CTFishTalk.com: IMEP 56-Old Saybrook Oyster River Habitat Conditions 1981-86 - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

Old Saybrook Oyster River Habitat Conditions 1981-1986
IMEP #56
Habitat Information for Fishers and Fishery Area Managers
Understanding Science Through History
(IMEP History Newsletters can be found indexed by date – Title on the BlueCrab.info™ website: Fishing, Eeling and Oystering thread)
The Sound School ISSP – Capstone Series
The Management of River Oyster Populations
Oyster Ecology and Restoration Issues for The Oyster River,
Old Saybrook, CT 1982-1985
The Concept of a Habitat History for The Oyster River Watershed
May 20, 2002
Tim Visel, The Sound School, New Haven, CT
Prepared for Judy Preston
The Nature Conservancy – Essex Office
(The Essex Nature Conservancy Office is now closed T. Visel Oct 2015)
Revised for Jules Opton-Himmel, The Nature Conservancy – April 28, 2009
Project Shellfish - Oyster Habitat Monitoring Project
Revised for Jon Kachmar, The Nature Conservancy, February 1, 2011
Managing Natural Oyster Populations for Increased Harvests
Factors Associated with Determining a Commercial Oyster Set
Revised for Capstone SAE FFA History Proposals October 2015
ASTE Standards Aquaculture #17 Functions of Agencies related to Aquaculture
#6 Environmental Factors
Natural Resources and Environmental #9 Ecological Succession

The three reports/summaries review policies associated with the cleaning of shell bases, placement of spat collectors and oyster recruitment associated with oyster aquaculture.
Capstone Question:
“But the million dollar question (s) are this: what are the ecological services of an unmanaged molluscan bed versus a managed one. What are the ecological services of natural bottom before cultch is placed versus the managed beds. What are the ecological services lost when beds are created.”
This is a public policy Capstone proposal; it is not the proposal for the survey of the Oyster River oyster beds but to review the regulatory process and public policies that pertain to it. (Students interested an Oyster Monitoring Proposal see Tim Visel in the Aquaculture Office for the LISS Project Shellfish Habitat Study June 2009).
The above Capstone question is one that occurred during EPA Long Island Sound Study Habitat Committee discussions. A concern was expressed that oyster aquaculture, shelling cultch placement would destroy spawning habitats for other species. This concern is an old one dating back to the late 1970s and Connecticut’s Coastal Area Management Legislation (worms and mud snail burial). Recently additional attempts to have been suggested to have oyster shell declared as “fill” or that it be placed only in thin layers. Restrictions to cultch placement now are mentioned in Connecticut permits.
Although I serve on two EPA Long Island Sound Committees, Citizens and Habitat these views do not reflect these committees nor the EPA Long Island Sound Study. No consensus has been reached as to the habitat (ecological services) of managed or natural molluscan shellfish beds. The existence of Sapropel, the accumulation of putrefied organic material that contains sulfur reducing bacteria are still under discussion. No consensus has been reached as to the cyclic formation of Sapropel in Connecticut Coastal Waters – The question of the habitat (ecological) services of managed oyster beds remains unanswered. T. Visel.

The Oyster River – 35 Years Later
Introduction
The Oyster River was closed to direct (certified) shellfish harvesting in 1971. This closure ended a public shellfishery described in the 1887 US Fish Commission Reports. When I approached town officials in 1980 especially the First Selectwoman then Barbara Maynard had many stories of harvesting both clams and oysters from the Oyster River. The name gives little doubt about local conditions – hard shell clams were at the mouth on the channel edges that were more like sand bars. Oysters at various locations were all the way up to Route 1 – buried oysters were found above that location.
By 1981 ten years had past since a bacterial closure and “posted” no shellfishing signs were all along the Oyster River banks. I needed a location for my graduate field research and a masters program at the University of Rhode Island Aquaculture Dept at East Farms. Although I was interested in salmon aquaculture my interests were elsewhere – oyster restoration – aquaculture the practice of clearing (cleaning) oyster bottoms – laying down dock dried shell (the best type of cultch in my opinion) in the hopes of obtaining an oyster set. I had seen this process before in my hometown of Madison in a small creek so it wasn’t a complete surprise when the Oyster River oyster beds were covered in a black jelly like material more properly termed Sapropel today – but locally called Black Mayonnaise. The town of Old Saybrook Sanitarian at the time Mr. Jack Milkofsky became interested in the project and together we would spend many hours clearing – cleaning the oyster beds of sticks and leaves and laying down shell. When my graduate research proposal was accepted by my masters committee and it was Mr. Milkofsky that verified all field laboratory work for me to the University of Rhode Island.
Without Selectwoman Maynard or Mr. Milkofsky’s assistance I could not have conducted such a project. I learned much about ecological succession from the neighbors that lived along the river, its fish and shellfish history. I will always be thankful for those comments.
Shellfish Habitat Succession
In the late 1970s I had already heard about large fluctuations in fin and shellfisheries – tautog and bay scallops seemed better in the 1960s and oystering flourished during the turn of the century. What ended so many inshore shellfisheries in the 1970s and 1980s was bacteria counts in water samples that exceeded the 1925 National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) criteria (Blue Crab forum™ readers might be interested in reading more about this program in the Environment and Conservation thread, E.C. #6 Bacteria Disease and Warm Water Concerns) allowances for “direct harvesting.” When certain bacteria levels were reached (high levels) being an indicator for unsafe or contaminated waters these areas were closed to the public. Once this happened, these shellfish habitats succeeded into ones frequently unsuited for shellfish reproduction. However adult shellfish survived a frequent misconception that these waters cannot support shellfish populations. They often persist for years but without energy (natural storms or manmade harvest) these populations eventually dwindled – their habitats succeeded.
To my information the last harvest of oysters from the Oyster River occurred in 1995. In 2002 and later in 2009 attempts were made to revisit this river and resurvey any existing – surviving oyster populations. Even if the oyster shell base was buried again by Sapropel (rotting organic matter) the burial of the oysters is a habitat history in itself. The shell cultch placed in 1981 could in fact provide a timeline for succession, was it buried – how deep etc.
However removing Sapropel, laying down shell cultch and cultivation of these shellfish areas now closed to the public remains controversial and permits for the 2009 program were not attained. The effort to monitor habitat services from these types of habitats or shellfish restoration programs was delayed until 2011, and postponed again. The following is a series of reports and updates regarding the 1981-1985 Oyster River Project. A project description can be found in appendix #2. There has been some interest in returning to the Oyster River in the spring of 2016.
Tim Visel – November 2015

