CTFishTalk.com: Habitat Views about Nitrogen Pollution & Shellfishing 19 - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

IMEP #44
Habitat Views about Nitrogen Pollution and Shellfishing 1981-83

Mr. Hammond’s 1983 Concerns About Nitrogen and Shellfish Habitats

The Truth about Nitrogen, Part V
Timothy C. Visel*
The Sound School
January 15, 2015

Habitat Information For Fishers and Fishery Area Managers
Understanding Science Through History

(IMEP Habitat History Newsletters can be found indexed by date on BlueCrab.Info™ website: Fishing, Eeling and Oystering thread) and CTFishTalk.com™ website under Salt Water Reports
Shellfish Restoration and Water Quality Project Shellfish Proposal EPA/DEP Habitat Restoration Initiative
Meeting December 11, 2009
* The viewpoint expressed here does not represent the EPA-DEEP Long Island Sound Study. The views represented here reflect Tim Visel, a committee member – no consensus was obtained on the presence of Sapropel or Black Mayonnaise in Connecticut Long Island Sound Waters. At this time, the State of Connecticut DEEP has not officially made a position statement regarding Sapropel formation in high heat or the existence of Black Mayonnaise deposits that produce second source nitrogen compounds. Abstracted from a November 18, 2009 report on Water Quality and Shellfish Restoration, “The Project Shellfish Proposal,” Long Island Sound Study Presentation, T. Visel.

Mr. Hammond’s Lesson About Nitrogen Concerns
and Shellfish Habitats
The Truth About Nitrogen -Part V

Important Note- Just before this series of newsletters I asked our Connecticut DEEP for a response to several questions regarding our nitrogen TMDL for Long Island Sound and the existence of Sapropel. A meeting did occur during the week of November 17, 2014 concerning this topic including review of section 319 grants for non point source pollution. Our Connecticut DEEP has acknowledged that Sapropel and second source nitrogen generation is under represented in the existing grant award profile. One group however that has consistently focused upon the negative impacts of rotting leaves has been Harbor Watch in western Connecticut.
This organization which has monitored habitat and water quality in western Connecticut harbors and rivers for decades has identified leaves and leaf litter as negative factors for both fish and shellfish habitat health. Several articles have highlighted the negative impacts to Winter Flounder. In high heat this material most likely became Sapropelic, both with high amounts of leaf paraffin as a sticky bottom residue and sulfur compounds, the same as Mr. Hammond’s “humus” – a marine compost he also watched build up in Chatham, Mass. Sapropel has implications beyond habitat reviews, but also the Long Island Sound nitrogen TMDL was calculated without, it appears, an accurate review of all possible nitrogen sources. Sapropel has not been discussed nor is the public informed often about its negative habitat implications (my view).

Those nitrogen compounds from Sapropel are commonly termed benthic flux or benthic generation. Some important habitat aspects of Sapropel are that it generates ammonia in heat and purges (expels) sulfides in winter. Nitrate is a form of accessible nitrogen that actually can buffer the Sapropel-Sulfur cycle and is under review as this series was being developed. The sulfur cycle of organic digestion is often under reported in the recent habitat literature regarding estuarine nitrogen source analysis. Very few documents mention the term Sapropel.

Sulfide purging is the source of the infamous black water deaths fish and shellfish die-offs of the last century – commonly called fishkills today. Putrefied organic matter from marine sources was known to shed ammonia in large quantities for over a century. Most of the information about black water deaths is coming from Australia; information about sulfide toxicity from Denmark and Sapropel wax buildup from Arizona reservoir supplied irrigation systems.

It is the Sapropel – sulfur cycle that shellfishers on Cape Cod first experienced as New England’s regional climate moderated- now suspected to be associated with a cyclic climate feature called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). When it became hot, Sapropel became a dominant habitat type in coves and bays in Southern New England. This material often had a “greasy” feel now attributed to paraffin wax buildup from oak leaves. Today often termed benthic flux, it can influence nitrogen residence tines in shallow poorly flushed habitats common to many bays and coves. .
In the 1980s, the waters were warming on Cape Cod and the first areas to show the first impacts were shallow bays with “black bottoms.” Fish were observed leaving theses shallow hot areas and “foul” odors reported coming from them at night. These shellfish habitats were “failing” or succeeding into non productive habitat types as shellfish seed died by the millions. The acknowledgement this week from our Connecticut DEEP that unofficially Sapropel deserves further study may answer many habitat questions that fishers have asked for decades. Is it “us” or is it natural cycle? And is there anything we can do to improve shellfish habitats with second source nitrogen?
I respond to all emails at tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us

Tim Visel is a member of the Habitat Restoration Work Group of the Long Island Sound Study, but views expressed here do not represent committee consensus or the opinion of the Long Island Sound Study. No consensus has been received regarding Sapropel or ammonia shedding or sulfide purging associated with such deposits.

Mr. Hammonds’s Concern about Nitrogen and Shellfish Habitats

My last meeting with Mr. Hammond was late winter of 1983; he wanted to see the plans on oyster float taken a few weeks before (Jan 1983) and to talk about fisheries history. I had dropped off two papers I had done - a history of the Stonington CT Fishing Fleet and a history of New England Trawl Net Designs (See the website www.GearNet.org. This paper has recently been put online.) Both papers I had submitted at the University of Rhode Island and when I met with him again (Feb 1983) I knew I was leaving my position at the Cape for a full time position with the University of Connecticut Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program. He was sorry to hear that but I couldn’t find a year round rental. Academic year was no problem but summers took all off my monthly income from the University of Massachusetts; (summer rentals went up dramatically). He understood that and returned the favor with more reports including the Pleasant Bay Survey Report, November 1968 done by the Army Corps. I can recall him saying it’s all here and it was. The Army Corps according to Mr. Hammond had done an outstanding job – it’s about 100 pages and filled with history – mostly Nauset Beach, Monomoy Island, a “habitat history” written according to Clint in clear language so the public could understand it”. The Department of the Army memorandum dated November 1, 1968 page 1, item #2 detailed the purpose and extent of study. [Purpose and extent of study: The study was made for the purpose of determining the advisability, cost and economic justification for constructing navigation and allied improvements in the Pleasant Bay area.

