographic maps from 1858 are lacking, but based on
other information the river likely followed a somewhat meandering path across the width of the
floodplain. However, it has been fixed in place as a relatively straight and shallow channel for
more than the past century. The surface water flow regime throughout the entire river is also
highly controlled by means of engineered structures (i.e. dams, weirs, and dredged
10
ditches/channels) for purposes of actively managing the river and bogs for conventional cranberry
farming.
2.3 Biological Community and Riparian Habitats
2.3.1
Riparian Habitats
In the past, the Coonamessett River valley had a diverse riparian habitat. Near the river’s edge,
where wet conditions persisted for most of the year, grew trees that tolerated these conditions
such as White Cedars, Red Maples, and alders. In such wet conditions, many species of mosses
prospered and spread throughout the wetland. Over time, sphagnum moss, the most prevalent of
the mosses in wetlands, slowly created the thick layers of peat present in the Coonamessett River
valley today. To develop baseline information on historical and current cultural and natural
resources, the Working Group received technical assistance from the Mass. Wetlands Restoration
Program (MWRP) which hired Mr. Charles Katuska (Appendix 4). His tasks were:
 Provide summary ecological information to the stakeholders
 To the extent possible, compare current conditions to historical conditions
2.3.2
Aquatic Community
Having a diversity of vegetation types near the river’s edge is important for healthy habitats for a
variety of aquatic life. On a seasonal basis, different vegetation produces litter which enters into
the stream and supplies nutrients, food and structure for the aquatic insects. This structure
provides places for insects to hide and rest. The more insects present the more food available for
the fish. The more food for the fish to eat, as they expend energy migrating or spawning, the
healthier and better fit the fish are to reproduce and supply enough energy to the eggs which
increases their chance for survival. Ecologically and hydrologically, the uplands, wetlands,
and the river are interconnected.
Today, the bogs are a highly managed wetland area. The channel is cleared out of structure and
vegetation; pesticides and herbicides are applied; and the river is highly exposed in large sections
as it flows south into Great Pond. This type of environment effectively eliminates aquatic insects
or minimizes their chance of survival. These reduced environments then become less desirable for
the “good species” which are good fish food, such as caddisflys, Stoneflys and Mayflys, and
eventually the less desirable species or the “bad species” such as blackflies take over the aquatic
environment. If more than enough pesticides get into the river by runoff or by excess spraying
then very few insects can survive under these conditions. The flow-through bogs along the
Coonamessett River have a high potential for these kinds of interactions.
2.3.3 Fish Habitat
Fish need the same things all living creatures need: food, a good sustaining environment (i.e.
oxygen, temperature, nontoxic, etc.), quality habitats for resting, avoiding predators, and sites for
reproduction. Habitat is the key and links all life dependent on that type of environment. Insects
need food, which comes from the vegetation near the river’s edge or grows within the stream
channel. The diversity, species and nutrient content of the vegetation determine whether the
insects grow fast, slow or reproduce because of the chemical make up of the plant material.
Insects need stable places to hide from predators such as a mixture of cobbles, rocks and woody
debris that lands in the stream or accumulates into piles at bends of rivers. The insects in turn
11
provide food for the fish, which need the same diversity of stable substrate of cobbles and rock
for depositing their eggs, hiding in the piles of woody debris or under an eroded bank.
The flow of the river, seasonally changing, alters the river channel and determines what type of
habitat will exist within the channel. How fast the river water flows also determines the
composition of the river bottom. Slow flowing sections accumulate fine sediments, little twigs,
sands; faster river sections scour the bottom and expose boulders, cobble, and small rocks or can
deposit large or numerous pieces of woody debris. These alternating areas of fast and slower
waters within the river then in turn provide diverse habitats. Some fish and insect species can
only thrive in fast-flowing water (Stoneflys, trout); others need slower water flow areas (Mayflys,
darters); others move only during slow flow, such as the American eel, moving into different
habitats as their life histories change.
2.3.4
Fisheries
Historically, the Coonamessett River had diverse and important fisheries. Several species of game
and nongame fish were present in the river. Game fish such as the river herring which includes
the alewife and the blueback herring, and Sea-run Brook Trout “salters” were present. Nongame
fish species include the Tessellated Darter, Banded Killifish, Mummichog, Chain Pickerel,
Johnny Darter, and the Fourspine Stickleback. Later, non-native fish, either through stocking by
the state or by good-intentioned citizens, introduced other fish species such as the Brown Trout,
suckers, catfish, bullheads, etc.
The Mass. Fish and Wildlife Department has conducted several fish studies within the
Coonamessett River valley. In a 1984 fish study, American Eel (Abundant), Pumpkinseed
sunfish, Brown Bullhead, Tessellated Darter, Chain Pickerel, Largemouth Bass were observed.
Another study in 1994 within the river found American Eel (Abundant), Tessellated Darter, River
Herring present. Pond 14 was studied in 1997 with numerous fish species present, some native;
some introduced to the river system. The fish caught were Largemouth bass, yellow perch, chain
pickerel, white sucker, and American eel. Alewives and blueback herring both utilize and need
the river but for different reasons. The alewife migrates through the river system to reach coastal
freshwater ponds where it spawns then returns back to the ocean after a month or so in the ponds.
The blueback utilized the river as its only spawning area, never venturing into up into the ponds.
The Sea-run Brook Trout were present in the Coonamessett River until the late 1800’s.
2.4 History of Human Development and Uses
The Coonamessett River has a long and rich history that is integral to the overall history and
culture of Falmouth and Upper Cape Cod. The valley and adjacent tributary valleys and uplands
were home to native Wampanoag Indians for several thousand years. These valleys have been
altered and modified for more than 300 years, since European settlement, by a variety of human
factors (i.e. water-powered grist mills, agriculture, residential land use). The river’s fisheries,
especially herring (Alewives), were the main attraction to the Indians. Herring were important not
only as food, but also as fertilizer for crops. Possibly the Wampanoags were the first to dig the
channel that connects Coonamessett Pond to the River, now known as Dutchman’s Ditch.
European settlers first arrived in 1660. The Coonamessett River, initially known as the Five Mile
River, marked the early eastern edge of Falmouth. Philip Dexter located the first grist mill at the
mouth of the river around 1700, as the Coonamessett was one of the few rivers with enough flow
to power a waterwheel. Construction of the mill caused the first major alteration to the natural
river system. The river was dammed and trees and other vegetation were removed for the mill
pond.
12
By 1795, there were three mill ponds along the Coonamessett, causing a decline in the native
fisheries. Herring and sea-run brook trout were abundant in the river prior to construction of the
mill ponds. Cold groundwater upwelling into the river made it an ideal habitat for the trout, which
perish at water temperatures above 70 degrees. Both fish need unimpeded access along the river
to migrate to and from Coonamessett Pond and the Ocean. The grist and later woolen mill ponds
greatly altered the fish habitat by constricting their river passage, increasing water temperatures,
and adding sediment to the river. These cumulative alterations to the river resulted in severely
reducing the native fish populations. Herring served a multipurpose role at that time in Falmouth.
It was an essential source of protein in people’s diets. Farmers also still followed the Wampanoag
method of using them as fertilizer for crops. Plus, herring supplied additional income. Herring
were sold to offshore fisherman for bait or sold to be shipped to the West Indies. Herring were so
important that early town laws mandated that they be reserved for use by all citizens.
The reductions in the herring population along the Coonamessett sparked years of heated conflict,
popularly known as the “Herring War.” It started in 1798 with a bylaw passed at Town Meeting.
The bylaw gave an elected committee the right to remove any obstructions or open sluiceways in
any dam to allow fish free passage from April 1st to June 10th. The Falmouth “pro-herring”
forces petitioned the State Legislature in 1804 for an amendment, just for the Coonamessett river,
to allow sufficient “passage way” for the fish to reach Coonamessett Pond. Tensions reached a
peak in 1806 when the anti-herring group packed cannon on the Village Green with herring.
Instead of shooting out fish, it exploded, killing Thomas Gifford. The controversy basically
boiled down to the rights of the individual mill owners versus the rights of the public-at-large to
use natural resources.
In the 1820’s, tourist sport fishing began to flourish. Anglers from Boston were enticed to Cape
Cod by sporting magazines extolling the excellence of its sea-run brook trout streams, like the
Coonamessett. Vestiges of the herring war appeared again in 1865 with another bylaw to protect
herring. In 1891, the Swift brothers purchased the old mill properties to convert the wetlands
along the river into cranberry bogs. Cranberries were an increasingly important agricultural crop
on Cape Cod. First commercially grown in the mid 1800s in Harwich, cranberry cultivation was
an attractive source of income for retired fishermen and sea captains. This transformation of the
wetlands along the river to cranberry bogs had major impacts on the river-wetland system.
Cranberries prefer growing on coarse, sandy soil on top the rich natural peat. Therefore, old cedar
swamps along rivers or drained mill ponds were especially desired sites for bogs.
Cranberry farming also required a highly manipulated water system. The river was straightened,
diked, dammed and channeled to regulate water supply. Aquatic plants important for fish habitat
that interfered with bog operations were also removed. The once a meandering river was
converted to a straighter channel or bog ditch. Lateral ditches were dug to intercept groundwater
flow and keep the bogs drier. In 1971, concerned about the loss of open space and the possibility
of development, the Town acquired 110 acres of uplands and bogs for conservation purposes.
Half of the purchase price ($187,500) was paid by Massachusetts self-help funds, a program to
assist Conservation Commissions in acquiring land for natural resource protection and passive
outdoor recreational purposes. The Town also valued the cranberry growing traditions and
decided to lease the bogs for income.
From the beginning, the Conservation Commission realized the potential for conflict by having
commercial cranberry farming on public conservation lands. Minutes from a June 2, 1971
meeting state: “It was generally agreed that the Commission was faced with a complex problem
in attempting to have a productive cranberry bog in a public conservation area.” Concerns were
raised about the use of pesticides in a flow-through bog system, its impact on the herring run, plus
the potential long-term health effects on people living near the bogs. More recently concerns have
been raised about chemicals and nutrients from a variety of sources polluting Upper Cape Cod’s
13
groundwater and coastal ponds. Throughout history and as the priorities of the Town changed, the
Coonamessett River valley and its natural resources have been altered. As Falmouth moves into
the 21st century, it is time to reevaluate the best public uses of the Coonamessett River to serve a
broad range of needs for Falmouth’s citizens.