Letter to Judy Preston, May 2002 (The Nature Conservancy) (from Tim Visel)
Dear Judy,
I found much of the rest of the Oyster River work and a Sea Grant publication that is a reprint of my master’s thesis Shellfish Management Procedures for New England Coastal Municipalities. As you can see from the enclosed, I spent a lot of time on the Oyster River in Old Saybrook with Jack Milkofsky! Please feel free to use the enclosed as you see fit. I’m certain that Jack would have been thrilled to hear of your Oyster River effort. He was a real proponent of the river. I have also enclosed a letter to the editor in response to some articles last year about the rebirth of Old Saybrook’s shellfish activities. I used to tell Mr. Milkofsky of the natural resource experiences I had on the Cape with municipal resource / restoration efforts. Jack, as Old Saybrook’s Sanitarian could identify with the water quality problems, after all, the Oyster River had been closed due to high bacteria (he did the tests), impacted by the damaging storm water runoff, siltation that caused wetland degradation, etc. He also became convinced that courses in ecology and natural resource science had to be taught in Old Saybrook’s high school. Just before he passed away, he was also trying to get a group of volunteers to watch over his shellfish restoration projects.
At the time (1980’s), I was investigating smelt restoration and the impact of chlorine upon several fish and shellfish species including Alewife; he (Mr. Milkofsky) had learned from nearby neighbors that the Oyster River once had a tremendous run of smelts and alewife that no longer existed and was interested in that aspect as well (1940s-1950s). He also had seen the devastating effects of the 1982 flood on the Oyster River in spots (excess sedimentation) and wanted the town to put in water recharge basins on some of the Old Saybrook shopping parking lots and sediment retention basins to keep organic debris out of the Oyster River watershed in 1989. We were just proposing those basins when I left for Cape Cod. He had found some dead egrets -- full of plastic pellets. That is when we discussed a broader context instead of individual “snapshots” of situations that were impacting the Oyster River, no one was putting them together to make the ”movie” of what was happening to the entire Oyster River habitat ecosystem or watershed over time. Please forgive a little digression, but (I feel) it helps explain the Oyster River situation a little better. It may be helpful to your groups oyster restoration efforts in the future. I hope it helps your project.
Tim Visel
The Importance of a Habitat History – Long Term Environmental Fisheries History for The Oyster River, Old Saybrook, CT.
What several residents described was very familiar to me. “I used to be able to swim in the Oyster River, now I can’t, the bottom is too soft,” or “the river is full of mud and weeds” or “on hot evenings smells come off the River.”
“I have noticed a large increase in green seaweed called ‘sea lettuce’ (Ulva lactuca).” (This plant responds well to nutrient enhancement).
“There used to be eelgrass beds at the mouth of the village towards Chalker Beach, extensive areas and yes, bay scallops.” By the late 1960’s most of the eelgrass was gone and scallops became scarce.”
“Oystering remained good right up until the Oyster River was closed due to high bacterial counts, and so on” (1971-72). These comments are familiar to coastal coves and rivers throughout southern New England. Habitat change seemed to hasten after shellfishing activities ceased – many comments referred to softer bottom conditions.
But by 1981, large areas of the oyster beds were covered in what I used to call “black mayonnaise”. (I obtained a couple of phone calls from mayonnaise producers asking me/us (University of Connecticut) if I could pick another term!) Now I refer to it as “acidic organic gelatin” in 1983 (the correct term is Sapropel). I had seen this situation many times before in the early 1970’s in my home town of Madison. Reports were coming in about this situation with respect to four organisms, eelgrass, flounder, shellfish and seaweeds like Ulva (sea lettuce). With shellfish, the impact was very obvious, previously hard sandy, shelly bottom became soft and sticky and shellfish beds were overtime suffocated (with a metal pipe you can hear the shells below). Anthony Ronzo an Oyster River neighbor said he stopped going into the river because he was afraid he would get stuck! He had noticed a big difference in both bottom type (now sticky) and water clarity. They also noticed a decline in blue crabs and fish in general, flounder which was once abundant in the river previously became scarce. What these residents were describing was a natural long term habitat successional pattern – very similar to terrestrial forest fires and grasslands that followed. Habitat succession quality can impact fish and shellfish species and is implicated in oyster diseases (heat) loss of alewife and possible smelt from excess organic matter mostly leaves; (sulfides or the low tide smell) I ran into that on the Cape. This happens to be a part of the winter flounder decline – acidic mud filled bottoms. Other species seem to be impacted as well – especially winter flounder that once supported a small recreational fishery.
Peter Auster, of the University of Connecticut had also completed a winter flounder study (1981) in New Haven Harbor which indicated changes in the environment were perhaps a symptom of necrosis – fin rot in juvenile flounder some of which indicated oxygen deficient areas suspected by me as promoting “acid bottoms.” Much earlier, I participated in a Yale Environmental Study while in High School (I donated the use of my 16’ Brockway skiff every afternoon for a week – 1969) for a study of dissolved oxygen in Tom’s Creek which was next to my house. It would become my first exposure to this condition that Peter Auster described. Years ago during the study, it was concluded that dissolved oxygen had dropped to near zero at low tide over these soft areas but on sandy shell covered bottoms went only as low as 5 ml/liter. It was explained to me then that this organic matter was an “oxygen sink” and caused dissolved oxygen levels to fall below lethal levels especially at night (bacterial respiration). Many of the organisms that came into the creek entered in the flood and left on the ebb tide. At low tide, everything came to a halt except on the sandy areas. You could watch this happen over a tide cycle as I did. The student (Joel?) believed that some sort of interchange was occurring itself, cool oxygen rich water was percolating up into the water column from below the sand at least enough to keep the organisms there alive. That’s what he thought anyway (I never did get a copy of the report). Perhaps bottom oxygen studies could be a part of your study? It would be another 10 years before I could document this observation to be true at the salt ponds on Cape Cod. In coarse gravel, there you could feel the cool water percolating up into the ponds at low water. As for the Yale study, the tidal exchange brought in oxygen rich waters and fish/crabs, but no longer could support them at low tide. (Bacterial respiration acted like a sponge to available oxygen soaking it in). The other factor was that almost no juvenile flounder were found in these soft gelatin-like deposits only on the sand or shell which had many of them. The student said “no oxygen and low pH – it irritates the mucus membranes”. I didn’t think much about the study then, after all, Tom’s Creek was small and I concentrated flounder fishing with a trawl net in 10 to 20 feet for flounder. There seemed to be plenty of winter flounder in deeper waters. What I didn’t realize is that was watching the flounder nursery habitat die off right before my eyes, a habitat successional pattern that was to follow me to Cape Cod a decade later.