The study encompasses Pleasant Bay, including Chatham Harbor, the Morris Island to Monomoy Island breach and the Monomoy Island to Nauset Beach opening, and the effects of these waterways on present and prospective navigation.]
He also provided me a copy of a 1963 publication regarding the raft culture of oysters in Massachusetts by William N. Shaw (1968) and meeting with Paul Galtsoff who at the time was working on a much larger oyster study that would be released in 1964. We both had copies and to many it is known as The American or Eastern Oyster Bulletin, #64 “The Introduction of the Fish & Wildlife Bulletin (Vol. 6, #197, 1963)” and contains this acknowledgement:

“I wish to thank Dr. Paul S. Galtsoff for assistance in organizing the project and for suggestions in preparing the manuscript. J.C. Hammond, commercial oyster grower, whose help in constructing and maintenance of the raft made this project possible, Gilbert Covell, commercial oyster grower, who donated young oysters for the observations, the late Charles Jones, former Chatham Shellfish Warden gave permission to use certain areas where oyster spat could be caught without the cooperation of local oyster growers and officials the project could not have been carried out.”
To Mr. Hammond- the oyster industry was declining because it was colder, more ice in winters and slower growth on the now cooler bottom. Oysters off the bottom in the warmer surface waters grew faster, but natural spat falls had declined and were not dependable. The raft study covered dates between September 1956 to January 1958 during a time of more frequent intense storms now associated with a largely negative “NAO”. Mr. Hammond was concerned that if bottom conditions did not improve, oyster culture on the bottom would no longer be practical. He referenced a project now underway in Rhode Island by Luther Blount.

Although he appreciated the efforts of these research projects and ones yet to come, he felt that oysters on the Cape was a part of a much larger cycle- much stronger storms, more thick ice and cold. To Mr. Hammond he was not only battling predators, storm surges but also temperature from the 20 Chatham oyster planters by 1956, there was only three – Mr. Hammond would be the last.

The environmental history is what he wanted me to study and this report is just filled with it. Changes to Monomoy the Breach of 1957-58 from storms. The 1950s and 1965 according to Mr. Hammond were particularly active times for the Cape’s shellfish habitats – We now recognize that time period as in a negative NAO phase- New England experienced many violent storms and colder temperatures during this period. He noticed that natural cultivation events –destructive in “real time” created habitats later for other species. He felt that soft shell clams and oysters reversed with bay scallops and hard clams on the Cape and perhaps other areas as well.

Although the purpose of my visit seemed moot – he was even more emphatic that the history of bottom conditions be included in future nitrogen discussions. He was convinced that climate and storms decided the abundance of shellfish and some near shore species of fish as well. To gain an appreciation of these conditions required a long term view that was his feeling. He was very interested in seeing that oyster culture would continue and that people not rush into the nitrogen debate without a clear understanding of long term climate impacts. It was Mr. Hammond who urged me several times during these meetings to focus on the New England 1880-1920 period-- that I would find all the information I would need in the fish catches, especially the oyster fisheries, and it wasn’t just Cape Cod, but neighboring states as well. Curious I send off some letters requesting information regarding this 1880-1920 period one answer by Rhode Island on April 23, 1982, the other by Connecticut’s Aquaculture Division Chief John Volk.

Mr. Hammond’s research was looking at a transition between the hard clam – which sets had declined (they still grew very well in places, in fact, very fast) but could still grow. High prices and a very good quality hard shell were the success behind planted seed now obtained from a large shellfish hatchery Culture Clam. Fishers had planted thousands of seed clams in areas that once obtained natural sets but no longer. He had also noticed in the colder periods, oyster sets had failed and the same result- oyster hatcheries increased. One of the reasons that US Fish and Wildlife researchers moved off bottom raft grow out of oysters from the Cape to the mid Atlantic area was not because the oysters didn’t grow they just could not get a good yearly dependable set.

For Mr. Hammond there was a long history of the best oyster sets occurred in the warmest of cycles, which was of course the foundation of importing seed oysters to Cape Cod; he could still produce a high quality oyster; he felt the waters were just too cool for a reliable oyster set over time. That changed and during the 1880-1920 period; oyster setting increased on the Cape and even areas to the north. Examination of bay bottoms (very large core sections) could provide clues to previous times when oysters set and then did not – giving changes in fishery landings, and catch statistics. In times of heat and huge natural oyster sets he doubted the need for hatcheries (as why he was so interested in learning about large increases in Connecticut oyster sets beginning in 1978) and hearing about large buildups of seed oyster beginning in 1974) and predicted that as warm period lengthened oyster setting would increase again. He had looked at this at the turn of the century – the 1880-1920 period he frequently mentioned.