Note: this summary of the history is from the Coonamessett River Park Coalition web site, with
additional information from the Falmouth Historical Commission, and The Book of Falmouth
(1986).
14
3.0
NATURAL RESOUCES MANAGEMENT ISSUES
There are many natural resource management problems associated with the Coonamessett River.
When the issues are examined, summarized, and simplified into categories, the key issue is
conflict between public use (primarily fishery resources) and private use (industry, agriculture),
currently and reaching back into the past some 300 years. Mr. Katuska reports that wetland and
aquatic biodiversity (vascular plants, some reptiles, most amphibians, and fish) within the overall
Coonamessett watershed is suppressed by current and past land uses (Appendix 4). Past industrial
uses (1700-1850) were responsible for the initial alteration of riverine and wetland habitats along
the Coonamessett River. Agricultural water management and agrochemical uses have resulted in,
and continue to result in, significant modifications to in-stream habitat use and value since 18501870.
River herring are intensively impacted: 26 water structures are found along the five miles of river,
each requiring hand labor, based on highly variable factors and human judgement to correctly
raise or lower the boards. Each structure therefore becomes a possible object in restricting fish
passage or trapping fish as they move up or down the river. In addition, and possibly adding to
fish mortality, each bog with multiple ditches and groundwater upwelling confuses fish migration
and can potentially trap young of the year (YOY) fish fry as they migrate down the river in the
fall. The Working Group, during a site visit to the river and bogs, has seen hundreds of YOY in a
private bog, trapped as fall flooding of the bog was carried out. It is hard to tell if this incident
will affect fish populations, but with the numerous obstacles these fish encounter outside of the
natal river system, reducing or eliminating as many potential causes of mortality here in our
backyard can only help in boosting Falmouth’s present and future stocks of herring. Other native
fish species will also benefit if we can improve water quality and vegetated habitats along the
river.
There is rich collection of environmental baseline data from a variety of studies over the past
decade on water chemistry, fish habitat, and aquatic community, all concluding that the
Coonamessett River's overall health, its value and quality of life that it provides for wildlife and
humans, is poor compared to qualities for a healthy river. The next section discusses the issues
and problems within different components of the river and watershed.
3.1
Fisheries
Fisheries such as herring (Blue-black and Alewife), brook trout, sea run brook trout, and
American eel were important to native Indians and have been an integral part of Falmouth’s
culture for more than 300 years as described above. Prior to the construction of mill dams and
other engineering works that slowed the river, increased water temperatures and reduced the
wetland and aquatic habitats along the river (1700-1850) these native fish were in great
abundance. Since the creation of bogs and water management for cranberry farming (1890present) the fish populations have been greatly suppressed. It is estimated that the present herring
run is just 10% of what it used to be prior to all of the alterations to the river system.
Dams on rivers also impede fish migration. The river’s water structures are highly dependent on
human manipulation and control which demands many human hours to monitor and evaluate for a
dependent group of fish species that migrate very seasonally and sporadically. Moving boards to
accommodate cranberry management does not always coincide with spring or fall migrations,
thus restricting fish movement or trapping fry as they descend the river towards the ocean in the
fall. Timing and maintaining correct flow rates over the boards is very important; poor timing
results in the significant loss of the number of fish and types of species found in the
Coonamessett River.
15
Of central concern in managing the river for diverse fisheries is the longevity of these fish species
and the in-stream environment/habitat that each requires. Alewives may live as long as 10 years
and reach a length of 14 inches. Blue-black herring live for about 7 or 8 years and reach a
maximum length of about 13 inches. Both return every year or up to every third year to spawn.
They need deep, flowing water and unrestricted access to the river. Alewives needs access to the
entire river system in order to reach the headwater ponds where they spawn; the blueback spawns
only in the river, requiring a healthy river system with the correct type and size of cobbles and
pebbles to lay its eggs. The alewife can tolerate less quality stream environments (lower oxygen,
higher temperatures) because they use the river only for a brief time, as a link between the ocean
environment and the freshwater ponds. However, the adult blueback and its fry are less tolerant of
poor river conditions because the river is the only habitat used during the reproductive period in
its life history. The Mass. Fisheries Department’s future management plans for the Coonamessett
River include 1) improvement of Herring Runs, 2) increased Coldwater Habitats, 3) Salter Brook
Trout Restoration.
3.1.1
Fish Habitat
The Coonamessett River in the Lower Bog section is very shallow, wide and has little fish cover
in the river. There is very little woody debris within the river channel. Woody debris, which is
important as hiding places and provides a stable substrate where insects can be found, is routinely
removed in managing the river for cranberry bogs. By eliminating woody debris important fish
resources for food and predation avoidance are removed.
Baseline information on Coonamessett River fish habitat has been collected in several research
projects completed in 2004 that compared the Lower Bog river section to the river habitat below
the catch basin, the restored Quashnet River, and the undisturbed Mashpee River (Attachment
3.1). Data on water depth, substrate (sand, mud, gravel, cobble etc.), aquatic vegetation, and algae
were collected to provide a baseline for restoration efforts. Algal blooms of over a 150 grams of
algae in a 12-inch square were documented in the Lower Coonamessett compared to less than 1
gram in the other rivers. Freshwater eelgrass (Vallisneria) is being smothered by algal growth.
The high abundance of algae in the Coonamessett River is similar to the levels of algae in the
local ponds that are stressed by nutrient inputs.
3.1.2
Aquatic Community Health
The fish community has been well studied over the years. The fish of the river were measured by
Smith and herring by Belding early in the 1900’s. Smith stated that the River has a ‘cold water’
fish community, with brook trout as a key characteristic species. The river also historically had
strong Alewife and Blueback herring, white perch and American eel fisheries. In the 1980’s and
1990’s, fish surveys conducted by the Mass. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife have documented the loss
of brook trout and white perch from the river as well as the general decline of the overall fish
community.
In 2003 and 2004, the fish and the aquatic insect communities were the focus of two studies that
quantitatively compared the Coonamessett to the Mashpee River, the restored section of the
Quashnet River, including site-specific data for Lower Bog. The fish community of the
Coonamessett River has fewer species and is dominated by small fish. The aquatic insect studies
show that the Coonamessett River has very few of the insects that are characteristic of healthy
rivers. The juvenile herring run was quantitatively measured for several years in the late-1990’s
by research projects conducted by the Dept. of Natural Resource Conservation at the University
of Massachusetts. Monitoring of the adult herring run began in 2004 when citizens’ monitoring
16
program of the herring run was initiated using standardized observation protocols developed by
the Mass. Riverways Program and Mass. Audubon.
3.2
Water Quality
Water quality within the river system is important for fisheries, insects, and aquatic plant survival
but it also important for the estuaries that are the end point for the rivers. Temperature, nutrients,
oxygen, sediments, and the chemical components of the water all affect what can survive and
thrive in the aquatic environment within the river and in the estuaries. This affects our cherished
traditions on the Cape such as shellfish harvesting, fishing, and safe and healthy water to recreate
in. Bad water quality means diminished aquatic life and often can lead to human health issues.
The dams on the Coonamessett River also affect water quality and fish habitat. Sediments are
trapped behind the dams and within the ponds, followed by increases in temperatures and reduced
oxygen exchange due to slower water flow. At first, fine sediments will cover and smother fish
eggs, ultimately reducing oxygen available for the eggs. Eventually, over time, the accumulating
sediments (mud and fine sand) will cover cobble and pebble substrates on the river bottom,
reducing spawning grounds for trout and blue-black herring.
3.2.1
Temperature
Temperature is a key factor in metabolic functioning of all animals including fish. It affects the
timing of when fish and insects grow, reproduce and/or migrate. The Coonamessett River has two
species of Herring, alewives migrating up the river to the pond and Bluebacks found only within
the River. Alewives spawn in the Coonamessett Pond when water temperatures are between 60.80
F and 66.20 F. Blueback herring spawn only in the River. Fish embryo survival requires water
temps of 550 F. Short-term maximum for growth is around 750 F and the lethal limit for herring is
860 F. Sea-run Brook Trout prefer cold temperatures throughout the year with optimum water
temperatures of 52-560 F; water temperatures greater than 700 F are lethal.
River temperature has been the specific focus of two years (2003, 2004) of continuously recorded
temperature data at sites along the Coonamessett River, from the source near Coonamessett Pond
to Lower Bog, as well as measurements during hydrologic studies over the past decade. With
Thermographs within the river near Thomas Landers Road, another near Sandwich Road and the
third below Lower Bog, this data shows that the river above Sandwich Road has temperatures
suitable for brook trout (<65 0F). Below Sandwich Road the river is exposed to the sun,
fluctuating from 67 0F to 78 0F which is too hot for brook trout to survive. Two years of
temperature data shows that the River continues to heat up after Pond 14 as it passes through
Reservoir, Middle and Lower Bog (Attachment 3.2). By the time the water reaches the end of
Lower Bog it is hot enough to potentially stop adult herring migration. Coonamessett River,
with such warm temperatures beyond Brook trout lethal thresholds and at river herring upper
limits, is clearly becoming an undesirable river for important and historic fisheries.
3.2.2
Nutrients
Nutrients have been measured along the entire length of the Coonamessett River, in the
groundwater and at the point of discharge into Great Pond by a number of studies in the last 5-10
years (AFCEE, Mass. Estuaries Project (MEP), research projects, and volunteer monitoring of
water quality). These studies have shown that nutrients in the river increase downstream
and that concentrations are very high compared to other rivers in the region. Site-specific
data has been collected for 2003 and 2004 for the lower sections of the river, providing a baseline
for restoration efforts. MEP measured nutrients in the river on a monthly basis for two years to
estimate loading totals to Great Pond. This study has the most extensive nutrient data available on
17
the Coonamessett River to date. This study is currently being reviewed by the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) and will be available March 2005.
The report includes options on reduction of nutrient loads prior to the river water reaching Great
Pond. The Ashumet Plume study estimated nutrient loading to Great Pond based on land use.
