This is to express my concern about the proposed project of the Army Corps of Engineers to re-dredge the existing channel.
The following was sent to the state Coastal Zone Management office, the Chilmark selectmen and conservation commission.
This is to express my concern about the proposed project of the Army Corps of Engineers to re-dredge the existing channel from Red Nun number four buoy through to numbers seven and eight which are the day beacons located to the south and southwest ends of that channel.
My concern is that this project will create problems beyond our ability to regulate and cope with adequately. The chances for examples of the law of unintended consequences accompanying this project are far too high for us to make any decisions without thorough review and scientific advice.
Although the authorities in Aquinnah have apparently adopted our waterways rules and regulations which prohibit any overnight mooring in the pond, I am very concerned that recreational boaters will attempt to use the pond for overnight mooring and that the numbers will grow. When that regulation was adopted in 2008, it was to limit the size and nature of the boats using the pond and to prevent any possibility of overnight mooring because of safety and environmental concerns. Currently access to the pond is limited and this fact is well known throughout the yachting and recreational boating community. I am concerned that a deeper channel would encourage use by larger vessels.
The first anticipated problem is one of safety: I am concerned about inexperienced recreational boaters attempting to navigate the channel during the evening hours and going aground or possibly anchoring in the channel instead. Any boats aground would require having to tow them off, which has its own inherent dangers — maneuvering in the dark and trying to rig towing bridles, etc. To counter the argument that the Coast Guard (just around the corner) could do this, they only act when life and/or property are endangered; the burden of this problem would fall squarely on the harbor department. Any dredging would increase the possibilities of dramatically increased traffic and the possibility of growing recreational use of the pond, including water skiing and speeding personal watercraft operating in restricted areas. We have been receiving increasing numbers of complaints about the latter two activities endangering passive recreational users (swimmers, kayakers, etc.).
A second problem would be a broad variety of potential environmental problems ranging from pollution from marine toilets, to potential oil spills (pumping of bilges, etc.) and of far greater importance and relevance to Menemsha Pond, the endangerment of the shellfishing resources. Any anchoring, for instance, in the eelgrass beds (themselves very sensitive) will jeopardize the flourishing shellfish resources, including danger to the shellfish propagation rafts, and resources that Chilmark has worked so hard to propagate and protect. Further, I am very concerned that dredging the channel may change the dynamics of the circulation in Menemsha Pond, endangering the shellfish propagation program.
A third problem is that opening up Menemsha Pond to larger craft will enable recreational boaters visiting the area to anchor rather than utilizing the town’s moorings and slips in the harbor. This could significantly reduce revenue generated from the harbor.
My greatest concerns are that this project will create the problems above and many others as yet unforeseen because it will allow for greatly increased usage. Although we do patrol up into the pond, our harbor staff is fully engaged with the harbor and the moorings in the bight. In order to properly monitor and regulate increased use of the pond might require increased harbor staff.
The current shoal channel naturally restricts the size of the vessel and the use of the pond, limiting the pond to smaller vessels — mostly small sailboats and vessels with outboards, or the picnickers. The current use of the pond has a very low invasive impact on the pond and on the homeowners around the pond. Deepen the channel and you will increase the use by larger vessels; larger vessels equate to larger headaches.
I respectfully submit this testimony as my official opinions about the proposed project. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Dennis Jason is Chilmark harbor master.
Comments
I agree with the Harbormaster
A Boater ChappyI agree with the Harbormaster. By his logic, all harbors should be closed. Any harbor can have a boat run aground on the edge of the channel, illegally discharge pollution, or anchor without paying for a mooring. We could save a fortune on Harbormaster salaries, too.
Problem 1: the harbor
Wayward SailorProblem 1: the harbor department will actually have to show up to work.
Problem 2: the fleet of scallop boats operating during the "R" months in Quitsa pond use drags that tear the hell out of those eelgrass beds. Much more so than the simple setting of a 20lb danforth anchor.
Problem 3: the town has 2 or 3 moorings inside the harbor for rent that are never available.
There is no safe refuge on the west end of Martha's Vineyard for boaters. Adverse weather conditions and currents leave boaters at the mercy of the outer moorings that aren't safe or comfortable in a north wind. Stop being elitist and open the pond back up to the humble citizenry that can't afford the $3K a week rental. I camped on a sailboat as a boy in that back harbor and I would like to do it with my children some day.
What Dennis says about boats
Hugh Weisman ChilmarkWhat Dennis says about boats going aground reminds me of what we used to see (and as kids get a laugh out of) in the 50s. We often were down in the area of the Galley and Menemsha Store (Seward's back then) and see a 40' yawl or ketch head up into the pond on the incoming tide. We all knew it wouldn't be long until the tide swept them up on shoal sandbanks and ruin their day.
Dennis with all due respect:
Mac Cook ChilmarkDennis with all due respect:
There have been many many sailboats aground over the years at the corner and I don't quite understand how you justify that "inexperienced boaters" are a problem and pose a danger. There has been no recorded incidents that I am aware of that would prompt the dredging to be curtailed so that these boaters won't get grounded, The fact of the matter is there is far more danger navigating Robinsons hole or even Woods hole than Menemsha creek
.My suggestion is: Harbormaster actually goes out and performs scheduled or unscheduled tours of Menemsha pond and helps to educate the yachters whether they are motor or sail of their need to help preserve the pond environment. Menemsha pond is tidal as we all know. The tidal exchange of water on a daily basis provides more than enough fresh sea water circulation. In other words please provide some data that contradicts this.
"flourishing shellfish resources"....would that be the Aquinnah tribe aquaculture program ? Abandoned equipment left to float around the pond or end up on private property as derelict equipment. please be a bit more specific about your claims.
I would suggest that increased water flow via the dredging will actually enhance the marine environment
in the pond, please inform me if this incorrect.
There is more demand than availability for recreational boaters in the inner harbor as you well know, There is anchorage off Menemsha beach available as well (either at mooring buoys or anchorage). What constitutes larger craft ? My uncle brought his Brownell 40' (I believe the draft was no greater than 5 1/2') in from Falmouth on a weekly basis for over 50 years and had no trouble navigating the creek. As it stands now he would not be able to navigate the channel (unless at an optimum full tide) and would be prevented from reaching his dock in Quitsa pond...how would you respond to his needs ?
What "problems" have been documented ? What are the unforseen problems you imagine ? How has the use of the pond over the last 40 years been negatively impacted by these yachters. ? The channel was deep enough for all the boats/yachts to enter and exit with no negative impact on the pond that has been recorded or documented or has it ?
I dont have data in front of me but I am willing to guess that the draft "post dredging" will most likely not exceed
10 feet and that is a guess on my part (allowing for natural shoaling to fill in some of that depth). What vessels that draw more than 6-8' do you imagine will be navigating the creek in search of a mooring for the night ?
In closing; I respect your right to submit testimony about the project. Are you speaking for the town of Chilmark
in this matter ?
In regards to personal water craft and water skiing on menemsha pond:
Did you forget about the Coast guardsmen water skiing behind the 41' in Menemsha pond.
(long time ago....I was still young back then)
Sincerely
Mac Cook, Chilmark
I would be happy to pay for a
Buzzards Bay Sailor MassachusettsI would be happy to pay for a mooring or slip if one was available.Going back 40 years I've never known any to be readily available,certainly nothing one could count on. The point that revenue might be lost if we are allowed to anchor in the Pond isn't valid. Personally, I love visiting, but a couple nights a season anchored out in the Bight is more than enough for this sailor. If I had a protected anchorage,mooring or slip, I'd be sticking around a lot longer, spending a lot more money.
Add new comment