In the south and spread north as the warmth continued (1890s) as it had happened before, during the 1880-1920 period, Mr. Hammond so encouraged me to explore that period of time; he also noted that increased hard shell clam sets the 1940s and 1950s had altered a predator prey aspect – an enormous increase in the whelk population and gave me a copy of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife study in which he had also participated. He recalled the starfish war that Connecticut oyster culturists once made and having myself been on some of the last New Haven “Star Boats” during high school participated in the boil box deck tanks in which huge cotton mops covered with starfish were dipped into the boiling water. What Connecticut oystermen had done with starfish the Cape had experienced with whelk – more prey, more predators only in northern waters the prey was the quahog and predators whelks. Although the species was different, the change was the same: climate and energy could shift the balance and the 1880-1920 period in New England were key to his research.

Mr. Hammond was all that remained of a once large private grant oyster aquaculture industry. In a manual titled Shellfish Management Proposals for Barnstable County, (Marine Research Center, Falmouth, Massachusetts, December 30, 1980), it listed Chatham’s private shellfish grant system, “which was once the heart of an oyster industry in Chatham, appears to be collapsed with only one relatively small grant remaining.” The last was Mr. Hammond’s Oyster Pond River. At the turn of the century the Cape’s salt ponds did contain oysters protected from storms, a habitat refuge that still carries the name in Chatham. Oyster sets however were infrequent and small and like similar oyster culture areas depended upon seed oysters from other sources.

Dr. Belding, in his bulletin titled “Quahog and Oyster Fisheries (1912)” describes weather; especially temperatures influencing oyster sets – one about Monomoy Point, a plankton net survey before a rain measured 30,000 oyster larvae after 9 hours of a cold rain 15,000 after 15 hours 3,000. In years of good sets “have had little or no rain during the brief free swimming period” and “A set is achieved by a happy combination of favorable conditions largely presided over by the element of chance, and for this reason will always remain a more or less baffling problem to the oyster men who in his favorable way is unable to control the mighty faces of nature.”

Mr. Hammond felt the colder winters of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s caused a decline in the Cape’s Oyster Fisheries. The 1968 Pleasant Bay report did mention this fact on page 18.

“In early May 1966 the Chatham shellfish officer (unnamed) planted seed oysters in Crows Pond. Local interests desire to revive the oyster industry in the bay (Pleasant Bay) and were concerned with the future water temperature of the Bay.” It is interesting to note that blue crabs had declined along with the oysters but blue mussels and bay scallops were plentiful (1966). In 1967 six shellfishers had harvested with hand dredges almost 19,000 bushels of blue mussels; Mr. Hammond commented that oysters and blue crabs do not do well during the cold, but bay scallops and blue mussels “like it fine.” If I looked at fish catches I would see these trends. The New England Fisheries statistics long term now back Mr. Hammond in almost every instance.

But that changes conversation regarding nitrogen and the bottom did bring mention his concern for growing “marine humus” – he was convinced that this was connected to his oyster losses; he had seen the bottom of strings of the first off bottom oyster culture experiments die above this organic matter; he believed had increased under the strings were producing Hydrogen Sulfide and killing the oysters at the bottom over the winter. He felt it was a matter of capacity that all those oysters had produced oyster feces, and that the strings had slowed currents so that in fact, a black mayonnaise had collected with dead grasses and leaves underneath them. He had seen this black (or at the time sulfide) dead line.
Introduction

Mr. Hammond by 1983 had nearly two decades to observe bottom conditions and he agreed “Black Mayonnaise” was on the increase. He was convinced that it was killing his oysters and was most interested in Tom’s Creek (Madison, Connecticut) observations of leaves rotting over them. Mr. Hammond was also well aware about what animal waste from ducks could do in poorly flushed areas.

[Years later however, this organic matter problem would be again raised in more northern waters under salmon rearing culture pens.] Mr. Hammond felt warmer waters and fewer storms were changing shellfish habitats as well, and people’s reaction to nitrogen should be viewed with climate and energy, in times of cold and frequent storms nitrogen did not hang around – it was washed out – “scrubbed” as he called it. He referenced his long personal studies – of Monomoy and his involvement with shellfish studies – a lifetime of work. Nitrogen was a problem first in shallow bays with long connections to the sea. He had seen his “humus” (he called it my Black Mayonnaise) appear here first and it was spreading. My limited shellfish surveys had found it on many Cape shellfish beds especially in these areas now closed to shellfish harvesting. He was more concerned about “hard”nitrogen organic matter than nitrogen dissolved in water which could be quickly moved by tides.

Many shellfishers respected Mr. Hammond’s point of view and his opinion as the mentor for many, and I include myself here.

When it Comes to Nitrogen and Shellfish Abundance Was Nature Overlooked?

He was the last of his industry at 78 he had to give up oyster tonging. A great description of his operation appears in the June 1975 issue of Outdoors written by Gordon Smith. Mr. Hammond was concerned about the future of oyster culture in general; he had watched some of the first “3-D” culture methods conducted by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries on Cape Cod and those oysters at the surface grew about twice as fast as those on the bottom; in fact oysters at the bottom in some instances had died (NOAA- Farming the Sea, October 1971, Vol. 1 #4). He provided me a copy of an Outdoors article by Gordon Smith – June 1975 and apparently Mr. Smith was impressed by the knowledge that Mr. Hammond had also acquired, on pg 31 has this statement:

“Clint’s grants (private oyster culture rights) are in Oyster Pond River, appropriately named. To the untrained eye there is nothing exciting to see on a grant; the excitement and the work is hidden three feet below the river surface. Down there is an oyster bed written in shellfish Braille, and Clint has the reading skill to decipher volumes.”

He was concerned that something on the bottom was killing the oysters and he wasn’t certain [He was concerned about the “sulfur cycle” and eelgrass investigations had also included rice paddy soils.], also mentioned in the 1975 article roughly one-third of Clint’s oysters die before maturity and he cannot put his finger on the cause.” Of the once 18 planters, Clint was the only one remaining to produce oysters in 1975.