Great Pond’s nitrogen loading values in this study were 249 kilogram per hectare per year
(kg/ha/yr). It has been estimated that the agriculture nitrogen inputs from cranberry bogs are
approximately 0.5 to 1 percent of the total nitrogen loading to Great Pond. That would estimate
the cranberry bog contribution between 1.25 kg/ha/yr and 2.49 kg/ha/yr respectfully. This is
equivalent to 80-houses worth of nitrogen input to the watershed. In 2003, through a Falmouth
Citizen volunteer, nutrients were taken along the Coonamessett River valley, which generally
increased in value from the Coonamessett River Pond outlet (0.41 milligram per Liter (mg/L)
Nitrogen) downstream to the Catchment area flume (1.6 mg/L Nitrogen) (Attachment 3.3).
The report by the Woods Hole Group (November 2003) states, “Existing nutrient removal areas
include the natural wetlands and bogs below the cranberry bogs, but in the future these areas
might be expanded to include some of the lower-most bogs in the Coonamessett River if
calculations indicate a significant reduction in nutrients is possible.”(Appendix 5).
3.2.3
Oxygen Capacity of the River
River oxygen levels determine rates of plant decay, and the number and diversity of aquatic
insects and fish in each habitat. Aquatic plants are a good source of oxygen during the day but
reabsorb it during the night during respiration. However, water oxygen values, usually reported in
mg/L and referred as dissolved oxygen (DO), are a function of air oxygen values and water
temperature with diurnal fluctuations. The higher the temperature, the lower the oxygen the water
can hold. Colder temperatures have the opposite effect where more oxygen can be absorbed and
held in the water. But there is a limit.
Each fish species has a tolerance level and a lethal level where they are excluded from the river
habitat. Oxygen concentrations are good biological indicators of the health of a river or pond.
Values of 0-2 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) are not enough oxygen to support life, 2-4mg/L
supports a few kinds of fish and insects (bullheads, blackfly), 4-7 mg/L is a good concentration
for most kinds of pond animals, acceptable for warm water fisheries (herring) but low for cold
water fisheries (trout), and 7-11 mg/L is very good for most stream fish. The Coonamessett River
generally falls into the last two categories of good to very good dissolved oxygen.
3.3
Hydrology
The geology and hydrology of Upper Cape Cod have been well studied by the US Geological
Survey and other organizations over the past several decades and even more intensely over the
past decade since the discovery of pollution from past activities at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation (MMR). As described above (section 2.1 and 2.2), the Coonamessett River valley is
dominated by groundwater flow that originates as rain and snow over the recharge or source area
on the MMR, travels down gradient and is discharged to rivers, marine embayments, and
ultimately Vineyard Sound. Groundwater moves constantly by gravity from areas of higher
elevation to lower elevation and there is a balance between recharge and discharge.
While a general understanding of the groundwater hydrology of the Upper Cape has been
available for several years, details for the Coonamessett valley system have been lacking until
now. The Working Group and the Town of Falmouth benefited from technical assistance from the
Horsley Witten Group (July 2004) under contract to the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management. Horsley Witten installed 12 new groundwater monitoring stations including four
18
deep wells. Using data from these stations and USGS data, they developed a detailed water
budget and map of the water-table surface of the Coonamessett River watershed (Appendix 6)
Measurements were made of river flow, and the main sources of water to the Coonamessett River
were identified. Their findings are summarized as follows:
 69% of water input comes from groundwater recharge from more distant upgradient recharge
areas on the MMR
 28% of river water input comes from local groundwater discharge south of Coonamessett
Pond
 4% of water comes from land surface runoff from storms and rainfall
 Coonamessett River is a “gaining-stream”: 3.8 million gallons per day (mgd) at Thomas
Landers Road, 5 mgd at Sandwich Road, and 7 mgd at the end of Lower Bog.
As part of a regional study, the USGS also measured the groundwater upwelling in the perimeter
ditches of Lower, Middle and Reservoir bogs (Attachment 3.4). The results of these studies have
provided critical facts for evaluating the various options considered for restoration and berms.
3.4
Riparian Buffers
River conditions are closely linked to the adjacent riparian vegetation and the surrounding
uplands. This is especially so with the flow-through bogs that exist on the lower sections of the
Coonamessett River. The more naturalized river sections along the Coonamessett River possess a
good riparian buffer. Thick and healthy vegetation along the river channel helps reduce water
temperatures, provides another source of food for fish as insects fall off the vegetation and into
the water, and this vegetation also takes up nutrients as they flow down the river.
River channel dimensions (width and depth) have been measured from the headwaters to where
the Coonamessett empties into Great Pond as part of the AFCEE and Wetland Restoration studies
of hydrology. In comparing the river depth in Lower Bog with the healthier section below the
Catchment area flume, the average river depth was deeper in the river below the catch basin
flume (11.4-in.) than in Lower Bog (6.8 in.) (Attachment 3.5). Likewise, the channel width was
narrower in the stream below the Catchment area flume (2ft.) and wider in Lower Bog (7ft.)
(Attachment 3.6). In addition, site specific detailed measurements of over 15 cross-sections have
been taken in the river as it runs through the Lower Bog and compared to the typical river crosssections from the Quashnet and Mashpee Rivers.
All this information focuses attention on why the Coonamessett River in the lower bogs differs
from a more natural section of the river or compared to other healthy river systems (Mashpee,
Quashnet). Through the decades of land use along the river, specifically sanding of the bogs for
cranberry production, this accumulation of sand eventually enters the river channel because of the
close proximity of the bogs to the river’s edge. These detailed studies provide baseline data and a
target for restoration of the river and wetlands.
3.5
Bog Soil and Peat Measurements
Following the Ice Age as the glaciers melted and sea level rose the Coonamessett River valley
consisted of a floodplain containing fen-type wetlands bordered by red maple and white cedar
swamps. Over the past centuries the vegetation deposited organic-rich peat soils ~ 2 to 6 ft thick
over top the outwash sand and gravel. Recently completed soil boring investigations by the US
Department of Agriculture (Appendix 7) demonstrate that all of the cranberry bogs south of Pond
14 are covered fairly uniformly with a 2-3 ft thick blanket of sandy deposits that overlie the
natural organic wetland peat soils. The peat soils under the bogs range in thickness from 0 to 6ft
19
and average about 2 ft. According to the USDA and the commercial cranberry grower, the sand
on top the peat was “placed” for agricultural purposes over the past century. Sanding of the bogs
is done every couple of years and this 2-3 ft blanket is the cumulative long-term result of sanding
practices. The sand overburden on the bogs is likely to have greater permeability than the
underlying peat soils and thus groundwater flow rates are likely to be higher than rates for the
natural peat soils. Soil structure has implications for limiting and controlling chemicals from
entering the river from the commercial bogs. These soil conditions will also have to be considered
during the design and construction of the earthen berms for the Berm Demonstration project.
3.6
Wildlife
A depressed but diverse population of wildlife still utilizes the Coonamessett River Valley area.
As part of Mr. Katuska’s preliminary results(Appendix 4), he indicated that terrestrial
biodiveristy (vascular plants, mammals, birds, some reptile and amphibians) within the overall
Coonamessett watershed is at or near expected levels, with the exception of historic extinctions
(wolf, passenger pigeon, heath hen, etc). He also reported that 20 rare species are present,
consisting of fifteen plant species and five animal species, but no endangered species.
The Coonamessett River, like all river valleys, is an excellent wildlife corridor. Animals utilize
the valley to move from one area to another. Wildlife tends to use the border of different habitats,
the edge, for traveling, hunting. Aldo Leopold, a prominent wildlife biologist, used the term
“edge habitat” to describe this high-value wildlife area. A report by the Woods Hole Group in
November 2003 (Appendix 5) states that numerous mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish
species were found in Massachusetts bog systems. David Graham, cited in this report, and Sissy
Howard, both residents living near the bog, report having seen osprey, redtail hawks, barn and
tree swallows, black and mallard ducks, geese, snapping turtles, painted turtles, coyote, fox, mice
and many songbirds. However, the Woods Hole Group report also states that cranberry bogs do
not represent good wildlife habitat. There is an abundance of wildlife species present in this area,
but their utilization of the bogs and river habitat is limited, on a short-term, daily basis. If there is
an increase in habitat diversity, more species can be present.
This further points to the need to diversify the Coonamessett River valley for wildlife habitat. If
the river habitat is varied, with more curves to the River’s shape coupled with bushes and high
grasses, this creates numerous isolated areas that will hold more of the same species and a diverse
number of species within a small area. Aquatic insects are a high protein resource for young
ducklings, later as they grow; they’ll shift their diets to small fish in late summer to gain weight
for migration; both activities demand high energy from a fit animal. Chemical application, aimed
at cranberry pests, is not species specific and will reduce or kill aquatic and terrestrial beneficial
insects that are important wildlife food. With the river’s aquatic habitat in poor condition and
beneficial insect populations minimized, this will limit the resources ducks and other wildlife
need from the bogs and river system. To this end, more species could be encouraged to habituate
the area and to remain and raise young.
To date, no documented habitat improvements for wildlife within the Coonamessett River valley
on town-owned land have been undertaken. During a presentation with the Working Group, the
Falmouth Park Department and the Department of Natural Resources Manager have stated that
there are many options for improving wildlife habitats along the river and are willing to
determine the best next move. Most activity would be directed at the uplands. The current bog
vistas have a high intrinsic value for many Falmouth citizens. To this end, selected, low growing
bushes will be planted to provide shade along the river and small amounts of woody debris. On
the uplands, different plants that benefit songbirds and over-wintering wildlife could be planted.
20
Buying bushes in bulk through the Massachusetts Extension Service could help keep costs to a
minimum yet achieve a goal of improving habitat along the river corridor for wildlife.
3.7
Cranberry Farming
Cranberries grow wild and have been a staple for native Indians for thousands of years. They
were first cultivated on the Cape in Dennis in 1816 and reached Falmouth by 1850. For the next
100 years many of the natural wetlands in the spring sapping valleys like the Coonamessett were
converted to bogs by ditching and altering the hydrology for commercial cultivation. Production
increased until WWII. Following the War the emphasis on cranberries declined due to many
factors. In 1900, Falmouth had 270 acres in cultivation, by 1970 this was down to 225 acres and
by 2003 the bog acreage was 191. In 1971, the Falmouth Conservation Commission purchased
the Lower, Middle and Reservoir bogs along the Coonamessett River valley, a total of 110 acres.
