CTFishTalk.com: IMEP 58-Nantucket, Jamaica Bay & Quahog Culture 1910-21 - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

Nantucket, Jamaica Bay and Quahog Culture Habitats 1910-1921
IMEP #58
IMEP Habitat Information For Fishers and Fishery Area Managers
Understanding Science Through History

(IMEP Habitat History Newsletters can be found indexed by date on The Blue Crab.Info™ website: Fishing, eeling and oystering thread) and
Connecticut Fish Talk.com Salt Water Reports
A New Series – Nitrogen and Bacteria Can be Found on the Environment and Conservation Thread at Blue Crab Forum™ Reports 1-10

January 20, 2016
A Sound School Capstone SAE Project
Tim Visel, The Sound School
CTE Standards: Aquaculture #6, #9 & Natural Resources #4, #9, #14
Capstone Questions – Can we build a Quahog habitat history for a high energy cool water Nantucket and a warmer low energy habitat of Jamaica Bay?
Did the turn of the century warming seawater and temperature give Jamaica Bay/New York shellfishers the first look at Sapropel ?
A note from Tim Visel-
Last summer while visiting some used book stores I saw a used copy of “Nantucket” – The Last 100 Years Every Day History From The Pages of “The Inquirer and Mirror” compiled and edited John Stanton (2001) - The Inquirer and Mirror™ and picked it up. So many of my fisheries histories are built around newspaper articles and was hoping that by chance it might have an article about this once large Nantucket Quahog bed and it did!

The article answered many habitat questions. First of all, the time – the bed was discovered in the fall of 1913 although the article was dated June 6, 1914 and had a picture from the Nantucket Historical Association showing clams being put in wood barrels – just as Mr. Hammond of Chatham Massachusetts had mentioned to me decades ago. The article was titled “Heavy Quahog Shipments Have Sent Prices Down” answered some more – 50 cents a bushel was the going rate to the boat and orders were 2,000 bushels each week. Clams were being bedded on the south side of Long Island in a place called Jamaica Bay. Doubts were also expressed that clams sent to Jamaica Bay will not set from a “different bottom.” Catches were reported from 50 to 150 bushels per day per boat and that “the best dredging is said to be right over the ground which has been “worked” all winter. The Nantucket Quahogers were correct about the clams being planted in Jamaica Bay – the soil had changed and most likely became Sapropel, and Quahog sets most likely had ended by 1880. Seed clamming continued into the 1920s, as this area became famous not just adult “market” clams but a huge source of “seed clams” for bedding culture purposes. The bed was reported to give out in 1929.

It was Frank Dolan of Guilford, Connecticut who in the 1970s first mentioned the practice of moving Quahog seed clams. I would go onboard The Teal and then Ellen J many times while clamming (cultivating) a small deeded area off Tuxis Island in Madison, Connecticut. This clam bed had set heavily after the 1938 Hurricane and slices of these very thick shell Quahogs called blunts were about 40 years old. It was on these many trips I learned about cultivating marine soils – the types of soils in which clams grew best and what soils it seemed clams did not grow at all. Mr. Dolan believed that pH had much influence over clam setting and growth and he had a simple test, rubbing two shells together and placing them in a bucket of sea water- a large white muddy cloud significantly i.e. “sour” or acidic soils. Sharps or clams that had hard shells were from better soils, not soft or deeply pitted shells that easily created a pumice when rubbed. These sharp Quahogs grew in sweet soils – these with a higher pH – alkaline loose and shell fragments mostly consisting of sand and some mud. Those soils described as “sour” were acidic, consisting of finer grains and organic matter from land and frequently described as sticky or plastic like soils. This was the foundation of Sapropel - a blue/black organic paste that in time became waxy and greasy to the touch. Sapropel is a marine compost that over time changes the chemistry of marine soils. By the early 1980s, most of the Quahogs on the Madison Reef had died, wasted naturally from lack of harvest – (see Walston – Sonnichsen letter 1966 in Appendix).

In time, marine soils close to shore tended to collect organic matter and become “foul bottoms.” According to Mr. Dolan, it was possible to bring back soil conditions to obtain better setting and growth soils, but necessitated a lot of work – cultivation using hydraulic dredges not only as a harvest device, but now a soil preparation and cultivation process, exactly the same as practiced with terrestrial agriculture. Many of Mr. Dolan’s experiences can now be seen in a NOAA Technical Bulletin #NMFS-NE-220 released in December 11, 2011 by NOAA and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts (excerpt is in following Appendix).