His long term studies pointed to natural cycles largely out of control of “us” and the nitrogen issue was just one in a series of coastal impacts; seawalls that seemed to make erosion problems worse, new cuts breaches that made a new harbor while destroying the old one. Clam beds destroyed in a single night, but other areas “washed” for future sets. No one was tracking this (other than shellfishers and baymen) -- to him history was just as important as catches, it’s a cycle and still reminds me of his talks. He was more concerned about bacteria than nitrogen although he was aware of how damaging “organic sludge” or humus could be. Bacteria counts were closing down shellfishing areas --not nitrogen and discussions went back and forth, how could you determine bacteria from geese and swans. (He did have a point; some remote areas had been closed with little development, but now hosted geese, ducks and a growing swan population). He was concerned about pets, noting that storm drains had high bacteria counts swept up by street rains. Here nature’s filter did not have time to work on the bacteria, or nitrogen for that matter, at least when human sewage was in a cesspool “nature had a chance” to take it (nitrogen) up (called attenuation today). I did share with him that coming from a coastal area in Madison many shore cottages had an apple tree near the cesspool. Pet and wildlife waste had a direct impact upon water quality and no chance for nature so to speak. Almost everything had a history component, weather temperature and storms, rainfall and even “street water”.

At times it was hard for him to understand how much we could know about the land (farming), but when it came to the shore we would not take agriculture knowledge from land to sea. As an agriculture researcher he had questions about why the “local land grant” a term used to describe the universities which had a large grant foundation and originally an agriculture focus (UMASS) didn’t have marine soil test kits; they certainly “made enough of them for land.” It was a great question, I had wondered about myself. I had such few articles for marine soil cultivation other than oyster culture history. To Mr. Hammond, there was no difference; his soil was just a little “wet.” It was soon apparent to me that his knowledge of agriculture quickly was transferred to the marine environment. Although the last of “Chatham Planters” he was also highly respected for his agriculture research regarding the cultivation of the Beach Plum. He had already come to the same conclusion that Frank Dolan of Guilford CT had regarding hard shell clams, that soil cultivation and pH was important to quahog sets, he (Mr. Dolan) had come to a quick test of rubbing two dead shells and placing them in a pail of water; the longer the water white cloudy, the older and more acidic the bottom (time to eat away the shell under acidic conditions). Mr. Hammond liked that basic but effective pH test.

Mr. Hammond had noticed this black humus in the middle 1960s; he had mentioned it to others and a reference is mentioned below. “The possibility that the amount of available particulate organic material influenced oyster growth in Oyster Pond was negligible” * [Possible Methods of Improving The Shellfish Industry of Martha’s Vineyard, Duke’s County, Massachusetts by G.C. Matthiessen and R.C. Toner, a publication by The Maine Research Foundation, Inc., May 1966, 138 pages.] He had noticed that also oyster growth in Oyster Pond River, Chatham. The shallows were quite clear but in areas of poor tidal exchange, as humus built up, oysters did not grow; in fact many oysters died. The shells of some oysters were brittle and he suspected acidic conditions around this humus especially in winter. Surface raft culture oysters grew twice as fast as bottom oysters. Something was happening on the bottom both in winter and in summer. Mr. Hammond felt that long term changes in water temperature controlled shellfish populations and he had good company. Ernest Ingersoll in his review of The Oyster Industry, US Commission of Fish and Fisheries; George Grown Goode, Section V, Vol. II, Washington GPO (1887) mentions the causes of the extinction of oysters north of Cape Cod, “Turning to the Gulf of Maine, an interesting inquiry arises in accounting for the restriction of the oyster life which as I have shown above, once flourished, extinction north of Cape Cod. What killed it?

Beginning with those beds whose extinction seems to have been prehistoric; several theories are at the service of the reader. One is, that the elevation (sea level rise) when the geologists tell us has been proceeding steadily for many centuries, brought about conditions fatal to this sedentary mollusk. Another theory charges it to climatic changes, by which the temperature of those waters has been seriously and rapidly lowered.” (1887) Page 513

His research into water temperature was extensive and he felt at the current edge of present day oyster life; what was perplexing was that waters were turning warmer, benefitting oyster spawning and growth, but it also was producing more humus which he felt was harming not helping bottom oyster culture. A critical link he believed was in the sulfur cycle, and urged me to continue to look into it.

It was from Hammond that I learned the nitrogen value of his marine humus, my Black Mayonnaise. He had a small garden and mixed in oyster shells to raise his tomatoes- decades before I would find out that Connecticut use to harvest marine humus called “marine mud” by the ton as fertilizer and after 1878 “soil samples” sent to the New Haven Agriculture Experiment Station for nitrogen/soil “tests’. He claimed it made the best tomato soil. After looking at no garden in the summer of 1982, I agreed.

In my many conversations with Mr. Hammond he kept reinforcing the agricultural concepts of soil pore space, soil pH and what happened when you had too much humus (frequent topics). These concepts were not unknown to plant scientists and that composting was important to replenishing lost soil nutrients or that nitrogen and phosphate compounds could be “bound up” in such organic accumulations or that compost reducers- soil bacteria were needed to “release them”. It was important to know the pH of your land soil, what about marine soil? How could this humus accumulate over time and change habitats? He had seen that happen with eelgrass (IMEP #30 and #29) as it trapped organics and created compost over previous clam (quahog) ground. Just as on land habitats changed, but only much longer (years before habitat stability of the sea would be discussed as compared to land succession). People need to look at that- but few kept journals as he did “watchers” of the habitats that provided a livelihood.