Since that time the Town has leased the bogs to the Handy Cranberry Trust and received a
percentage from the sale of the crops. Over the past several years the crop yields have declined
sharply and payments to the Town have been declined (Attachment 3.7).
As with all farming activities, the use of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) helps preserve the
positive benefits of cranberry farming and equips the farmer with expert advice to produce
cranberries profitably and in concert with the environment. This requires a blending of economic,
environmental, and social interests. Such a system requires that farming incorporate these
standards for cranberry farming in the formulation of Farm Plans. There are many documents,
predominately from the University of Massachusetts Extension Service and UMass Cranberry
Experiment Station, and the Cranberry Institute about Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for
cranberry bog management. It is beyond the scope of this document to list all the available
literature and documentation on Cranberry BMP’s. These sources can be found in the Working
Group Library or by contacting the above mentioned agencies. The main point is to utilize the
information that is important for the Coonamessett River bog issues and to highlight those facts
that would shed light on current management practices and those that would improve the
management practices in the flow-through Coonamessett River bogs.
A Farm Conservation Plan was developed by the NRCS in 1998 “Outlining the Implementation
of Best Management Practices for Cranberry Production on the Coonamessett River Bogs.” The
NRCS plan was given to the Working Group in July 2004. Highlights of the BMP’s follow with
recommendations by NRCS on the operation of the town-owned cranberry bogs. Facts that have
been received by the Working Group will be added under the appropriate management issues. It
is not the subject of this report to evaluate bog management practices of the current farmer but to
list the critical management issues that have been raised during Working Group meetings that
have an effect on the Coonamessett River fisheries and water quality.
3.7.1
Water Management
Water is important and its supply is critical for many cranberry bog management practices. The
bogs are flooded periodically throughout the year for a variety of management options such as an
integrated pest management program (IPM; disease and insect control), frost and heat protection,
harvesting, removal of litter (IPM), sanding (IPM) and protection from winter desiccation and
cold injury. In addition to storage ponds and sumps, other components for cranberry bog
operations include irrigation systems, wells, floodgates and flumes, lift pumps, and drainage ditch
and pipes. Many of the operations are interconnected and compliment each other in reaching the
goals outlined by BMP’s .
21
3.7.1.1 Flood Management: Frost & Pest Protection, Leaf
Litter & Trash Removal
The development of healthy, functional cranberry root systems require well-drained soils during
most of the season. Flooding is a management tool to protect the plants from the cold, drying
winds of winter, to harvest fruit and remove leaf litter and trash from the bogs, and to control
pests. General good flood management includes: 1) to avoid causing erosion or discharging
sediments into the rivers 2) fertilizers and pesticides should not be applied near or at flooding
time, 3) during the winter flood snow reduces the amount of light reaching the plants, remove
water from beneath the ice so injury to the plants is reduced. Historically, cranberry farmers did
not hold water in the cranberry bogs for extended periods of months. Rather, they monitored the
bogs in conjunction with the weather and made minor adjustments during winter months (“The
History of Handy Cranberry Trust on Cape Cod”). Flooding is also used to control certain insect
pests by drowning them and through the process of removing leaf litter that the insects utilize.
Flooding has a secondary benefit of removing human trash .
3.7.1.2
Water Control Structures
Ditches, flumes and dikes within a bog/river system are used to convey water, control the
direction of flow, or maintain a required water surface elevation. Recommended practices are: 1)
consider aquatic life when planning a water control structure so the fish are protected by either
passage or when discharging warm, oxygen poor waters after impoundment of chemicals.
Recommendations from NRCS:
 Monitor flumes regularly for deterioration and leakage
 Manage water in accordance with recommendations made by the Falmouth Shellfish
Warden
 Adhere to all recommendations made by the UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station
and the Cranberry Chart book
There are 26 water control structures on the five miles that make up the Coonamessett River
(Attachment 3.8), an extensive amount for such a short distance. The past and current Herring
Wardens have outlined immediate and future needs regarding these structures. These structures
need manual manipulation and judgement based on river discharge, cranberry needs and
foremost, when the herring are migrating in the river. Often there is conflict between cranberry
farming and herring migration in the fall. Additionally, sometimes there is a lack of
communication between the cranberry farmer and the Falmouth Herring Warden that results in
the boards not being appropriately adjusted and one resource not adequately cared for.
3.7.1.3
Irrigation Management
A sprinkler irrigation system is a planned water delivery system that uses sprinkler heads under
pressure to uniformly distribute water to maintain adequate soil moisture for optimum plant
growth. It also provides protection of the crop from frost damage or heat damage and is the main
system for delivering fertilizers and pesticides to the crop. Because cranberry culture typically is
carried out in moist areas irrigation needs are limited averaging between 0.4 and 1.5 inches per
week from rainfall and irrigation combined during the growing season. NRCS recommendations
are:
 Utilize half heads along the river
 Monitor weather before applying agrochemicals
 Adhere to all restrictions posted on agrochemical labels
 Conduct dye tests annually to properly determine the wash out time and uniformity of
the irrigation systems. This is important to do each season to identify any changes in
the uniformity or rinse out times involved with pesticide applications.
22
3.7.1.4
Water Resource Protection and Enhancement
There are important environmental considerations related to water use and management that
include: 1) conservation of fresh water supplies 2) preventing the contamination of surface and
groundwater by farming chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers) and/or sediments 3) optimizing plant
growth, yield, and resistance to pest and diseases. The UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station
recommends:
 Make sure that your water supply is adequate for cranberry production needs
 Use tailwater recovery and holding ponds to conserve water. For maximum water
conservation, the tailwater recovery and associated holding pond should be designed to hold,
at minimum, enough water to flood the bog. It will also mitigate against heavy instantaneous
water withdrawals that might impact sensitive water bodies or aquifers
 In flow-through bog systems, those containing a permanently flowing stream or constant
water discharge, consider some strategy or method to segregate or isolate the stream flow
from ditch water and protect external water bodies.
 Hold harvest water to allow sediment to settle prior to release from the bog system
 Hold water after pesticide applications for as long as practical and no less than the required
holding time indicated on pesticide labels. If you have the capacity, hold water longer than
the required label specified holding time to further reduce the likelihood of adverse
environmental impact.
 When feasible, take additional steps to protect surface water bodies with the use of half-head
sprinklers and guards, consider installing secondary containment for fuels stored adjacent to
open water, impound water for at least 7 days following barge sanding.
 Protect public drinking water supplies
 Protect private wellheads
 Assure adequate drainage and maintain proper ditch drainage function
 Consider leaving some actively growing aquatic vegetation in the ditches during the growing
season. Vegetation can be effective in removing nutrients and residues from the water. Take
full advantage of aquatic vegetation potential for nutrient removal by delaying cleaning or
removal until later in the season, preferably after harvest.
 Studies of constructed wetlands have shown them to be effective in filtering water flowing
from agricultural land.
3.7.2
Insect Management and Integrated Pest Management
BMP’s are an integral part of insect management. The concept of Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) as an ecological approach to pest control is based upon sound biological principals and
knowledge. It employs the use of pest control actions, strategies that ensure favorable economic,
ecological and sociological consequences. It is based on dynamic principles rather than a set of
rules and is adjustable for particular pest situations, a balance of cultural, chemical, and biological
approaches. Cultural practices include late water floods, sanding, and the use of resistant varieties
of plants. Pesticides are used with IPM and tempered by their compatibility with other control
measures and how compatible with IPM philosophy. The use of IPM, pesticides and overall pest
control is ultimately based upon monitoring techniques, which more accurately estimate current
pest pressures and dictate an above average number of applications. IPM is a process that relies
heavily on judgment, adaptability, and the necessity to incorporate change. Practicing IPM
involves monitoring, making site-specific management choices. Generally, the overall vigor and
nutrient status of cranberry vines play a critical role in the ability of the plant’s defense. Nutrient
management along with insect, disease and weed management are important and
interconnected components in cranberry IPM activities.
23
The UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station states that “Minimizing damage to the plants and
crop by insect pests is one of the most important challenges in cranberry production. Failure to
manage pest insects properly can result in severe crop loss, vine damage, or in extreme cases, the
death of large areas of the bog.” The 2004 harvest records along with the past years harvest
records indicate that the town-owned bog productivity may be related to a severe pest infestation
(Attachment 3.7). In the bogs south of Sandwich road, which are the largest bogs, harvest rates
have steadily declined or were not harvested at all for several years. The farmer is limited in the
ability to control insect pests and other cranberry diseases in these lower bogs because they are
flow-through bogs. The cranberry vines grow right down to the river edge, which means that
many of the chemicals available today cannot be used. Insects can also become resistant to certain
pesticides making future chemical applications less effective. Because of past fish kills, there is
concern about pesticides getting into the river. To minimize ecological risk from pesticides, the
experimental station recommends berms and tailwater recovery ponds.
3.7.2.1
Disease Management: Chemigation/Pesticide
Application, Mixing, Loading and Storage
Control of plant diseases can be an essential management tool to improve crop productivity and
to prevent other bog areas from diseases. Sanitation, proper irrigation schedules, resistant
varieties, fungicides and various cultural techniques can be used in disease management. Any
successful approach to disease management hinges upon the correct identification of the
pathogen, understanding its life cycle, the symptoms and conditions that contribute to plant
susceptibility. Recommended practices include:
 Scout for disease problems
 Obtain proper diagnosis of new disease problems
 Adopt cultural disease control practices by sanding on a regular basis to bury
pathogen-infested litter, plant healthy vines, prune lush vines to promote
good air circulation and dispose of trash piles following harvest to remove
sources of fruit rot fungal spores
 Proper use of water is an important component to successful disease
management
 Use practices that minimize plant stress or lush growth. Avoid promoting
conditions which favor pathogen infections such as excessive nitrogen
applications, oxygen deficiency, and improve bog drainage.
 Keep accurate records of fungicide, pesticide and fertilizer applications and
any clinical diagnosis performed for quality control and future management
efforts.