While Connecticut shellfish companies had long practiced industrial agricultural procedures for obtaining seed oysters – clearing and cleaning shell bases of fouling debris, (this can be an enormous amount of work, similar to reclaiming the habitat successional aspects of agriculture) removing silt that covers shells – preventing a spat fall and preparing productive areas for dock dried shell. Dock dried shell rinsed by acidic rainfall cleans these shells exposing raw aragonite; the foundation chemical substance of shell that is the most advantageous for obtaining seed oysters. On land such shell material when wet dissolves into a “slip”, and can reform when dry. This allows shell base to become harder or firm (and why it once was used a great road bed material) over time. It is this “slip” process on land and in marine soils that Mr. Dolan used to assess the pH of marine soils; it was the source of the white cloud in his bucket of seawater. This process also occurs under the water, organic matter and bacterial reduction creates sulfuric acid as old shell bases become hard and when dredged often come up in chunks with shell fragments held together by this slip. In time, this “tabby” can resemble concrete (tabby is also an old term that describes mortar made from burning oyster shell) and is an aggregate of shell fragments held together to form a base upon which to gather spat.

It is during this long established seed oyster industry process, that the occurrence of hard shell clam seed was discovered. The scratching lifting and washing of oyster shell provided relief (structure) pH modification and in some areas cultivated marine soils. Under these prepared beds were recorded some very heavy quahog sets, usually in areas of shell fragments. They were almost nearly associated with shell cover; old quahog shells or beneath oyster shell placed for spat collection.

After laying down oyster shell and obtaining a good oyster set when they were moved as part of a thinning/growth process, small quahog clam seed came up in harvest dredges. Sometimes in large amounts, if the soil conditions were favorable, especially those low in clay content. (Dolan Hammond McNeil comments).

At first the presence of quahogs came to be a sign of thinning oysters – George McNeil, a former New Haven oyster grower would move off lots if large numbers of large Quahogs came up in oyster harvest dredges. At one time, these clams had little market value and “we just shoveled them back.” It was soon noticed that such cultivation and reshelling or the presence of “shell hash” chips and fragments would greatly improve Quahog setting. After clearing some lots it was hard not to notice all these seed clams according to Mr. McNeil. When clam prices improved the remaining oyster companies knew precisely where to clam.

This oyster shell or clam shell pH modification benefit would be found in many states, just not in Connecticut. One segment from Cape Cod Massachusetts mentions this habitat characteristic of heavy sets of quahogs among shell litter or shell hash after waters cleared by divers. In some hydraulic clam experiments with Sherril Smith a Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Agent we would hit patches of pure quahog seed in Pleasant Bay. (T. Visel observations)

Shellfishers other than those reported here constantly reported the marine soil cultivation aspect as well – there is a section of a 1906 Rhode Island Inland Fisheries which mentions observations of fishers, the positive impacts of soil cultivation upon shellfish sets. These references occur over and over again in the fisheries history literature.

But nothing was a habitat changing event than a series of powerful storms. Here was nature’s natural sub tidal marine cultivation “events”. Storms that were very powerful (destructive) created abrupt habitat instability situations, killing directly or indirectly current populations while washing hundreds or thousands of near coastal acreage of organic debris and releasing organic acids- mostly sulfuric acid from them. This I would learn from a retired oyster planter, John C. Hammond of Chatham, Cape Cod - he termed it the “reverse” but it was a huge dramatic cultivation of marine soils along the coast. He had himself watched this process in amongst the barrier spits of Monomoy in Chatham, Massachusetts.

Dr. David Belding, chief biologist for the State of Massachusetts 1908 – 1931 noticed the poor growing characteristics of these sub tidal soils writing in 1912, “Organic acids in certain soils affect the composition of the shell and through their irritating influence retard the growth by increasing the repairing processes.” - Once the best soil, if such can be designated, is a mixture of sand and mud sufficiently loose to permit easy raking.