Mr. Hammond would tell me many times about his habitat observations of soft shell clams sets; they were quicker and easiest to notice. How on occasion soft shells would set heavy around Monomoy on “new” cultivated marine soils after storms. He had seen clam beds come and go, and with it the fisheries – part of a long term change – largely governed by climate (temperature) and energy (storms). To Mr. Hammond there was no “dynamic equilibrium” only change often to long for us to see, and therefore the need to look at more than people when it came to look at the nitrogen problem- but storms and temperature as well.

His viewpoint as an oyster grower: he was quite familiar with habitat change and what a place to study it! The Cape with the sea surrounding a band of land, every storm was a chapter and impacts part of a long book of change after all; he would remind me Cape Cod was a great arm thrust into the most feared storm track- the Nor’easters.

For several hours I would listen to his recollection of good clam beds; I did not keep track of locations) experiments in the “Powder Hole” on Monomoy, a frequent mention. Storms and temperature defined the sea habitats. Storms being the “horsepower” (energy) that turned the soil (i.e. Tractors) and if the storms stopped that was the same as the tractor, the land would become something else – like farm fields—and instead of storms forest fires. To him, the agricultural concept of habitat succession was no different. It was Mr. Hammond that gave me the example I often use- that hurricanes are our forest fires – changes in habitat profiles that could last decades. It’s no different. I can still remember him saying I recalled a high school experience, a modest brush fire on former agriculture fields once belonging to the Garvin Estate in Madison CT. Here former fields had been let go, a thicket of cedar trees had filled the remains of stone wall fields. It was a shoreline estate and the fields were remnants of “salt water farms” – farms that valued salt hay and the sandy soils near the shore largely free of rocks. The old farms were often split up, but the stone walls remained and field after field filled with cedar trees. The property was near a friend – Stuart Hotchkiss, and visits could not avoid seeing these old fields. One afternoon a call to my house came from my friend Stuart that the fields were on fire; alarmed we ran to the beach and from Webster Point, we could see the smoke. Afraid for my friend we made haste for the car and in a few minutes on Long Shore Lane, we almost made it. We were ordered to stop and leave the car. We watched in awe as cedar tree after cedar tree seemed to just explode into flames almost as if someone had poured gas on them and grew larger by a strong northerly wind. Sparks spread flames to any grasses (it had been a dry fall) and heavy shouts as the fire cut across the lane, as balls of fire were increasing. It had split our group, we were south and now ordered to run to the beach, which we did—with little urging.

Some fire trucks were seen leaving, a bad sign I felt but they were going to the Surf Club and formed a second line there at the edge of Garvin property. Here cedars were cut back from the sand although some people in our group had already started to stand in the water. One truck with us sprayed around us with salt water and the reports the next day mentioned that the fire came within a few hundred feet of the Surf Club. It was all over in an hour and our car undamaged, but the memory very much lingered. Mr. Hammond pressed—what happened next? I said the grass grew back in a few years and went to the picnic area to see years later –scorched bark on stumps, and a small patch of mature cedars west of the Surf Club was all that remained (I think they still exist?) of once hundreds of cedar trees. After that, fields were mowed or converted to sports use. That was to him habitat succession- same as a hurricane. People can see that (I agreed I still have strong memories of that fire), but under the water that was different—people did not see it. He asked me (about a decade later) how a visitor would know about the pre-fire habitats other than a few bark burned trees- they wouldn’t. That’s the problem for that habitat- that history is now “lost” except for my experience and perhaps a few other Madison Connecticut residents. I quickly realized his point for shellfishers (or farmers) --habitat history was or could be a “very personal” and at times an isolated experience. In time the stumps of burned trees rotted, grasses grew and the evidence of the fire was reclaimed by lush grass. Perhaps some nearby residents of the Surf Club in Madison CT may recall the night the Garvin fields caught fire- no one was hurt and buildings saved. Quick action by the fire department was praised in the local media (they got a round of shouts from us, I know that) when it was over for responding so quickly.

It was to Mr. Hammond that simple, land habitat succession – from forest to agriculture back to forest. The Cape, it seemed also had a forest fire habitat history and pitch pines caught on fire and burned like cedar trees according to Mr. Hammond. I could imagine those pines on fire, and wondered if Native Americans did what we did—head for the water –he thought they did and I agreed. But old farm fields were easy to see, people could understand if they stopped the energy (mowers) on the lawns, they would “change” again, cedar would reappear; it was all the same as hurricanes to Mr. Hammond. I never had thought of my lawnmower as a miniature hurricane, but it was energy applied to a habitat, no different than a plow or a hydraulic shellfish dredge.

It was a different type of habitat succession that bothered Mr. Hammond and it was eelgrass that now concerned him—a chemical one. It was a chemical transition. Not what he could see that concerned him- he had already watched eelgrass come in and “kick everybody else out” (see IMEP #14 and #5). He felt it was part of a cycle for too long for anyone person to see. It was a habitat history lesson and in a small bound book held pressed sea weed, mounts of eelgrass blade samples, some according to Mr. Hammond came from overseas. (A more detailed description is found in IMEP #13). He claimed the strain now on the Cape really did not belong here, it was an aggressive plant. He then recalled that some Fish and Wildlife researchers came to Chatham to measure eelgrass beds, as it was determined that it was the primary diet of Brant, which after the eelgrass died off in the 1930s, starved to death by the thousands. This has been confirmed in several US Fish and Wildlife documents. Concerns had been raised about protecting eelgrass populations as food/forage for Brant, a once sought after game bird. These researchers had convinced Chatham to reverse bay scalloping gear, then long pole nets and hand hauled scallop dredges (although this term is actually a misnomer, these are hand hauled drags with a chain sweep).