When an irrigation system is used to apply pesticides and fertilizers, every effort should be made
to maximize the performance of the system. This includes reviewing the BMP guidelines for
irrigation, and pesticide mixing, loading, application and storage. There are federal laws
governing worker protection standards and requirements for a commercial pesticide license. To
be in compliance, all irrigation systems used for chemigation must contain certain components
and must conduct an annual dye test. Goals of a dye test are 1) determine how long to operate the
chemigation application and 2) observe mixing and application performance. Additional
suggestions for protecting water quality include:
 Water control structures should be in place and free of leaks to allow ditch
water containing pesticides to be held for the required time specified on the
pesticide label
 Determine the groundwater contamination susceptibility of the bog. The
potential for contamination is influenced by soil characteristics, depth to
bedrock and water table, type of bedrock, and characteristics of surface
24





deposits. Pesticide users need to know the potential for site contamination
and include the risks to water resources as a criterion of pest management
decisions.
Drop the water level in your ditches prior to application
Retain water containing pesticide residues for the required or recommended
times
Release water slowly after the retention period has expired
Avoid direct spraying of ditches and waterways and surrounding non-bog
areas
Cap lateral ditches and divert surface runoff to perimeter ditches per USDA
NRCS Barnstable field office recommendations.
Unfortunately, the Coonamessett River bogs are flow-through bogs, which means that containing
the pesticides and fertilizers for the required timeframes has been severely limited. There was a
peripheral ditch holding system put in place in the mid 1990’s that was installed to stop or limit
the flow of chemical-laden water from draining directly into the river. This system was installed
throughout the town-owned bog system on the river but it has not been maintained. Consequently
this system for retaining and releasing pesticide/fertilizer contaminated water eventually failed
and is no longer functional.
3.7.3
Nutrient Management for Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Nutrient management is concerned with the amount, form, placement, and timing of applications
of plant nutrient fertilizers. Its purpose is to supply plant nutrients for optimum crop yields,
minimize leaching of nutrients to surface and groundwater and to maintain or improve the
chemical and biological conditions of the soil. While cranberries require the same nutrients as
other plants, they are unique in that the amounts required are much smaller than for most crop
plants. The UMASS Cranberry Stations states “ BMP for nutrient management recommends that
growers use moderate application of nitrogen fertilizers. Using appropriate amounts of nitrogen
limits overgrowth of vines that can encourage infection from fruit rot organisms. Secondly, lush
vine growth can provide a suitable habitat for tipworm and flea beetle infestations. Growers can
reduce these pest problems through judicious use of fertilizer.” The NRCS suggests that the
operator adhere to the following standards:
 Base fertilizer dose on the properties of your bog. The average recommended
seasonal dose of Nitrogen varies from 10 to 60 lbs./acre depending on plant vigor and
variety. Likewise, Phosphorus average application should range from 20-80 lbs./acre.
 Monitoring/observation on the application based on age and history of beds, soil
conditions, cropping records, weather and cultural practices. Close observation of
individual beds and thorough knowledge of them, not mere calendar dates will be the
deciding factors in application
 Record keeping of dates and times of applications, formulations used, results of soil
and tissue tests over a period of years.
 Training/education
 Application of nutrient management guidelines set forth in the “Cranberry Chart
Book”
 Take steps to minimize direct input of fertilizers into surface water.
 After sanding or a late water flood, reduce the nitrogen doses to be applied as sanded
bogs are warmer. Warm soils release more native N so less should be added as
fertilizer.
 Apply nitrogen in the ammonium-N form (NH4)
 Wait for soil temps to rise to 550 F before applying spring fertilizers
25
 Calibrate fertilizer application equipment to ensure that the desired doses of fertilizer
are applied.
 Submit annual application reports to Town of Falmouth
The UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station also states that the use of vegetation can be effective
in removing nutrients and residues from the water “Take full advantage of aquatic vegetation
potential for nutrient removal …. Studies of constructed wetlands have shown them to be
effective in filtering water flowing from agricultural land.”
3.7.4
Wildlife Habitat Management
The NRCS suggested establishing a field border/filter strip between the bog and the
Coonamessett River. They recommended this filter strip be utilized in conjunction with the lateral
ditch-capping plan in the 1999 Farm Conservation Plan outlined for the Coonamessett River.
They recommended that the operator retain established brush and overgrown areas to provide
wildlife habitat and to plant food patches near protective cover. They also suggested that “further
wildlife enhancement information is available in the local NRCS field office” including the
publication titled “Wildlife Utilization and Ecological Functions of Three Commercial Cranberry
Wetland Systems in Eastern Massachusetts.”
Another study with wildlife use on commercial cranberry wetland systems that was published in
the UMASS Extension/Cranberry Experiment Station Guide for Cranberry Production and titled
“Wildlife Utilization on Commercial Cranberry Wetland Systems” states that the “cranberry beds
themselves appear to be utilized by a relatively low number of species… the diversity and
abundance of wildlife species utilizing both wetland and upland habitat is contributed and
associated with the adjacent habitats (i.e. reservoirs, drainage channels, irrigation ditches, and low
brush communities) that provides important breeding areas, cover habitats and feeding sites.”
They described this “edge” effect as the main contribution to ecological diversity in the study.
3.7.5
Sanding and Composting Cranberry Leaves
Sanding is a commonly used cultural practice in cranberry farming in Massachusetts. Typically, a
thin layer of sand is applied (1/2 to 2 inches) on the surface of producing bogs at 2 to 5 year
intervals in order to promote growth, productivity reduce insect populations and suppress disease.
Sanding helps cover and anchor cranberry vine runners. Sanding also covers the leaf litter on the
bog surface. This has several benefits which include stimulation of organic matter decomposition,
release of nitrogen and root congestion, limit the habitat of the cranberry girdler larvae which
feed on the stem near the leaf litter layer, and suppression and spreading of fruit rot fungus. Sand
also promotes soil drainage and accelerates warming in the spring and increases release of
nitrogen and uptake for the plants. Recommendations include:
 Stockpile sand responsibly
 Ice sanding is the preferred method
 Use screened or washed sand with few “fines” (Fine sand, silt, clay)
 Choose coarse sand and apply the proper amount
 Know how sanding interacts with late water
 Know how sanding interacts with herbicides
 Avoid oxygen deficiency damage when ice sanding
 Cracks in the ice and uneven ice settling may be associated with uneven sand
deposition
 Barge sanding: some bogs should not be barge sanded. This practice should not be
used if discharge is to a sensitive water body or if water cannot be impounded to
allow settling prior to discharge.
26
 Dry sanding has been associated with more vine damage and crop reduction than
other methods and associated with crop reduction in research plots.
The NRCS conducted peat coring during the summer of 2004 in response to the Working Group
need to understand the depth of peat in the Coonamessett River valley, related to berming
questions. This study found that there is a 2-3 foot layer of sand on top of the peat layers, from
the edge of the bogs near the river and throughout the bogs.
From other baseline information, the Working Group leaned that the river has copious amounts of
sand. The river’s depth both across the channel and along the river length has become shallower
and wider over time from the century-long use of sanding the bogs in near proximity to the river.
(Attachments 3.5 and 3.6).
3.7.6
Weed Management
In order to implement BMP’s for weed management, it is important to understand the dynamics
involved in weed growth, how herbicides work, what is the effect of weeds on cranberry yields
and the combined effects from integrated programs on weed control. Recommendations are:
 Obtain and use weed identification guides and plant biology references
 Scout for weeds and construct weed maps
 Prioritize weed problems and establish a long-term management plan
 Make every effort to keep weeds from spreading onto the bogs. Maintain and
encourage healthy vine growth to compete with weeds
 Integrate different strategies for best possible dodder control. Minimize infestation by
maintaining thick, healthy vines with few weeds and bare spots.
 Minimize herbicide use whenever possible. Consider environmental and horticultural
impacts of long-term/high rate herbicide use
 Use cultural and non-chemical practices where possible. Sanding and hand weeding
can be effective non-chemical alternatives for controlling some weeds and trees.
 Use techniques that will promote optimal application and performance
 Keep accurate records. Careful records are essential for farm planning and
performance evaluation. Herbicide application dates, impacts and responses of weeds
to implemented control practices should be recorded.
When compared to other local bogs, on a visual basis, the town-owned bogs have a “shaggy”
appearance due to the presence of weeds. A survey in the fall of 2004 for woody plants found that
on Lower Bog, 65 pine trees (of various heights from several inches to 18’) were growing in the
upper northwest section. Another survey during the summer on the number of native wetland
species reported to the Working Group that numerous native wetland species were present in
Lower Bog and Flax Pond #2 in addition to large patches of poison ivy, a native plant. These
quick and qualitative surveys point to the issue that little maintenance has occurred in the past 3
years.
3.7.7
Renovating Cranberry Bogs
Due to the increase of weeds and woody plants and the pervasive pests such as black-headed
fireworm, cranberry bog productivity has drastically declined over the last few years(Attachment
3.7). Both the bog manager and the farmer have suggested that something has to be done to the
bogs. One suggestion has been to renovate the bogs by re-cropping with new strains of cranberry
vines that are resistant to the prevailing pests on the bogs. Renovation is a costly procedure in
both time and money. The UMASS Cranberry Experiment Station warns that bog owners
“thoroughly consider the implementation of all other available remedial activities before initiating
27
renovation of the bogs. If positive outcomes are not obtained within a reasonable time frame, then
consider renovation.” Their suggestions are:
 Take the opportunity to improve water management when renovating a bog. That
means upgrading the irrigation pipes and modifications that minimize rinse time as
new pest control products work most effectively when applied with short rinse times.
 Conserve and re-use organic material removed from the bog during renovation
 Use coarse sand for the uppermost layer of the cranberry bog
 Bog sections should be as level as possible to facilitate drainage and allow flooding
with minimal volume of water. Laser leveling to 6 inches within a diked section is
recommended
 Obtain vines from a known reputable source.
 Consider planting varieties that show resistance to fruit rot. These include Black Veil,
Foxboro Howes, Howe’s, Shaw’s, Success, Stevens, and Wilcox.
 If vines cannot be planted immediately, store them appropriately, check vines for
viability prior to planting, and plant cuttings at high density to insure rapid growth to
cover the soil surface.