When oystering was stopped on Tom’s Creek in 1973 the creek next to my home in Madison the “organic gelatin” soon covered the shellfish bed and sandy areas all except at the deepest bends. For the first time, Tom’s Creek would have a sulfide smell at low tide. The small flounder that could be found in great abundance years ago while seine netting were gone and also the hard clams and oysters. Remembering the early study, I started raking this material with a garden rake from the oysters. Everything was stained black and what clams removed had suffocated under this blanket of greasy mud. Many oysters had also suffocated and prior to this time when we went oystering with other Madison (1972-1973) residents, the oysters were round and fat. Those still now living were long and very thin. All the oysters’ growth directed up along from this material. I showed some of these long dead oysters to Charles Beebe, a marina owner and lobster fisher in Madison who operated a small outboard repair business. He knew all about the condition and said you have to cut this material off the bed, taking a soft stick of butter with a knife shaved off the top of the butter in thin strips. The oysters were being suffocated (the same happened on Cape Cod with a retired oyster grower John “Clint” Hammond). To accomplish this, he gave me a piece of metal fence and a piece of pipe similar to drags used on the Cape. “Tow this over the oysters slowly and that stuff will come off, he said and did it ever! I soon learned that the outgoing tide was better and worked on a 300 foot stretch. What a difference! That was 1974-75. The sandy bottom was uncovered (but the sand was all stained black and sand shrimp came in it seemed by the millions). Oyster shells were uncovered (all the hard and soft shell clams were all dead however). I could not locate one live hard shell or soft shell clam in the creek where there was once hundreds, so I planted some small quahogs back in Tom’s from other areas (my father’s suggestion, he used to transplant trout when he was young in Hamden, so I guess aquaculture is in our family). The clams lived and started growing in the cleaned area and most importantly winter flounder (although small ones) were in the cleaned section amongst the shells and nowhere else. As temperatures warmed into the late 1970s, oyster sets improved as long as the oyster beds were cleaned of leaves.
As I learned more about the shellfisheries of Connecticut from retired commercial fisherman, I became convinced that shellfish was not only a source of recreation and commercial activities but could perhaps be an indicator of an estuaries health in general that these habitats in fact needed energy to exist. (Unfortunately, I was not able to convince DEP officials in the late 1980s to this significance bottom disturbance, or dredging without a permit etc.). When I cleaned Tom’s Creek further, the blue crabs returned and eels which I had never seen in any great amounts before. Neighbors along the creek residents I knew starting putting back eel pots some even showed me antique flounder spears they still had even though some of them were in their 80’s. I soon learned that Tom’s Creek was once a large producer of adult flounder by spears and even once in awhile, a lobster! What I didn’t expect after a long cleaning was the huge number of sand shrimp that were now entering the creek and large flounder feeding on the shrimp. Not just a few shrimp, but tens of thousands of them. That night, striped bass were in the creek and millions of silversides, I had never seen that before, my father caught three small stripers (they were small the legal size back then was a lot smaller than it is today). All of which were stuffed with shrimp or silversides! I approached the Town of Madison with the idea to reopen other closed areas to cultivation/shellfishing for restricted relay Neck River and East River. They refused until four years later. I estimate that between 75,000 and 150,000 bushels of oysters were lost in the East River along and in the Neck River. Then oyster diseases hit, something that George McNeil had warned me about – “don’t let them get too thick” he had warned. MSX just about wiped out the shellfish in these areas in 1985-87. The oyster density was very great just before diseases appeared (1985-86). George McNeil’s father J.P. McNeil had told him that New Haven Oyster Growers had a do not buy list from Chesapeake Bay Region in the early 1900s. Those oysters when transplanted into CT always died. They suspected large overgrowths in shallow waters as contributing to diseases a century ago.
The oyster beds in the Madison/Guilford area would reach four feet deep, so deep that channels filled in and boats could no longer get to the docks (Guilford West River)! They in fact had trapped tons of leaves and needed to be “cleaned” like mowing the grass. Anyway, my experience was difficult of not impossible to prove. In 1985 I became to clean a mosquito ditch to see how new organisms responded to this cleaning activity after removal of organic debris, birds, mussels, eels, all “came back” and crabs also. That is why I was in the process/video documentation when I left Sea Grant (1990). Earlier I had a broad consensus to clean the remaining piece of Dowds Creek in Hammonasset State Park, support letters came from Parks, DEP, Marine Fisheries, Aquaculture, all expressing strong support for removing driveways, waste (sand) from the tidal areas and monitoring once a thin layer of oyster shell was placed. However, the DEP CAM-LIS office took a much different view. I just want to be up front with that – although I had Dowd’s Creek support letters from University of Connecticut researchers, a Sea Grant proposal, four state office support letters, DEP – Fisheries – Health Dept – Park Dept, Agriculture Dept, local letters and civic groups – The Sound’s Conservancy – the CAM LISS Office was very concerned and permits became a huge issue – I just want to give your group a warning if you choose to remove leaves or put down shell for oyster spatfalls, “Permits” remain a divisive issue with DEP here even some two plus decades later. For the record The Parks Dept had in writing assured me that they had a maintenance permit but an article in the local paper titled “Restoring Salt Marsh” (which was actually not what the project was about) resulted in a four page DEP letter (not positive) and put any other creek and salt pond restoration attempts out of the Sea Grant two year proposal process (I can send you the Dowds Creek Proposal its about 80 pages). Oyster restoration was now a public policy process and a regulatory one as well.
Coastal Cove and Embayment Board Attempts to Support Habitat Histories
Finally the concept of “habitat histories” still remains very controversial and a citizens advisory group The Coastal Cove and Embayment Board pushed hard for such long term studies of shellfish and finfish habitats in the early 1990s (most from railroad causeways in eastern CT) and a Section 22 report (it contained a very negative DEP special foreword to the Army Corps report) lead to a series of letters between Christopher Percy of the Sounds Conservancy then and DEP. In conversations with me (1994) Mr. Percy mentioned that he was privately polling members by phone about a no confidence vote in the state direction regarding shellfish and finfish histories and for the DEP leadership {sealed ballets he was going to distribute at the meeting} but word got out and instead of holding the meeting DEP suddenly dismissed the whole committee (by certified mail). Mr. Percy never went public (I have his letters) but an article is attached – you can read between the lines. Most of the shellfish and finfish studies then contained historical report requests.