The fall winter fishery for bay scallops would pull many weak eelgrass plants from the bottom and according to shellfishers this fall activity added to keep clear areas, and the deeper portions had the best scallops. But according to Mr. Hammond these researchers brought forth evidence of the eelgrass declines as impacting Brant so in the end, Chatham switched to a view box looker or just pole nets for bay scallops. The result was disastrous – eelgrass grew over any remaining clear bottom – it soon choked Pleasant Bay suffocating hard clams (Quahogs). I was according to Mr. Hammond “much too much”. Eelgrass had grown so thick it made fishing impossible, and one to two years later the method of drags (scallop dredging) was reinstituted. Bay scallopers on the Cape often talked about deeper channel regions holding redweed and that these areas held the densest beds for bay scallops. Mr. Hammond felt bad about the Brant, but he felt they were just victims as the predator/prey in this case – forage relationship changed as a cycle he had seen for shellfish.* [Brant starved when eelgrass started dying off in France in 1928 and spread world wide by 1931. Brant was a popular hunting game bird that as eelgrass declined switched to growing abundant in dense beds of sea lettuce and changed their migratory routes. Duck hunters complained bitterly as Brant that ate sea lettuce (Ulva) tasted terrible; sea lettuce produces a toxin – a natural biocide (helps explain why it is not eaten) and as such bathes areas with low weight molecules.] To Mr. Hammond the dragging of eelgrass from scallops actually helped it, he felt (now being confirmed) that the 1930s die off was part of a long term natural cycle, one that occurred in Europe as well, that it would get too thick and like my cedar tree forest fire, made it susceptible to disease, a constant agricultural concern, but also that it could quickly be destroyed by storms. It was weak after collecting organic matter and fostered the sulfur cycle. After two years of “sulfur stinks” and layers of dead eelgrass ruined the fishery areas, but Chatham went back to small hand hauled dredges so Brant were impacted, and even had changed their migratory routes and brought into more food than more prey population discussions. He had seen that himself with planting oysters which seemed to increase local whelk populations. The eelgrass die off was just a part of succession and Brant which once benefitted from the buildup now suffered from the downturn, but both natural events over long term periods.

He was now concerned with the sulfur cycle in warm water the increase of sulfur bottoms and smells. He had also seen the negative impacts of eelgrass as it rose it restricted “flushing” and trapped more organic matter. Sulfur smells were frequently associated with soft eelgrass flats. According to Mr. Hammond, it helped the bottom turn to humus (my Black Mayonnaise). Although bay scallops set on eelgrass blades – to him, there was no other space and in fact bay scallops could no longer set in the deeper areas because it had eelgrass sulfur smelling humus but were in fact trying to escape chemical bottom conditions that eelgrass actually helped cause. This explains why the large difference in habitat value of older bay scallopers and my generation. Water temperature was also having “a say” and in times of great drought the chances of forest fire would increase, the same they occurred in the bays in terms of great heat finfish and shellfish populations changed, as their habitats changed. A long term natural cycle long hidden in “many bottoms” was created by storms. And, like my modest cedar tree fire example, left no clue of previous habitat types in older bottoms (we call these today core studies). Mr. Hammond was collecting information on the impacts of sulfur on plants and the soils, including the rice plants.

If one went to look for them, there were definitely winners and losers in these habitat successional events; cedar trees on land or eelgrass in the bays-- both could come and go, and sometimes very quickly. He felt that the cedar trees supported birds and animals that also perished either during the fire or afterwards dependant of that sustaining habitat. The eelgrass example was important because the shellfish habitats he needed was his business – food from the sea. Would Chatham reversed the gear if there were no scallopers, who would know or care- raising the public policy component, to him US Fish & Wildlife researchers were definitely in support of Brant, just as Chatham scallopers felt about scallops – both were restricted from a lack of history. That is one of the largest problems with eelgrass- biological assessments – long hot periods are very damaging to populations which storms and lower temperatures can restart habitat profiles. Mr. Hammond noticed that after some recent storm events eelgrass was helped, as it quickly moved into low organic “sandy soils”. That is what the Chatham areas bay scallopers had done, they contacted state officials and local officials and took them out on the floats (his type of oyster rafts) and showed them the negative impacts of dead wracks of eelgrass which at places completely covered the bottom. But it was too late- most agreed the scallop set had been lost. When disturbed, the wrack reeked of sulfur, the rotten egg smells in high heat. Once the sulfur smell was detected millions of seed, bay scallops had died although shellfishers blamed the eelgrass he felt the eelgrass had secondary impacts of changing the bottom chemistry and had linked it to the humus – eelgrass and warm water. Although I have not been able to confirm this incident with Chatham shellfish records given enough time some newspaper articles could perhaps identify the time period Mr. Hammond’s negative accounts of eelgrass changing shellfish habitats, however appear in many State of Massachusetts Bulletins in this time period. Many shellfishers and biologists noted the negative impacts of eelgrass in the 1950s and 1960s.

He was apprehensive about the nitrogen issue, that in a rush to find a solution to the smells emanating from the Hyannis Plant, history would be missed. That like Chatham’s example to try to save Brant, had a huge negative impact upon shellfish, his view was temperature and energy had direct roles in what was happening, he noticed that we were in a dry hot period, if it was colder and stormier for the bays and coves he felt nitrogen would be less of a concern. He also felt the increase of sulfur smells from the plant use in fact related to the increase of sulfur stinks from the bays, nothing more, that what the plant was doing was the same as what the bays was doing it just was so hot. When it was cold humus didn’t seem to building up when it was hot-- it made layers on bay bottoms

Mr. Hammond was also concerned about all the press articles about shellfishing and nitrogen. He had seen this type of public policy debate before on the Cape over the creation of the Cape Cod National Seashore; it had at some points deeply divided the Cape; conservation and values about an environmental consensus. His worry was that in the end, the shellfish issue would be forgotten and pushed aside as part of a conflict between those who lived on the Cape and those that visited and those that knew little of its shellfish or environmental fisheries history.