 Poor water management is probably the leading cause of sparse vine growth in new
bogs
 Protect new vines from cold injury in their first spring
3.8
Invasive vegetation
Throughout much of its early history the Coonamessett River valley has had diverse and varied
riparian and wetland habitats (wooded cedar swamp, shrub swamp, wet meadow, wild cranberry
bogs, peat bogs, etc). For the past 100 years, however, the emphasis has been on a monoculture of
cultivated cranberries. Also during the past several decades a number of non-native alien plants
have made their way to Falmouth as well as much of the US. In many cases these plants adapt
well and spread quickly, often crowding out native vegetation. The rapid spread of invasive plants
is the cause for much community concern. Methods for control need to be included in any plans
for wetland restoration or berms. Such methods are available and consist of a variety of
acceptable techniques (i.e. periodic flooding, hand cutting) that have been employed on
restoration projects similar to the Coonamessett.
In 2004, the Conservation Commission and The 300 Committee co-sponsored the Wetlands
Invasive Survey Committee. The Committee’s goal was to visually inspect the entire town for
two aggressive invasive species – a wetland reed named Phragmites, and a wetland plant called
“purple loosestrife”. That survey is now complete using fifty volunteers. The Coonamessett
River property was examined in detail and not a single specimen of either plant was found,
although both are present in other parts of town. The next phase of the study will begin in spring
2005. The committee will learn techniques of eradication and implement them in Falmouth. This
knowledge will be a useful tool in the management plan for the Coonamessett River if these
plants should be found in the future, or for other invasives as well.
The invasive species mentioned most by the public was Japanese Knotweed. Concern was also
expressed about Russian Olive, Black Swallowwort, Yellow Jewelweed, Multi-flora Rose and
Bittersweet, to name a few. For the most part, the Town bogs do not currently have a problem
with invasive species. Some Black Swallowwort is reportedly in Lower and Middle Bogs, and
Japanese Knotweed was seen in disturbed ground near Lower Bog. A large patch of Poison Ivy,
which is a native plant but undesirable, is located on Lower Bog itself. Vigilance in detecting
invasives is needed throughout the Town’s bogs. Currently the edges of the bog upland are
mowed, which cuts back all plants, invasive or not. Likewise, the clearing of ditches is done for
waterflow purposes, not plant species management per se. Regardless of the status of any given
28
bog, inspection for invasives on a regular basis should be part of the Coonamessett River
management plan.
The public expressed concern that the restored bogs in particular would have problems with
invasive species. At present, the problem of invasive species in the Coonamessett River system is
minimal to none. There is a well-established native plant cover on and near all bogs. If the bog
surface or ditches are disturbed during restoration, or when fill is added to construct the berms
and soil is excavated for tailwater recovery ponds, the affected areas will have to be monitored
carefully for invasive plants until desirable plant cover takes hold. In general, monitoring for and
managing invasives should be part of an on-going, town-wide effort.
29
4.0 STATE/FEDERAL COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
4.1
Background
In developing a management plan for the town-owned lands along the Coonamessett River, it was
recognized from the very beginning that there was a need to coordinate with State and Federal
agencies. The efforts of the earlier Cranberry Bog Committee (1996-2001) and the two public
meetings organized by the Selectmen in 2003 both drew on information and advice from Federal
and State agencies. The key agencies and their associated programs are:










United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Environmental Quality Incentive Program
(EQIP)
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management: Wetlands Restoration Program
Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife: Riverways Restoration Program
Massachusetts Marine Fisheries
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Southeast Region
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District
Cape Cod Commission
U. S. Geological Survey – general technical information; not project specific
Buzzards Bay Project (non-governmental agency but has experience with the
National Estuary Program and restoration projects)
The Working Group made contact with all of these agencies in one form or another, and many of
them made presentations in Falmouth during the last year. The three main interactions were: 1)
technical assistance from U. S. Department of Agriculture on soils, berms and tailwater recovery
ponds; 2) technical assistance from Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management on hydrology,
existing biological conditions, and restoration concepts; and 3) informal conceptual discussion
on July 9, 2004 with most of the above agencies concerning permit and regulations. Advice and
information from these three efforts strongly influenced the recommendations that the Working
Group ultimately brought forward to the Selectmen.
4.2
U. S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office in Barnstable has been involved with
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) for a number of years. This program
provides funds to construct berms around cranberry bogs and tailwater recovery ponds for
holding back chemigated water. In this manner, cranberry farmers can meet the industry’s Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) by segregating their chemicals and farming activities from the
river system. Cranberry bogs with a river flowing within the bog (so-called “flow-through
bogs”) cannot meet the industry standards of BMP’s.
Throughout the course of the past year, the NRCS has provided frequent advice and calculations
to the Working Group and the Bog Preservation Group for various bogs. At no cost to the Town
or to the Grower, NRCS did 48 soil corings along both sides of the Coonamessett River in
Reservoir, Middle and Lower Bogs. These corings showed the presence of a sand layer of one to
two feet above a peat layer of one to five feet (Appendix 6.0). NRCS also provided preliminary
costs to construct berms and tailwater recovery ponds, and then revised costs and dimensions for
the pond after the volume of upwelling groundwater was determined by the U. S. Geological
Survey. Much of this effort was “in kind”staff time. Identified expenses were $1730.
30
The EQIP program will pay 75% of the berm construction costs, and 50% of all other costs
related to construction such as excavating the tailwater recovery ponds, installing inlet and outlet
pipes, fish exclosures, etc. An application for a particular project must be made to NRCS by
February 1st . Awards are made on a competitive basis.
4.3
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management/Wetlands Restoration
Program(WRP)
As part of the Working Group’s effort to maintain an open dialogue with state and federal
agencies, we began coordinating with the State’s Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) early in
the project planning. The WRP “seeks to support restoration projects that offer the greatest social
and ecological benefits to the Commonwealth while maximizing the value of available
resources”. To achieve this goal, the WRP began soliciting “priority project” nominations in
2003. The Town of Falmouth and the Working Group pursued this as an option for receiving
technical assistance.
Priority projects designated by the WRP are eligible to receive both internal program assistance
and contracted technical services. These services may include, but are not limited to: wetland
delineation, survey and mapping, site planning, hydraulic analyses, project design, impact
assessments, permitting, and monitoring. The WRP supported the Coonamessett River as a
priority project by funding the following studies:



“Preliminary Hydrologic Assessment of the Coonamessett River”, completed by the
Horsley Witten Group in July 2004;
A draft resource inventory and completed resource summary PowerPoint presentation
of the Coonamessett River, conducted by Charles Katuska, July 2004
A conceptual design of the Coonamessett River restoration demonstration project on
Lower Bog, completed by Horsley Witten Group, October 2004.
Overall, a total of $49,000 was contributed to the Coonamessett River project without any
funding required on the part of the town. It is important to note that this funding may be
identified as a match on future applications that the town may choose to submit to other grant
programs.
In its presentation to the Working Group in January 2004, the U. S. Geological Survey pointed
out that while they had extensive hydrological information on a regional level, namely the Upper
Cape Sagamore lens, they did not have specific data on the Coonamessett River valley itself.
Also, there were some specific data gaps regarding the location of this river’s watershed
boundaries. The Working Group reasoned that this information would be useful knowledge for
all possible future scenarios of land use along the Coonamessett River. The Wetlands Restoration
Program hired Horsley Witten Group to do the work and install the groundwater monitoring
wells. In similar fashion, an inventory of existing plants and animals of the river corridor would
be helpful to all scenarios. The Wetlands Restoration Program hired Charles Katuska to develop
that inventory. Lastly, because there were so many questions from the public about what a
“restored wetland” would look like, the Horsley Witten Group developed a conceptual modal and
chart to use in the public education process.
31
4.4
Information Meeting with Regulators, July 9, 2004
Throughout the months of study, many questions arose concerning what permits might be
required, what activities were exempt, what coordination would be needed between regulatory
agencies, where does the permitting process even start once a plan has been chosen. The
Working Group decided to see if the various regulating agencies would meet for an informal
discussion in Boston on these matters. A sub-committee was chosen to go to Boston, and
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management hosted the meeting. Most of the agencies did send
representatives.
For the most part, the results of the meeting were inconclusive. There were no definitive answers
on questions such as whether new berms were exempt from Mass. Department of Environmental
Protection regulations, would mitigation be required for filling a wetland with a berm, would a
permit be given to move the river, or what alternatives analysis would be required for any given
action. On two points, the regulatory attendees were clear:
1) the Working Group should look at the whole river in laying out its plan, even if the
project ultimately was constructed in phases; and
2) The Town must decide what it wants….and then the regulators will respond
accordingly.
These two factors were key messages to the Working Group members as we continued our study
of the issues and available data. Since the Working Group had already laid out the river in nine
sections in the Matrix, and the Selectmen’s charge was a “phased approach”, there was no
difficulty in planning for the whole river. Regarding the advice “the Town must decide”, it was
logical for the regulators to make that statement since their agencies have been responding to
questions about Falmouth’s cranberry bogs repeatedly for nearly a decade since the original
Cranberry Bog Committee was formed in 1996! At a subsequent meeting, the Working Group
decided to hold a special consensus-building workshop and see if the Group could “decide” and
come up with a coherent plan and recommendations for all of the town-owned bogs.
32
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Proposals for Improvements to the Coonamessett River
During the year of study, the Coonamessett River Restoration Working Group (CRRWG) heard
many suggestions for improvements in the Coonamessett River watershed from many speakers
(Appendix 1). A description of the main proposals is summarized below. All of the essential
information is compiled in a Matrix dated November 1, 2004 (Attachment 5.1). To make the
discussion of the issues more manageable, the River was divided into nine sections. These
sections are listed in the left column of the Matrix on Page One and on Page Two. An updated
Matrix was provided to the Selectmen at each of the three Status Reports.
The Working Group received a very wide range of proposals from citizen groups and technical
advisors. It is noteworthy that throughout the entire year, no one said that the status quo was
adequate. There was a unanimous sentiment that measures must be taken, and could be
taken, to improve the health of the River and the fisheries. The challenges facing the
Working Group and ultimately the Town Meeting Members lie in selecting (1) which
improvements are most appropriate and in what locations, (2) carried out by whom, (3) how
funded, and (4) when. The main proposals received were:
 improvements to various existing water control structures;
 restoration of wetlands along the River;
 berms built parallel to the River with a tailwater recovery pond in each bog; or
 move the River to one side or the other of a bog into a separate channel.