As in many of my Sea Grant Marine Advisory Projects (mid 1980s) I looked to habitat histories and long term historical changes in cove and bay habitats for fish and shellfish but in almost case when historical aspects were mentioned (especially in the Clinton Harbor Dardanells barrier inlet) the habitat history concept was vigorously protested then by the DEP Office of Long Island Sound Programs. Mr. Percy then felt the state was creating a closed loop of policy and research which tended to only support the regulatory policy, etc., he mentions that at the end of the 1994 article in the Hartford Courant – something that was a concern back to the Coastal Area Management (CAM) legislation.
{End of the 2002 effort}
{Jules Opton – Himmel – Update 2009} The Nature Conservancy – (from Tim Visel)
Oyster Ecology and Restoration Issues – Project Shellfish Survey – Oyster River
I think if you examine the TNC Oyster River Project now (Judy Preston) you will see many of the “permit issues” again that I ran into in the 1980s. As for the Oyster River project, it was a great way to involve volunteers (I attended two meetings with Judy’s group) the residents could actually see the seed oysters (Spat) on the shells and Oyster River neighbors finally after many decades started to have answers to habitat questions.
I think Judy’s project was more a hatchery seed replenishment effort, but in conversations with local fishers they describe conditions (2007-2009) oysters overgrowing and mud (mostly leaf rot) covering up the shell base again. I am not certain if seed oyster setting took place after the project but I have an old oyster dredge if you want to take a look. It would be a great to get back in the Oyster River to see what happened to the sections that were cleaned and shelled in 1981-1982– and got a good oyster set.
If you pursue a oyster base cleaning, shelling and spat fall monitoring program with volunteers please let me know – I never did get a final report on the earlier TNC Oyster River Project, is this a continuation? (If a final report was issued I would like to get a copy). These are my suggestions – I would advise that you check with the DEP Office of Long Island Sound Programs regarding this effort – Tim Visel.
Looking Ahead – Involve The User Groups – Fishers and Shellfishers
When I worked for the Universities of Rhode Island and UMASS in the late 1970’s and early 80’s it soon was apparent that both states coastal communities thought differently about marine resources than Connecticut. In Rhode Island the local communities had lost nearly all control of harbor plans and coastal resources to the state except on Block Island. Massachusetts however, gave these coastal communities wide latitude in managing resources usually considered as a “trust.” It was on Cape Cod that I was exposed I think to the best coastal resource management practices. These communities have two or more “natural resource officers” within a “natural resource department.” This was something different than the Conservation or Shellfish Commissions that I was exposed to in coastal Connecticut. In Connecticut coastal policies, it seemed to favor coastal development then (pre 1978), and to regulate activity rather than to forbid them entirely. A neutral position in Rhode Island but Massachusetts was proactive and very resource aware. That changed dramatically after the CAM act in Connecticut. Many people feel we have the toughest CAM legislation in the country. (Environmental Protection/Conservation).
The natural resource departments on Cape Cod managed all “resources” for renewable or sustainable use. Instead of having less, they were going the other way- how do we make more? They were involved in smelt and alewife restoration yet sold permits and collected fees for their use, all shellfish license revenues, mooring fees, launch ramp fees, beach permits, etc. then went to that natural resources department. In return, they invested in dune protection fences, replanted hundreds of beach plums (which I’m told they were still recovering from the Blizzard of 1888, a hundred years earlier that nearly killed all the beach plums) built fish runs and fish ways, cleaned Alewife runs of leaves, undertook aquaculture and shellfish enhancement and sold salt hay from municipal meadows. They had an approved “natural resource plan” and were the eyes and ears for renewable coastal resources. I tried as I told you to bring this concept back to Connecticut with little success. Conservation Commissions didn’t really like the idea of generating revenue from natural resources, shellfish commissions had a long history of issuing shellfish permits but had a limited jurisdiction and lacked cultivation equipment; were shellfish only and they couldn’t legally go into other areas such as fish run restoration or (Alewife) dune preservation. Over a century ago Connecticut took control of Alewife runs from the towns. I then turned to coastal Land Trusts especially in Madison, my hometown. I met with mixed success (see enclosed fish way article). They embraced the Alewife herring (Fence Creek) run proposal and the attempt to restore coastal habitats at Dowd’s Creek but flatly rejected a proposal to harvest salt marsh hay even though it could have generated tens of thousands of dollars of revenue, etc. even for Daniel Hand High School Scholarships, it just wasn’t considered. I tried to explain one cut actually strengthened the salt hay monoculture but I just could not get by the commercial use aspect, even when presented the history of Guilford which used to support its schools with salt hay sales. It just was to opposite to the conservation mission.
This is something your group might want to include underwater video film of natural oyster beds here in Connecticut are almost unknown. This is a lengthy way to say that if your group does undertake shelling or recultivating of the oyster resources as in the Oyster River, again the before and after video may yield some other research finds, beyond just the shellfish component. It may answer so many habitat questions raised in my early 1980s study. It seems that oyster shells may provide a unique habitat niche for several organisms especially fish (winter flounder). Just as I thought when I was working with Wayne Castonguay concerning flounder then but he could only seine net on clear sandy bottoms not the sharp shells of oyster beds but TV video could do it. One word of caution however the Oyster River did suffer a habitat reversal in 1988-89. Sea Lettuce covered and suffocated many of the oysters. Constant monitoring/cultivation is necessary. George McNeil would often mention this need of cleaning his oyster beds in the Hammonasset River especially after having rains would wash huge amount of leaves down over the oysters in early spring.
A key concept of this effort might be to understand is the history of habitat change and that could be natural - or watershed habitat history perhaps. Many of the residents for example near the Oyster River had a resource of knowledge regarding fishing experiences and habitat observations.
Again, I hope all of this makes sense. No one ever accused me of being brief, I do have about 500 slides of the Oyster River, the shelling and cleaning/cultivation process, etc. If this would be of interest, let me know. (End of 2009 report).