To Mr. Hammond, knowing the environmental history was paramount – without a good history he felt the wrong conclusions could be made around nitrogen which should include climate information. Nitrogen pollution was an important factor but it was one factor among many.
Always welcome comments, suggestions.
Tim Visel
Students interested in a Capstone Project to research habitat/shellfish histories. Please see Tim Visel in the Aquaculture office for a list of Connecticut Shellfish Commissions. Several commissions have shellfish records dating back to 1855 (the first two acre law) but do not have an accurate history of shellfish production. A Guilford report is available for review to use as a guide as an FFA non experimental research project.

Appendix 1
The United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife Service

Waterfowl Tomorrow

Editor: Joseph P. Linduska
Managing Editor: Arnold L. Nelson
Artist: Bob Hines

Produced by the Department of the Interior with the assistance of officials and representatives of State, Provincial, and National Governments and Private enterprise in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

L. C. card no. 64-60084

United States
Government Printing Office
Washington: 1964

Brant, Ross’ Goose, and Emperor Goose Page 145-146

The Fast, agile, white-bellied brant once were popular sporting birds along the Atlantic coast. In the early 1930s they became almost extinct because eelgrass, their chief food in winter, suddenly died off due to a disease caused by a mycetozoan, Labyrinthula. The surviving birds changed foods and the number of Atlantic brant slowly rose again. Then another untoward event happened. They lost prestige as a game bird because sea-lettuce, the chief item of their new diet, taints their flesh. Now eelgrass is slowly recovering, and brant once more feed on it. We hope their meat in time will become more palatable.

Another remarkable thing: As Atlantic brant changed their diet, they also changed their migration routes. By the mid thirties, about two-thirds of them, no longer dependent on coastal eelgrass beds, were using overland routes in spring flights north, instead of following the seacoast. Most of our 150 thousand to 200 thousand Atlantic brant today are their descendants; they fly directly to James, Hudson, and Ungava Bays before spreading out to their nesting grounds.

Because eelgrass on the Pacific coast was little affected by the die off, the black brant suffered less, and they still provide excellent sport and tasty game. They continue their regular migration along the coast and follow the shores of Gulf of Alaska to Cold Bay before heading to the breeding grounds. Pacific brant number 100 thousand to 175 thousand.

Appendix 2
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

Department of Environmental Management
Division of Fish and Wildlife
Washington County Government Center
Tower Hill Road
Wakefield, R.I. 02879
April 22, 1982

Timothy Visel
Cape Cod Extension Office
Railroad Avenue
Barnstable, MA 02630

Dear Mr. Visel:

Dick Sisson asked me to respond to your letter of March 23 requesting information on seed oystering in upper Narragansett Bay between 1880 and 1920. I have enclosed that information which I have been able to sift out from the upper strata of our archives. Although this information contains some references to the seedy aspects of the oyster industry, I am not aware of any more specific information.

The Brooks book (reference enclosed) has apparently been stolen from the URI Library (Pell). I saw it several years ago, and I seem to recall a description of the Narragansett Bay oyster industry. I suggest you try to find a copy through your local sources.

A large quantity of oyster lease records was turned over to David Maslyn, an archivist at the URI Library (Kingston, RI 02881) several years ago. This included maps of leased grounds covering some of the period you specified, as well as blueprints of the triangulation stations used in establishing the boundaries. This may be a source of information useful to you, but I don’t remember any facts pertaining to oyster seed production. Of course, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in dredging out information for you.

Sincerely,

John Karlsson
Marine Biologist

JK:ps
Enclosure
Rekeyed by Taylor Samuels, Sound School, Communications, Dec. 18, 2014

Appendix 3

Department of Agriculture – Aquaculture Division
Milford, Connecticut 06460
P.O. Box 97 Telephone 874-0696

October 15, 1982

Mr. Timothy C. Visel
Cape Cod Extension Service
Office of Deeds and Probate
Railroad Avenue
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630

Dear Tim:

I’ve enclosed some data on oyster setting in Connecticut for the years 1882 through 1961. This information is taken from the Annual Shellfish Commissioners’ Reports.

Since 1961, the Reports of the Shellfish Commission and that of the subsequent Aquaculture Division have been included in the Annual Connecticut Administrative Reports to the Governor.

Using information from the Administrative Reports and my personal knowledge of oyster sets in recent years, I have compiled the statistics for 1962 to the present as listed below.

Year Set
1962-1965 Poor
1966 Fair to Good
1967 Light
1968 Good
1969-1977 Fair to Good
1978 Very abundant
1979 Good
1980 Good
1981 Abundant
1982 Very light

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Best regards,

John H. Volk
Division Chief

Appendix 4
Page 6 February 10, 1983 VILLAGE ADVERTISER

EDITORIAL

TOO MUCH EELGRASS? “Working Bay Bottoms”

I was pleased to read Mr. Nawoichik’s letter in the February 3rd edition of the Village Advertiser commenting on Mr. Dow’s January 20th article about shellfishing. One thing was mentioned in both the articles regarding how beneficial eelgrass is in our bays. I wonder how many studies have been done on eelgrass, codium and other grasses when they become over abundant?

In the Hyannis bays, the over abundance is more than obvious by the huge windrows piled high on the beaches, the nuisance caused by blocked marsh ditches as well as the considerable expense to the town to remove it each year.