This section of the report is divided into two parts: the first part (5.1.1-5.1.4) reviews the
recommendations, suggestions and proposals received by the Working Group. The second part
(5.2) discusses the process by which the Working Group reached its conclusions for this one year
study, the Goals, and the nine Recommendations that have been forwarded to the Selectmen.
5.1.1
Proposals for Structural Improvements
The former Herring Warden, Paul Montague, and the current warden, Roy Charles Martinsen,
both provided the Working Group with suggestions for improving the passageways for fish.
Their suggestions are listed on Page Two of the Matrix. Some of the improvements can be
performed with Town forces. Most improvements will require funding and would be folded into
future planning for larger projects. It is worth noting that where these repairs are part of a
restoration project, the funding would be partially if not completely covered by restoration grant
money. Additional funding would be needed for the bermed sections to improve fisheries habitat
because the EQUIP program does not cover such expenses. The Working Group endorsed the list
of priorities stated in Mr. Martinsen’s letter of October 28, 2004 (Attachment 5.2). A copy of the
Herring Warden’s presentation is included in the binder with this report.
5.1.2
Proposals for Restoration of Wetlands Along the River
To address issues of aquatic habitat, water quality, chemical inputs, and fisheries, the
Coonamessett River Park Coalition provided the Working Group with a program of land uses for
the entire 56 acres of Town-owned bogs on February 28, 2004. A copy of that presentation is in
the Working Group Library. A summary of the Coalition’s “Principle and Specific
Recommendations” was reported to the Selectmen on April 26, 2004 in a document approved by
the Coalition (Attachment 5.3). These recommendations are also listed in the Matrix on Page
Two. The Coalition proposed to continue commercial cranberry growing on West Thompson
33
Bog because it was totally off the River; to grow organic or wild cranberries on the Flax Pond
Bogs; and to return the bogs on the main stem of the River to various wetland habitats, most
notably emergent marshland and wet meadows. Within the river channel, improvements proposed
included restoring a more natural flow regime by reducing the channel width and making the
river deeper. These changes would help decrease the water temperature, increase oxygen and
improve habitat while reducing predation to the three species of game fish (Blue-back and
Alewife herring, and Sea-Run Brook Trout). As a side benefit to these restoration improvements,
other native fish and eel species could also thrive within the Coonamessett River watershed.
On October 10, 2004 the Coalition provided the Working Group with “A Restoration Plan for the
Coonamessett River: Options for the demonstration project in the lower Coonamessett River”.
This information pertained specifically to restoration of Lower Bog and Flax Pond #2 Bog. Also
submitted were cost estimates and possible funding agencies. This information was requested by
the Working Group, which is recommending Lower Bog and Flax Bog #2 as a Phase 1
Demonstration Project for the restoration concept. A copy of that Plan is included in the binder
with this report.
5.1.3
Proposals for Berms Along the River or to Move the River
During the course of the last year, the Bog Preservation Group and Handy Cranberry Trust have
provided the Working Group with data on the bogs and several power point presentations. The
first was on January 8, 2004(Attachment 5.4). Two options were shown: (1) two earthen berms
running parallel along the river in Lower, Middle and Reservoir Bogs with five tailwater recovery
ponds; or (2) move the main stem of the river to the west side of Reservoir Bog, and to the east
side of Middle and Lower Bogs, and then construct one berm running parallel to the new channel.
This channel would be dug into the upland. A copy of that power point presentation is in the
Working Group Library. A summary of that presentation was reported to the Falmouth
Selectmen on April 26, 2004 in a document approved by Mr. Handy.
The Bog Preservation Group presented “Recommendations for Possible Improvements to the
River System” on July 22, 2004. The recommendations repeated the options discussed in January
and made additional recommendations for all the remaining town-owned bogs. All of the
suggestions were for berming or moving the river with the exception of the AFCEE bog (Upper
Baptiste Bog), which should be “wild”. The AFCEE bog is slightly over one acre. This
presentation is on file in the Working Group Library and is shown in the Matrix on Page Two.
Handy Cranberry Trust also provided the Working Group with important data about Lower,
Middle and Reservoir Bogs: (1) a letter from the US Geological Survey with a Table with
measurements of groundwater discharge rates (upwelling) in six peripheral drainage ditches (the
east and west sides of Reservoir, Middle and Lower Bogs)(Attachment 3.4) and (2) a letter from
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) with new calculations for the tailwater
recovery ponds based on the new data on groundwater discharge rates was re-submitted
(Attachment 5.5) and (3) an earlier important piece of data for Lower, Middle and Reservoir Bogs
– measurements of the peat layer underneath two to three feet of sand along the River margins
(Appendix 7).
On October 28, 2004 the Bog Preservation Group and Handy Cranberry Trust provided the
Working Group with two more documents: “A Demonstration Plan for the Middle Bog: A Plan
for Coexistence” and a “Management Plan for Flax Pond Bog 1+2”. This information pertained
specifically to berming Middle Bog and Flax Pond #1 and constructing a tailwater recovery pond
for Middle Bog. Costs of construction and the expected funding agency were also included. This
information was submitted on the request of the Working Group, which is recommending Middle
34
bog, and Flax Pond #1 as a Phase 1 Demonstration Project for the berming and tailwater pond
concept. Copies of those plans are included in the binder along with this report.
5.1.4
Input from the General Public: Local Residents and Private
Growers
Members of the general public, particularly residents who lived in the area of the River including
an informal group – the John Parker/Old Barnstable Road Association, often attended the
Working Group meetings. Others have stated they have been following the CRRWG meetings on
Cable TV, channel 14. The central concern of the residents was loss of the cranberry bog heritage
and vistas, which they enjoyed on their daily walks. They worried that a red maple swamp would
grow up and obscure the paths, making the area less safe. The Working Group recognized the
importance of those concerns and incorporated into its Goals “Preserve and maintain bog
vistas.”
The Coonamessett Pond Association –homeowners at the north end of the river and around the
Pond-have also raised a number of concerns: mosquitoes, invasive plants, red maple swamps, all
of which are found in old cranberry bogs in their area. The Working Group responded that the
bogs with restored wetlands would have regular removal of woody plants so that a maple swamp
did not take root. A monitoring plan would be developed to monitor for invasives and remove
them, and lastly, a healthy emergent marsh would actually reduce mosquito populations rather
than increase them by having diverse insect and fish populations in these shallow water areas.
Another concern raised consistently by residents was the impact that any changes to the River
might have on the four private growers who abut the River north of Sandwich Road. At least one
grower owns to the centerline of the River and does not want his property rights violated. The
Working Group assured all small bog owners that their private property and water rights
would be respected. No changes to the River north of Sandwich Road have been recommended
for Phase 1 (see 5.2.2 below).
5.2
Working Group Goals and Recommendations
5.2.1
Goals
After taking input from a wide variety of sources for eight months, the Working Group decided to
establish a series of goals that would help to guide future recommendations. The Goals recognize
the natural habitat values of the River and the parallel importance of keeping a piece of
Falmouth’s heritage – cranberry farming – in a manner that protects the natural habitat. The
Working Group approved the Goals in July 2004 (Attachment 5.6) and presented them to the
Selectmen along with Status Report #2 in August. The Selectmen unanimously adopted the
Goals in September 2004.
During the same time period, the Goals were also forwarded to the Conservation Commission.
After several months, the ConCom referred review of the Goals to the Land Management Subcommittee. In December the Sub-committee reported to the Conservation Commission that the
Goals be accepted but that no vote was needed.
5.2.2
Recommendations for Each Bog and Section of the River
By August 2004, ten months after beginning this intense effort, listening to suggestions, gathering
information on improving the Coonamessett River habitat, and use of Best Management Practices
35
in cranberry farming, the Working Group decided it was time to develop a coherent plan. It was
obvious from the comments made and information submitted by the Bog Preservation Group and
the Coonamessett River Park Coalition that their visions of what was best for the River were
widely divergent and strongly held. Each group was deeply skeptical that the other group’s plan
would work at all, and even if a plan did have some degree of success, the end result was viewed
as an “ugly berm” or an “ugly swamp”.
The Working Group decided to discuss each of the nine sections of the Coonamessett River in a
factual, objective manner, using all of the data at hand and guided by the approved CRRWG
Goals established in July. A Workshop setting was chosen on a Saturday morning, with a trained
facilitator to run the meeting. Two representatives from the Bog Preservation Group and two
from the Coonamessett River Park Coalition accepted the Working Group’s invitation to
participate actively in the discussion, section by section. The public was invited to watch and
listen, and comment at the end of the Workshop. The intent of the Workshop was for the
Working Group to see IF there was any general agreement within the group itself
(consensus), get feedback from the two stakeholder groups and the public, and to identify
how to proceed with all the information the Working Group had collected.
In order to be as objective as possible, each Working Group member and stakeholder
representative was asked to prepare a series of “post-its” for the Workshop – one for each of the
nine sections of the River – stating what he/she thought should be done to better manage that
section. The post-its were attached to a corresponding map of that section of the River on the
wall of the meeting room. The facilitator read off all the post-its for a given section before the
discussion began: in that way the full range of opinions was known up-front. By the end of the
morning, the participants had discussed and debated all nine sections. The Working Group
members reached a unanimous compromise to recommend to the Selectmen. The Coalition
representatives were supportive of the compromise, the Bog representatives pointed out that this
was the Working Group’s consensus, and the Grower objected to the consensus.
All of the recommendations from the Workshop are listed on Page One of the Matrix along with
two columns of comments and reasons. A breakdown by acreage of which bogs would continue
to be farmed and which would be restored to more natural wetlands is listed in the last two
columns. These recommendations were reported to the Selectmen in Status Report #2 on August
30, 2004, with an emphasis on the proposed activities for Phase 1 of river restoration:






Berm the west side of Middle Bog with a buffer (width not yet determined) between
the berm and the River, and construct a tailwater recovery pond of appropriate size;
Naturalize the east side of Middle Bog into a wet meadow to improve the connection
to Flax Pond stream and as possible mitigation for wetland area filled by the berm;
Berm the north end of Flax Pond Bog #1 (the bog closest to John Parker Road);
Restore to wet meadow Flax Pond Bog #2 (the bog closest to Flax Pond);
Put Flax Pond Bog #3 (on the far east side of Flax Pond) out to bid as an organic bog;
if there are no bidders, restore to a wet meadow.