Coastal advisory board disbanded
Guided state on conservation funding
By Sam Libby
Courant Correspondent
The Hartford Courant Wednesday, October 26, 1994

The state will no longer consult a panel of private citizens when it decides how to spend money for the restoration of Connecticut’s wetlands and Coastal Resources.
Since 1984, a 12-member board has advised the state Department of Environmental Protection about projects submitted for funding under the agency’s cove and embayment program. The board –which has included oystermen, science teachers, college professors, environmentalists, shellfish experts and members of the recreational boating industry- has approved about $1.6 million for 23 coastal projects.
But over the past three years, board members and employees for the DEP’s Long Island Sound office have argued about the direction and scope of the state’s wetlands restoration policy.
Some board members say the agency has failed to do the surveying or research required to determine which coastal areas and resources are most in need of restoration and preservation, or to come up with a comprehensive plan for such work. Board members also say the office has focused on the restoration brackish water vegetation, ignoring endangered finfish and shellfish.
The decision to disband the board was made by DEP Commissioner Timothy R. E. Keeney.
He said the board has fulfilled its mission to establish criteria, procedures standards and pilot projects for wetland preservation or restoration.
Also, the DEP is anticipating funding cuts, and eliminating the board is an attempt to make operations more efficient, Keeney said. Staff time once spent on coordinating with the board instead will be devoted to applying for federal and private money for state wetland projects, he said.
Keeney’s decision is drawing criticism from several fronts.
“Anytime there’s a dedicated group like the advisory board, it serves a valuable purpose” said State Sen. Eileen Dailey, D- Westbrook.
The board has shown itself to be a dedicated and knowledgeable, giving intelligent advise about how funding for wetland restoration, Dailey said. State employees often don’t realize how important Long Island Sound and programs to restore the Sound’s wetlands are coastline residents, she said.
“Who’s going to be the devil’s advocate?” asked Sally Richards, a former board member and secretary of the Guilford Shellfish Commission.
The board has raised many pertinent questions about the direction and scope of the of the DEP’s coastal restoration work, Richards said. Indeed, many board members complain the DEP is not going far enough with its work.
The vast majority of the money spent by the cove and the embayment program has been used to restore tidal flow between Long Island Sound and the state’s coastal wetlands.
Road, railroad tracks and badly engineered tide gates have reduced the flow of salt water from Long Island Sound into coastal wetlands, destroying or shrinking the habitats of native plants, fish and animals. It also has permitted an explosive growth of phragmites, a water reed.
The success of a state wetlands restoration projects is often measured by an increased flow of salt water into a wetland and a reduction in the amount of phragmites.
Christopher Percy, president of the Sounds Conservancy, an Essex-based marine environmental group, and an advisory board member since 1986, acknowledged that the restoration of brackish water wetlands is very important.
But he said the legislation that established the advisory board and the cove and embayment program allows for the preservation and restoration of a broad range of animal and plant habitats and coastal resources.
The DEP has chosen to undertake small wetlands projects in many parts of the state, but has never focused on the coastal resources- shellfish and finfish – most in need of restoration and preservation, he said.
Art Rocque, the DEP’s deputy commissioner and head of the Long Island Sound office, agrees his office has not had a comprehensive survey of the wetlands and coastal resources. He said his office does not have enough money to do the type of survey suggested by board members. Enough research and survey has been done to make intelligent decisions regarding wetland restorations. Rocque said.
During the board’s final meeting in September, Rocque told members in his office will consult with a group of marine and wetland scientists about state wetlands-restoration programs. About $1.6 million of state money is available for such programs.
Percy said he was concerned the state would only consult with scientists whose research was being funded by the Long Island Sound Office.
Rocque said that would not be the case.