According to John “Clint” Hammond, Cape Cod felt the brunt of nature’s energy systems we call storms which “loosened” marine soils as well. The 1938 Hurricane and some in the 1950s were very destructive hurricanes, but bays and cove inlets were widened, coastal energy washed sub tidal soils of acids as and cooler waters contained higher oxygen levels which broke the sulfate/sulfuric acid cycle, near shore coastal areas now sustained heavy sets of Quahogs. In Narragansett Bay, these sets were termed the “great sets” and the Rhode Island catch statistics for quahogs soared soon after them (see Storms, Barner Cuts and Shore Fisheries IMEP# 50, Blue Crab Forum’s Fishing, eeling and oystering thread, posted February 25, 2015). What broke the sulfur cycle was colder temperatures and an absence of food to feed it rotting organic matter - Sapropel. The sulfur reducing bacteria that needed it to live. The sulfur cycle also required heat and few storms; opposite of what made quahogs set, energy and cooler temperatures.

Within the oyster and clam industries these storms were habitat reversals of tremendous scale, changes in habitat by types and shellfish in them became noticeable by the fisheries they contained. After these storm events sets, quahog fisheries and catches now surged.

In a largely negative NAO 1945 to 1965, colder water and a series of storms washed marine soils even in the shallow waters. This period would be known as the age of the small boat shell fisheries- and the largest shallow water Quahog sets since the 1870s.

It was during this period that bay scallops thrived, hard shell clam set heavily in the shallows in protected salt ponds, soft shell clams set heavy only in bays and coves protected from these fierce storms while in southern areas (Maryland) soft shell clam sets so heavy would eventually support hydraulic fisheries in 1958. Sapropel (the food reserves needed by sulfur reducing bacteria) were gone; only thin layers of organic matter now fed oxygen requiring bacterial strains. It is in these soils that quahog seed now flourished - the great sets.

Some areas obtained Quahog sets so heavy, many would have perished for exceeding habitat carrying capacity, Mr. Dolan would often mention the edges of Islands catching the best sets, but other areas inshore or offshore would at times obtain tremendous sets; such as the 1940s Madison Reef Quahog beds which at one time extended from the mouth of the East River to Madison Reef, a distance of 4 miles making this quahog bed one of the largest in Connecticut during this period, perhaps rivaling those in Narragansett Bay. Commercial shellfishers tried to access these clams, but most were unsuccessful and wasted from lack of harvest/cultivation (see letter in appendix).

Although Quahog clams had market value, the oyster industry depended on oysters which did not “move.” Mr. Dolan reported that seed quahog plantings did sometimes occur, but contrary to oysters clams moved up and down and sometimes off the seed planting site entirely especially he noted that the smallest of seed tended to “walk”. They did not have the small boats to fish the shallows, but hand rakers and tongers did. A quahog seed fishery did occur, but only for shallow areas. Here was an opposite relationship: the oyster industry bought seed oysters from the shallows harvested by small boat fishers (Natural Growthers) and seed oysters harvested in these shallows would be sold to those who “farmed” them in the deep waters. A smaller but not as large fishery developed for quahog seed clams and from time to time here; immense “seed beds” were harvested for clam culture from deep waters and planted into the shallows usually no more than six feet deep. That made recapture more certain and easier to check one’s “crops”.

In areas near New York City, for example, we have some excellent accounts of such planting of seed quahogs in Jamaica Bay. No doubt for growth but also market conditions of “wet storage” close to high demand markets that would buy highest prices. John Hammond on Cape Cod mentioned that some oyster planters “bedded” quahog clams and seed to plant for late fall-winter sales around Christmas time. Prices were nearly always good that time of year. Sometimes with final harvesting occurring through the ice with clam tongs (prices were also high then). Mr. Hammond stated that in some saline areas this backfired as it attracted large conch populations, especially the knobbed whelk which to him was more like a “clam mole” burrowing under the soil to attack these planted seed clams. This became such a problem on the Cape, Mr. Hammond said this conch would kill many clams and would not pot easily. In 1957, Mr. Hammond would work together with William Shaw of the US Fish & Wildlife Service to look at ways to trap these hard clam predators, the first primitive conch traps were just wood milk grates placed with stones and baited with crabs. William Shaw stated in 1960, “this author is indebted to J.C. Hammond, commercial oyster grower whose help in the field made this project possible.” An excellent account of this project is now on the Internet.
According to Mr. Hammond, the channel whelk was more of a concern to oysters. They were largely on the surface and could trap readily, but the knobbed whelk was a completely different matter. Here the knobbed whelk feasted on small quahog seed and it was so serious some planters built oak boxes to prevent this bottom attack. At times he could see the knobbed whelk burrowing like a mole to get the planted quahogs. In the 1950s, some planters gave up on quahog seed altogether; the whelk (conch) damage was so severe. At times a tong would go deep into the mud and bring up a knobbed whelk surrounding a clam. There was little doubt to this mortality/prey problem and the source of much financial loss.