Restore Lower Bog to emergent marsh and wet meadow;
The Working Group prepared a map (Map 5.1) to show in graphic form which bogs were
recommended for which demonstration project, and a table (Attachment 5.7) listing information
about cranberry bog acreage in Falmouth. Given 191 acres of cranberry bogs in Falmouth, 7%
have been recommended for berming (13 acres) and 7% for wetlands restoration (14 acres). In
terms of the town-owned cranberry bog acreage (56 acres) along the Coonamessett River, 23%
36
will be bermed in Phase 1 and 25% will be restored to wetlands in Phase 1. The acreage for the
two Demonstration Projects are as equal as could reasonably be achieved.
5.2.3
Discussion of the Two Demonstration Projects
The Working Group began its study in the midst of a long-standing, passionate, tensely discussed
community issue, and outlined steps for improving the health of the Coonamessett River. The
idea of two basically equal Demonstration Projects was developed in the Consensus Building
Workshop. The projects would be an opportunity for the two citizen groups to move beyond talk
and develop concrete plans that could be submitted for permitting and funding. The projects
would also help to dispel community concerns about vistas, and show whether berms, tailwater
recovery ponds, and restored riverine habitats would actually work. The Working Group
suggested a timeframe of approximately five years for the Phase 1 demonstrations. At the end of
that time, the Town could decide when and how it wanted to proceed to Phase 2.
Key factual information that the Working Group used in making choices as to where best to
locate two Demonstration Projects included the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
The rates of groundwater upwelling on the east and west sides of each bog
Percent of non cranberry wetland plants already growing on the bog itself
Proximity to healthier river habitat
Improvement to in-stream habitat (more shade, better spawning ground)
Impact of berm or restoration activity on perceived vistas
Possible impact to land use downstream of the Demonstration Project
The bog with the lowest rate of groundwater upwelling in the perimeter ditch in this water-rich
valley was definitely the west side of Middle Bog (9,000 gallons per day as compared to double
that or ten times that in other bogs). Less groundwater upwelling means erosion/berm stability is
less of a concern and will better insure that the tailwater retention pond, required for holding
chemigated water for up to five days, will be successful. Since the water table is approximately
one to two foot below the level of the bogs, and the fact that the retention pond has to be dug
below the water table, creates a concern that the pond will either 1) overfill as groundwater
percolates upward or 2) chemicals filter downward and escape into the groundwater flow. One of
the main objectives of the berm demonstration project is to show that such a pond will work. The
stability and permeability of the berm in such a dynamic groundwater and sand environment also
needs to be demonstrated. The Working Group concluded that Middle Bog had the highest
potential for success with the berming and tailwater recovery pond concept.
The two bogs chosen for berming, Middle Bog and Flax Pond Bog #1, are also the most visible
bogs as one drives along John Parker Road. The Working Group felt it was important to continue
the tradition of cranberry farming, and the visibility of that heritage as a vista. Because the
planned height of the berm is two & one half feet, the berm will obscure some of Middle Bog just
as the dike between Middle and Lower Bog obscures Lower Bog. However, after the five-year
demonstration period is over, it is possible that the new berm may become another pathway
around the bog, and hence local visibility will be enhanced.
Lower Bog and Flax Pond #2 were inspected by wetland specialists for the presence of wetland
plants other than cranberries that have become established on these bogs. Flax Pond #2 was found
to have greater than 60% wetland plants mixed in with cranberry vines. This bog is already well
on its way to being a wet meadow. Based on harvest data, it appears that Flax Pond #2 has not
been harvested for the last three years, and its harvest in 2001 was 24 barrels/acre. The State
37
average is 100 barrels/acre. This bog also has a major problem at its center where the peat is
sinking and an enlarging pond has formed over the past twenty years.
The vegetation in Lower Bog is patchy, with a diverse and alternating pattern of cranberry vines
and other wetland plants. Overall about 25% of this bog is not cranberries. Lower Bog also is
reported to have a severe problem with black headed fireworm. Production has been falling
steadily: 103 barrels/acre in 2000, 34 barrels/acre in 2001, no harvest in 2002 and 2003, and 15
barrels/acre in 2004. From a restoration point of view, Lower Bog is a favorable demonstration
site: it is directly adjacent to a healthier river section and terrestrial habitat between the dam and
Route 28 on the downstream side leading into Great Pond-one of our important coastal
embayments, and it is very close to the stream to Flax Pond on the upstream side. There are no
commercial cranberry bogs downstream of Lower Bog, so any restoration activities, such as
working in the river channel, would not disturb farming. Both Lower Bog and Flax Pond Bog #2
sit back from and below the road so changes in these bogs were less likely to change perceived
vistas. The Working Group concluded that Lower Bog and Flax Pond Bog #2 had the highest
potential for success with the wetlands restoration concept.
A number of other factors played a role in deciding which bog for which Demonstration Project.
The Projects had to be on separate bogs because funding agencies wouldn’t provide grants for
two projects on the same bog for obvious reasons: logistics would be difficult (flooding regime
for example), permitting would be complicated, and measuring success would be uncertain. A
second factor was cranberry productivity: Middle Bog is the largest bog and had a good record of
harvest until the EDB contamination occurred. Flax Pond Bog #1 is the largest of the Flax bogs
and also had a good record of harvest. Berming these bogs would maximize cranberry farming.
A third factor was geographical location along the River: the fact that Lower Bog was at the “end
of the line” and down-river from all the commercial bogs meant that any restoration activities
would not interfere with farming.
The Working Group recognizes that the proposed Demonstration Projects do not satisfy
everyone. The Projects are a compromise. No citizens group got everything it wanted. The
Working Group believes this compromise is the most workable combination of activities that has
a reasonable chance of success and results in concrete progress towards a healthier habitat for fish
in and along the Coonamessett River.
5.2.4
Recommendations to the Selectmen
On August 30, 2004 the Working Group provided the Selectmen with Status Report #2, the
Goals, the Matrix with the results of the consensus of the Workshop with emphasis on the
importance of doing two Demonstration Projects, a map showing which bogs would be part of
Phase 1, and a summary of the advice from an informal meeting in July with most of the
regulating agencies that will be involved in reviewing and/or permitting activities on the River
and on the bogs. The regulators’ main theme was “The Town must decide what it wants.”
Then permitting issues can be worked out. The Working Group re-iterated its intent to find ways
to improve the health of the River and its fisheries while still maintaining commercial cranberry
production as an important activity in Falmouth.
After two more months of effort focused on the two Demonstration Projects, including a rough
costing out of the projects and possible funding partners, the Working Group made its Annual
Report to the Selectmen on November 1, 2004. The results of the year’s work were embodied in
eight recommendations regarding renewal or termination of the commercial farming licenses, bog
by bog (Attachment 5.8). The licenses for bogs recommended for wetland restoration – Lower
Bog and Flax Pond #2 Bog – would be terminated. The license for Flax Pond #3 bog would be
38
terminated and the specs re-written for organic farming only on this isolated bog. The Selectmen
unanimously voted these recommendations on November 15th. The Conservation
Commission concurred with these recommendations at a joint meeting with the Selectmen on
December 22, 2004. Licenses on all other bogs were extended one year. At the request of
representatives of the East Falmouth community, the Selectmen also unanimously agreed to flood
Lower Bog and Flax #2 to protect the vines from winter kill until Spring Town Meeting takes a
definitive vote on the Demonstration Projects. Lastly the Selectmen voted to extend the Charter
of the CRRWG to December 2005.
Although the Conservation Commission concurred with the decisions on the licenses on
December 22nd , the Commission has yet to vote on the Recommendations that underlie those
licensing decisions, or to comment directly on the Demonstration Projects themselves. A
discussion between the Working Group and the Land Use Sub-Committee of the Commission is
scheduled for February 22nd. A decision by the full Commission may follow.
39
6.0
IMPLEMENTATION
6.1
Feasibility Study for Demonstration Projects on Hold
If choices in land uses along the Coonamessett River were not such a controversial topic, the
Working Group would have proceeded from an approved conceptual plan to a feasibility study
for the two Demonstration Projects following the vote of the Selectmen and concurrence of the
Conservation Commission in December 2004.
 A more detailed design for construction in each bog would be prepared.
 A plan for additional baseline monitoring data and follow-up monitoring data
collection would be developed.
 The Projects would be priced out in greater detail.
 Funding partners would be approached with that cost information, and
 Contact would be made with Department of Environmental Protection,
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM), Massachusetts Wetlands
Restoration Program (WRP), Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection and
others.
 A plan of coordination with the Falmouth Conservation Commission would be
developed since these parcels are under the jurisdiction of the Commission, and all
permits start with a Notice of Intent to the Commission.
 A plan to track performance would be developed.
However, because the future of the Town-owned bogs is controversial, the Working Group is
preparing an article for the Selectmen to submit to the Special Spring Town Meeting on April 12,
2005. If Town Meeting supports the compromise plan with two Demonstration Projects as
described in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4, the feasibility study can proceed. The Working Group
expects to hold a series of public meetings to develop the specifics of each Demonstration
Project, and then return to Fall Town Meeting 2005 or Spring Town Meeting 2006 with definitive
information on costs, permits, and funding partners.
We recognize that there is opposition to this compromise, and that neither side got
everything it wanted. The most important concern for all Town Meeting Members and
citizens should be to take steps to improve the health of the Coonamessett River. We can
begin to restore the River by (1) properly separating the cranberry growing operations
from the river with impermeable berms, tailwater recovery ponds, and vegetative buffers;
and (2) increasing the amount of more natural riverine habitat, fish cover, food supply,
shade and cooler temperatures, and better spawning grounds.
If the April 2005 Special Town Meeting turns down the two Demonstration Projects as proposed
by the Working Group and voted by the Selectmen, then the process of building another
compromise will need to begin again. The timeline for accomplishing that process is unknown.
Thirty years ago, the Conservation Commission developed a “Management Policy” for the Townowned lands in 1972 that encompassed all of the natural resources. Only the cranberry farming
portion was implemented. Five years ago, the Bog Committee developed recommendations but
they were never implemented. The Working Group asks for your support for both
Demonstration Projects in order to show the Town that improved river habitat and
fisheries and cranberry farming can both work within the Coonamessett River system.
40