Appendix 1 - Can We Increase Habitat Quality and Resource Production?
Conflicting Goals – Resource Protection or Management Plans for Increased Renewable Natural Resource Use – New Material for Jon Kachmar,
The Nature Conservancy 2011
The Oyster River and Renewable Natural Resources (from Tim Visel)
Connecticut Conservation Commissions are primarily concerned with wetland development, maps and lines for zoning. Shellfish Commissions with shellfish and a recent new entity, Harbor Commissions for developing harbor plans. Land trusts were I found, were keenly aware of preserving land but not utilizing or managing it for natural resources, a missed opportunity as forestry management is very similar, (I had learned) to shellfish management. Even when I approached the Madison Land Trust, (many members of which I knew personally) about again using some of its vast salt marshes as a possible revenue source (I calculated that they could easily generate over a quarter million in revenue every two years, just from salt hay alone) in a safe and sustainable way (one cutting each year actually strengthens the monoculture and helps eliminate invasive plants) they were quite frankly, appalled. The concept of selling natural resources to help manage and increase them was just so different and contained substantial mission conflicts (1987).
I even tried to incorporate some of the new OWMM techniques to build shallow pools in salt marshes as a way to attract and restore shore birds and shellfish populations with no luck. Always in the background were competing regulatory permit functions within the existing state and municipal governments that wrestled with the concept of “restoration” at the local level. Something Cape Cod and Massachusetts towns didn’t have to contend with. I always felt that such concepts did have a constituency in the community however. Many times people outside of specific organizations would come forward for “help”. In 1987 an opportunity came to me that I was hoping for the chance to train a citizen monitoring program for a coastal cove (Alewife) in Waterford. With the help of many people, (including Penny Howell and Charles Renshaw), we trained volunteers on how to monitor fish, mostly winter flounder, shellfish, or conduct shore bird counts, etc. after a local dredging project. The most enthusiastic volunteers were high school students and retirees. This social mix was a study in itself, but the enthusiasm and dedication between the group members was truly amazing. I became convinced that the future in restoring coastal resources would be the younger and future generations. There is much interest in conservation but it has become somewhat now extreme (my feeling) – I believe a balance needs to be part of the effort, that it is okay to harvest and use natural resources – after all, we need to do that to exist and in the seafood area we now import most of what we need. That has cost us jobs, etc. It has an economic component as well – those natural resource dollars had a high economic multiplier, etc. I always felt that an economic impact harvest “bushels” was an important part – a carryover from my USDA Cooperative Extension Days. Some groups have fostered this extreme conservation approach so much that the general public almost has guilt about using “our” natural resources here as opposed to using someone else’s. This is very apparent in the seafood balance of trade deficits – which continues to grow.
“Cleaning The Oyster River”
Regarding the Oyster River a few years before I left Sea Grant, I received a phone call from Anthony Ronzo, a neighbor that lived along the Oyster River. During my research, we came to know each other, first as a conflict – he absolutely opposed to the oyster restoration project and then as a supporter and more. Anthony invited me to visit with him at his home on the Oyster River. I agreed. He had told me that one of his relatives had caught winter flounder off the end of the road and he hadn’t seen adult flounder in the river in “decades.” It had been about 3 years after the project had been completed (about 1985). He told me that one of the reasons the neighbors opposed the shellfish plan was they had been eating them (the oysters) for years, often during the winter and hadn’t gotten sick and had hoped for a quick reopening. (It is against the law to harvest and consume this seafood shellfish from “uncertified waters.”) This feeling is far from rare however, as I learned that nearly all the towns had similar situations. {Shellfish within the salt water wedge in winter usually tests clean even if the surface water above is unacceptable. Cooking of course kills bacteria, and similar to imports from overseas, the “cooked” bacteria is listed as “inert matter” on the cans}. He then continued but that’s not what he had wanted to discuss, but that the neighbors had seen something else, more fish, blue crabs, eels and wading birds etc., in the river in years. A habitat reversal in a small way of habitat succession oyster habitat, oyster beds provided new habitat types.
“Tim, it was like the river was reborn.” I recall him saying several of the neighbors wanted me to know this and I thanked him for the information and comments. Curious, I started to research the impacts and associations between oyster habitat and shellfish especially oyster habitat I didn’t find much except some old references to flounders over oyster beds in the early 1900’s in New Haven. George McNeil, who I knew, had a oystering business on South Water Street, the site of the Sound School today (actually one of our buildings is named the McNeil Building) and had extensive knowledge of the oyster industry and oyster bed ecology. When asked if there was an association between oyster beds and flounder, he responded “Oh my, yes.” Apparently in the process of oystering they also caught flounders and a lot of them. Sometimes, we felt we were in the flounder business, not the oyster business,” he continued. Why didn’t that show up in any of the landing reports,” I asked. George told me didn’t have to report it and it was “captain’s right” who got the flounder, but no crew member ever had to buy fish. George also told me that they had discovered that the seed beds held the small flounder while market beds had “porkers” huge flounder on the edges. Fishing boats would fish near them oystering or fish by them. In 1988, I had a chance to test the theory with a UCONN Sea Grant sponsored cruise with Project Oceanology. Hillard Bloom allowed us to tow over one of his seed oyster beds in Norwalk Harbor. Outside of his beds, a 10 minute tow with the otter trawl yielded about 30 small flounder. Micky Weiss (Project Oceanology Director) agreed to a 2 or 3 minute tow inside of the oyster flags, he was afraid of cutting his net on the sharp oyster shells. After 3 minutes or so, we hauled back the net to find 3 or 4 thousand small winter flounder. None of us on board had seen anything like it! It was a frantic race to get all these fish back before they perished. Even some of the guests on the boat were astonished as for doing such a thing! After I spoke to Mr. Bloom about the tow, “Yes, I know Tim. I could have told you before but seeing is believing.” It was his response. I told him that I had never seen anything like that, he responded “You never will again.”
“How long had he known about this, Hillard Bloom replied “as soon as I went oystering.” He then told me that he directs his captains not to discuss flounder catches on the ship/shore radios. He was afraid that the winter flounder presence would restrict his oyster operation. Mr. Bloom continued” we tow slowly, Tim so most of the fish swim away. My problem is with new captains – they tow faster and catch more fish. They put back as many as they can. I tell you this in trust. You will have to document this on someone else’s’ beds. Mr. Bloom passed away a couple of years ago and this is the first time I mentioned it. My interest and what I was attempting to document was the creation of flounder habitat by shelling. George McNeil told me that they would shell a bed for seed oysters and within a year, it was teaming with small flounders. Everybody knew about it, he said the flounder lived in the shells and along the edges. Just before I left Sea Grant I had videotaped a restored oyster bed in Guilford. On tape and diver reports that he had was alive with winter flounder. In the Pattagansett River which was heavily impacted by the railroad crossing, we found no fish only soft black organic gelatin (Black Mayonnaise) which had a low pH. I had also seen this winter flounder habitat association working on the suction dredge boat Quinnipiak in New Haven during high school.
If you look at Peter Auster’s paper 1981 he refers to this condition fin rot and eutrophication impacts on flounder habitat location more presence closer to shore. I then went back and asked George McNeil if any of the flounder he caught had infections or lesions on the fins. He didn’t know what it was and had never seen any of the injuries I described. Later, I would find out that this acidic organic matter was loaded with bacteria not only created an oxygen depletion zone but could irritate flounder mucus membranes and surrounded by several strains of marine bacteria once skin opened led to the infection. If the area is covered with soft black gelatin (Black Mayonnaise), the habitat is often poor for winter flounder. I think this is what the Oyster River neighbors experienced. (This material is more properly termed Sapropel).
But what if this material is cleaned off? This could be what Anthony Ronzo was telling me? The comparison video of the East River site and Pattagansett site was so different I asked the UCONN dive team to return to the Pattagansett for additional testing with a gasoline 3 hp water jet, we found the original oyster bed the neighbors talked about under four feet of this material from the coal and old glass (several old coke bottles we determined the oyster bed was covered around 1930-50). This is when the residents said the flounder fykes no longer were used, people stopped spearing for eels, in fact several residents described the upper Pattagansett a “dead” as compared to what it once was. The habitat had succeeded into one that no longer supported winter flounder and they had watched it happen.
This is an oral history of a habitat successional period (Manwaring family) succession over time mentioned so many times by fishers and the largest issue facing shellfish and finfish restoration projects.
How do we inform the public that habitats naturally change over time and that the resources they provide also change but that can be both negative or positive or unnatural or natural? It seems to me that today resource use and fluctuations can be only from one reason man’s negative use or negative impact to them. There appears to be a lack of balance (and information) presented to civic groups – my feeling – perhaps oyster restoration such as The Oyster River study can help educate coastal residents about both? (End of 2011 proposal).