If great amounts of eelgrass are the criteria for good crops of shellfish, then certainly this area should produce extremely well each year. Just the opposite is the case and it appears that other towns up Cape from Barnstable are experiencing the same effects. In some of the bays, the eel grass and codium are slime and silt covered, greatly reducing the flow of nutrients to the shellfish. This silt laden mess is certainly not preferred as a setting place for shellfish as they leave the veliger stage. When the roots finally get so thick that they crowd one another out, the losers decay; and with no oxygen in the soil create gases that shellfish cannot live in.

I have glassed the bays on the south side of the Barnstable for a third of a century and when I started, there was very little eelgrass, no codium, and small amounts of floating grasses. We had a good crop of scallops each year, were allowed a bushel of oysters per week on our family permit as well as a peck of clams and quahogs. As the grasses closed in, silting became much more noticeable. The oysters had no place to set except on the stones, shells or grass at the shore’s edge and this area is periodically blasted by severe winter weather and most oysters are frozen and lost. Finding very few areas to set, scallops have greatly diminished in numbers and are found in small places where the bay floor is grass free. I would assume that the grasses will again get a blight as they did in the nineties and twenties and a more balanced shellfish situation will return.

During the late 1920’s and all through the 30’s, there were unbelievable amounts of shellfish and finfish in our bays. This was a period of practically non-existent eel grass. I realized that weather conditions during that period were the reasons for such unusual shell fishing because the predators were greatly reduced but also the bay floors were clean, creating a fine environment for shellfish and finfish to live on and in.

It is time to talk facts about our bays, their potentials and the wise use of them. There can be a very good shellfish resource there and with cooperation from the shell fishermen, users of the waterway, and the shore owners, this could be accomplished. The shell fishermen, by continually working the bay bottoms, prepare the soil for future crops by realizing predators’ eggs and destroying predators living there. With some help from mother nature in the eventual reduction of grasses and some work by the shellfish department when the time presents itself, all could enjoy much better fishing.

John B. Farrington
50 Fire Station Road, Osterville.
Appendix 5
J. C. HAMMOND
PLANTER AND WHOLESALE DEALER IN
CHATHAM OYSTERS

CHATHAM, MASS 02633
“Home of the Pedigreed Oysters”
106 Main Street December 31, 1978
Mr. Robert Wallace
Wellfleet Shellfish Warden
Wellfleet, Mass.

Dear Mr. Wallace:
Thank you for your time in talking with Mr. John Richards and myself last Friday. I had wanted to meet you and also to inquire about a report by Mr. Richard Nelson of the Cotuit Oyster Co. that Wellfleet was having a high mortality in its oyster crop.

After talking with you and also with Mr. Howard Snow relative to the oyster mortality I have come to the following conclusions:

Because of an extremely heavy growth of the Green Algae, Ulva lactuca, (Sea Lettuce), oysters at Wellfleet were smothered and particularly those of large size, which because of their larger size may have come in more direct contact with the weed which laid heavily upon them. All shellfish such as clams, oysters, scallops and mussels, require a considerable amount of oxygen to sustain life and when dissolved oxygen is absent in the water shellfish soon die.

The next question is – Why is Wellfleet experiencing such a luxuriant growth of this weed?

Ulva and similar algae are stimulated by the presence of additional nitrogen compounds. Nitrogen is scarce in sea water. For this reason, Ulva and its relatives are often found in particular abundance at locations of moderate pollution. Mr. Snow informed me that pollution is entering your harbor from Duck Creek. Are there any other sources? Leakage from storm sewers, cesspool seepage, and agricultural runoff would favor the growth of Ulva.

One of the best known cases of this kind occurred on Long Island some years ago when nutrients from various duck farmers entered Great South Bay causing excessive vegetative growth that put the oyster industry out of business there.

It appears that it would be well for you to make a thorough investigation of any sources of pollution into Wellfleet harbor.

If you can get pollution stopped by yourself, I urge you to do it. Otherwise the whole Wellfleet Harbor may be quarantined by the State Environmental Health Department.

Yours for less Ulva and more Ostrea virginica.

Appendix 6
Prudence Island Oyster Farm
P.O. Box 368
Warren, Rhode Island 02885
Phone: 401-245-8300 Home: 401-245-4444
L.H. Blount, Prop.
March 13, 1981

Mr. J. Clinton Hammond
106 Main Street
Chatham, MA 02633

Dear Mr. Hammond:

The attached report reveals publicly for the first time the new methods I have been developing in the effort to make string culture of oysters economically feasible.

As pointed out herein, the attempts to produce a good half-shell quality oyster by the string method have until now met with serious problems everywhere. Perhaps this is why some of my aquacultural friends look somewhat askance at string culture.

For two years, I have labored with new materials and many different ideas to prove this culture method is a viable one – knowing that the basic tenet of mid-water suspension was best if only a well-shaped oyster could be produced.

Here, in this Report, is depicted the Blount fixed spat oyster disc. I have never seen this technology nor have I heard of anything like it, and I believe it is shown here for the first time.

Further work must be done to render the process cost worthy and fool-proof, but I firmly believe I am on the right track.

While I have applied for patents covering all phases of this process, I will gladly sell discs to anyone wishing to experiment further. String culture as I see it provides the most efficient growing space arrangement with the least amount of care and effort during the growing period.

Meanwhile, I have in my Pond approximately 100,000 fixed spat oysters on sea scallop shells which should be a marketable size during the Fall of 1981. These I believe will be the first production run oysters grown by this method.

Very truly yours,

Luther H. Blount

LHB/gfr