Appendix #2
SHELLFISH MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES FOR CONNECTICUT COASTAL TOWNS

Timothy C. Visel
Sea Grant Cooperative Extension Service
The University of Connecticut
Avery Point
Groton, Connecticut 06340

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1985 NORTHEAST FISH AND WILDLIFE CONFERENCE

41st Annual Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference

May 5th-8th, 1985 - Hartford, Connecticut pp. 291-294

This paper was presented at the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference in May 1985. I wish to thank the following reviewers: Mr. John Volk, Chief of the Aquaculture Division Connecticut Department of Agriculture; Mr. Peter Auster staff scientist, University of Connecticut National Undersea Research Program; Mr. Malcolm Shute Senior Sanitarian, Connecticut Department of Health Services and Mr. Eric Smith Assistant Director of Marine Fisheries Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study could not have been written without the constant support and encouragement of the public employees and department heads of the Town of Old Saybrook. Their interest and cooperation was integral to a local research effort such as the. My thanks also to the Old Saybrook residents who took the time to provide me with detailed accounts of their personal shellfishing experiences. Their help was greatly appreciated.

I am especially grateful to Mr. Jack Milkofsky and Mrs. Barbara Maynard of Old Saybrook., Connecticut, for their cooperation in permitting me to develop a shellfish management plan for local shellfisheries. Mr. Milkofsky also supervised my University of Rhode Island graduate research that allowed me to present this paper on behalf of the Connecticut Sea Grant Program.
[1985]

Tim Visel
University of Rhode Island
Department of Aquaculture and Animal Science
East Farms Aquaculture Center

Contact Address:
Timothy C. Visel
Sea Grant Extension
Marine Advisory Program
Avery Point - Groton, CT 06340

Penn State University has put online all proceedings of the 1985 Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference. My 1985 paper is found on pages 291-294

SHELLFISH MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES FOR CONNECTICUT COASTAL TOWNS

TIMOTHY C. VISEL, Sea Grant Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Connecticut at Avery Point, Groton , CT 06340

Abstract: Connecticut public seed oyster beds presently lack management practices utilized on private oyster beds. These productive areas within town jurisdictions are generally polluted and unsuitable for direct harvesting. To maintain the yield potential of these natural oyster beds, a management plan to relay oysters for depuration is necessary. The Oyster River in Old Say¬brook, Connecticut, is an historic oyster producing area. The River was closed to shellfishermen in 1971 due to high coliform bacterial levels. Ini¬tial shellfish surveys to assess the condition of the beds were conducted in 1980. The oyster population exhibited characteristics associated with un¬ managed or uncultivated oyster beds; overcrowding, high mortality and poor seed oyster setting. Neglect and lack of cultivation procedures were assumed to be responsible for the restricted setting ability. Meetings with various federal, state and local officials supported a shellfish management plan developed for the area. The plan entailed the use of resource assessment sur¬veys, restricted harvesting, and cultch programs to increase yields of natural beds. Six stations along the Oyster River were sampled for seed oysters in 1981. One seed oyster was found. Eleven natural growth seed oystermen harvested 2,200 bushels of adult oysters worth $66,000. Over 2,000 bushels of dry, clean oyster shells then were replanted and cultivated. In 1982, the six stations yielded 996 seed oysters. The oyster population in the Oyster River continues to be managed by the town and provides high-quality oysters for depuration.

Connecticut historically sustained important public seed oyster beds. These natural river beds were extremely productive. They provided employment for over 400 natural growth seed oystermen at the turn of the century. Lack of shellfish management practices and closures of beds due to health concerns caused seed oyster production to decline until only seven natural growth seed oystermen harvested seed oysters in 1968. Various state and federal pollution abatement programs have lessened the serious pollution problems of Connecti¬cut's coastal waterways. Therefore, many towns have the opportunity to culti¬vate previously productive oyster grounds. An example of this is the Oyster River in Old Saybrook, Connecticut.

The Oyster River once provided a substantial shellfishery for oysters and clams (Goode, 1887). Goode states that : "near Saybrook, there is a small stream called Oyster River that produces bivalves after which it is named, which are said to be of superior quality." Today, the Oyster River is permanently closed to shellfish harvesting and now is listed as a restricted shell¬ fish area in Connecticut, where closure lines have been established by the State Department of Health Services. The effective closure date for the Oyster River was June 25, 1971. The potential did exist, however, for utili¬zing the Oyster River as a nursery area for recreational and commercial transplants of oysters into certified areas suitable for shellfish harvesting. In this paper, I report on a program undertaken to revitalize oyster produc¬tion in the Oyster River.
INTRODUCTION TO AQUACULTURE - Reprinted on Page 46

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Matthew Landau
Copyright © 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stockton State College

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: Culture Systems Management

Landau, Matthew.
Introduction to aquaculture / Matthew Landau.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-471-61146-8
1. Aquaculture. I. Title.
SH135.L36 1991
639’ .8- -dc20

TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Office of the Board of Selectmen
________________________________________________
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-2384
Telephone (860) 395-3123 Fax (860) 395-3125

June 29, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

Tim Visel has the permission of the Old Saybrook Shellfish Commission to survey the shellfish beds in the Oyster River. No cost will be incurred for the Town of Old Saybrook.

Sincerely,

Larry Bonin, Chairman
Shellfish Commissioner

Rekeyed by Taylor Samuels from original on November 6, 2015.

TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
302 Main Street
Middlesex County
Connecticut
06475

Office of the Board of Selectmen
Telephone: 388-3401
Second Congressional District
Twentieth Senatorial District
Thirty-Sixth Assembly District

January 16, 1981

To Whom It May Concern:

Tim Visel is preparing a shellfish management plan for the Shellfisheries of Old Saybrook, Connecticut in relation to a University of Rhode Island Master’s Program.

Yours truly,

Barbara J. Maynard
First Selectwoman

BJM/lb

Rekeyed by Taylor Samuels from original on November 6, 2015.

Appendix #3

Adult Education Workshop – A Gathering of Shellfish Commissions
April 28, 2007

Factors Associated with Determining a Commercial Oyster Set
Timothy C. Visel

A Symbolic Relationship

For over a century, Connecticut oyster growers would wait with anticipation over the success of the annual summer oyster set. In reality, two groups were anxious about the results. The first were the oyster growers who would plant shells to collect spat falls new “seed oysters”, then cultivate and protect them from predators and grow them to market size. The second were “natural growth” harvesters who would gather seed oysters and sell them to the growers. One had leased or purchased grounds (beds) and the other harvested from natural oyster populations called natural beds. The success of one was linked to the success of the other; between them, a commercial market for seed oysters existed.
The “Set”

The set occurred each summer with the natural spawning of oysters in creeks, harbors and rivers. First, eggs and sperm were fertilized in the water column and then matured. Next, this “spat” settled to the bay, cove or near shore bottoms looking for a place to “set.” Clean oysters shells were the preferred and overtime found to be the best place to start the four-to-five-year process of growing to an adult. Oyster growers and natural growthers knew this, and laws were enacted concerning the return of shells to the water so that ample setting surfaces were present. Oyster growers would plant hundreds of thousands of bushels of “dock clean” oyster shell on owned acreage to supplement the natural set. The rate at which they would plant was 1,000 to 2,000 bushels of clean, dock dried “cultch” per acre.
In late June, Connecticut oyster growers would carefully look for signs of the first “spat fall” and would microscopically examine sampled shell surfaces looking for it. This event would signal almost around the clock shell planting, as the period of setting was limited and had a defined “window” of success. Shells planted too soon were subject to natural marine fouling and silt covering the shells with a slippery coating. Too late and the young oysters had perished for lack of suitable substrate. It was a gamble that clean oyster shells would be on the bottom just as the oysters larvae stopped drifting in the water and settled to the bottom. A few days either way would make or break the commercial outcome five years later. By August, the oyster setting period was usually over, although some historical records mention a few sets in September and even one as late as the beginning of October.
What Is A Good Set?

According to George McNeil and Hillard Bloom, a good set was around 4,000 per bushel of oyster shells. Under 2,000 per bushel was seen to be the lower limit of purchasing “seed” oysters. It was anticipated that, at best, only 500 oysters out of 2000 would survive to market size (about twenty dozen per bushel) 6 to 8 thousand set per bushel was excellent, and over that “outstanding”. That may seem like a lot, but a bushel of shells can contain up to six hundred shells – or over a thousand potential setting surfaces. At 2,000 set per bushel, that would only be about 2 oysters per surface.
Determining the Set Count
Before seed oysters (newly set oysters on shells) were purchased, the set count needed to be calculated. Oysters were harvested from an area which was sampled. These samples combined to predict the average set per bushel. Shells would be collected from 5 bushels and each sampled until 5 coffee cans of shells would be taken. 25 coffee cans of shells equals that of one bushel – and the shells are “counted out.” The other method is to take one coffee can from each bushel – count that out and multiply by 25. At about 20 shells to the can at 2 set/shell or 40 set/can x 25 = 1000 set/bushel or low to “poor.” I have seen some shells with up to 50 set on each or 1000 set/can x 25 = 25,000 set/bushel which is outstanding. (MacKenzie, Jr. {1970} “Oyster Culture in Long Island Sound” records sets of up to 50,000 set/bushel New Haven Harbor).
Price Paid By Volume

According to Richard Roberts, a natural growther for many years, it was too time consuming to count out each bushel of set, so the prices were paid on a per bushel or volume basis. If the set count per bushel was 2,000 and the price negotiated, then it is possible that 200 shells with an average of 10 set, or 2,000 could be combined with 800 empty shells or “blanks” in a bushel measure. Or it could be 1000 shells at 2/shell, the price would be the same, 2000 seed oysters in a bushel measure. If the set count dropped, a price was renegotiated. If the count dropped below commercial levels, buying from natural growthers would stop.
Buy Boats
To accommodate natural growthers in the 1980’s, “buy boats” would sometimes be anchored close to the natural bed and deliveries made directly on the water. This assisted in the planting of oyster beds and subjected the seed oysters to a lesser degree of transportation damage. A “tally” or mark was kept and accounts settled at the end of the day. When seed oysters were plentiful, natural growthers would bring several boat loads of sets. In the evening, the day’s purchase would be taken to oyster grounds, washed overboard and thus “planted.”
River Natural Beds

What was a good set on offshore natural beds and commercially planted (shelled ground) beds was very different from natural beds in creeks and rivers. Here, oyster populations were subjected to terrestrial events, heavy runoff, silt, leaves and marine algae. Setting surfaces were often restricted to new shell growth around the mantle – so they have additional constraints and usually a much lower set count – 250 to as much as 750 set/bushel (up to 50% of the set can be on living oysters). Cycle Mackenzie, Jr. has done research on how to reuse buried shells and clean natural beds in preparation of spatfalls. In 1968, he observed that “black shells” obtained from muddy bottoms could be planted immediately and, being free of fouling organisms from sulfur acidic bottoms (sulfide) would catch about as many spat as clean dock–stored shells. River natural oyster beds have shown increased setting rates after modest cultivation schedules, suggested by Mackenzie, were implemented. Joe Dolan a former oystermen from Guilford, CT had articles dating back to the 1940’s which described natural bed/reef overgrowths to a point navigation was impacted. (East River Guilford) this had occurred in the late teens early 1940’s and again in late 1970’s.
Sampling River Oyster Beds

Sampling creek and river natural beds was also more difficult. Although a smaller version of the oyster dredge was used, it often proved to be unreliable. It was Richard Roberts who showed me how to sample natural beds in rivers. This required, at times, a great deal of patience and hard work! To properly sample the bed, it was necessary that all the leaves and sticks be raked off first. The natural beds were often tightly packed, so the hand oyster dredge tended to bounce off the bed. It sometimes would take an hour or more of 30 second to one minute tows with a hand-hauled oyster dredge to clean sticks and leaves from the oyster bed. This was followed by another 30 minutes to an hour to break the edge of the bed loosening the oysters. Care had to be taken not to “bill” the oysters, slicing off the tops by towing too fast. Once the oyster were loosened, you would start to “catch.” Only then would a sample accurately portray what condition or how abundant the oysters were. The main difference is that set/bushel counts were much lower but survival generally higher since starfish and oyster drills are largely absent from these areas. The chief cause of mortality in these natural oyster beds were from silt and organic debris burial – leaf fall.
For more information on the preparation and surveying oyster beds sets, please review – Commercial Fisheries Review (Jan. 1970, pages 27-40) OYSTER CULTURE IN LONG ISLAND SOUND, 1966-69 by L. Mackenzie Jr. Original publication – US Dept of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service #859, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory, Milford, CT 06460.