He had staked dead female horseshoe crabs near his planted oysters as a way to attract them (channel whelk Busycon carica), but he soon realized that they were attracted to oysters as well. The population of channel whelks appeared to grow after bedding stock (large seed oysters) were placed. It was according to Mr. Hammond they could sense the food. The largest concern was the burrowing conch. A great Quahog set was unsustainable; either space for food, predators, or soil conditions were the problem. The boom and bust for the deep water quahog bed were cycles which depended upon many factors, but the largest according to Mr. Hammond was temperature and storms. He then told me about a tremendous source of Quahog seed clams at the turn of the century off Nantucket.

That is the story of the last great Quahog bed off Nantucket, a tremendous source of seed clams (estimated to be in excess of half a million bushels) thought to be “discovered” in 1913 and lasted until 1929. It was the major seed source for an inshore bay which supplied New York City with fish oysters and clams. We know this bay today as Jamaica Bay, Long Island, New York.

All three oyster growers, Frank Dolan, George McNeil and John Hammond would mention this “Great Quahog Bed” off Nantucket. It would become the largest source of seed quahogs in New England. Hard clams (Quahog) shellfish history (seed clams were also termed “bedding stock”) of Jamaica Bay supports this connection and the article in a Nantucket newspaper highlights this quahog bed. (Inquirer and Mirror™ June 6, 1914 Nantucket Mass, June 6, 1914 “Heavy Quahog Shipments Have Sent Prices Down.”

But what makes an area catch such a large Quahog set? From several sources highlights a cultivation event as a process of the loosening of marine soil and ridding it of organic acids. In the process adults can be cast loose and thrown upon beaches (you do see these events mentioned in the fisheries history for seed as well) but then even larger sets that followed. One substantial report made by Paul Galtsoff, US Fish and Wildlife Service then in a Bureau known as Commercial Fisheries (later transferred to Commerce and became the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service—details one event that can provide some clues after a dredging project connected to the creation of the Cape Cod Canal. The dredged material process must have occurred when Quahog spat were present in the water column. An intense Quahog set occurred in the dredged material, and on page of his 1964 Bulletin titled, “The American or Eastern Oyster” is found this section which mirrors a manmade cultivation event. The impact of this soil cultivation (washing) was observable and must have left an impression upon Dr. Galtsoff as he mentions it on page 308 of his Fishery Bulletin, Volume 64, in Chapter 23:

“Many well documented examples may be cited of the destruction of oysters’ bottom by sand and mud stirred up by dredging operations in nearby areas. One evidence of this nature occurred in 1935 to 1938 near the Buzzards Bay entrance to the Cape Cod Canal, Massachusetts, where valuable oyster grounds were buried under 8 to 12 inches of material that was disturbed by dredging and then settled on the oysters’ grounds. Three to four years later the area was repopulated by Quahogs and continues to remain highly productive, although the species composition has been “completely changed”.

Most likely this dredged material was low in clay and when mixed with buffering oyster shell below provided ideal setting conditions which fit Mr. Dolan’s (and other observations) of the pH modification of oyster shell. It would have been interesting to have seen if setting conditions extended off this oyster bed, but I suspect it did not. As Dr. Galtsoff mentioned, the increase of Quahogs after the destruction of oysters, a reverse of habitat conditions which revealed a species change as well caught his attention, something that John Hammond mentioned many times (A series of IMEP newsletters #40 to 45 Blue Crab Forum’s Fishing, eeling, and oystering thread) review my meetings with Mr. Hammond in the early 1980s. The soil conditions that favor clams were also discussed in an IMEP newsletter, the Acidification of Marine Soils presented at a NACE Conference in 2012- (it is now IMEP habitat newsletter #47 posted February 2015 on the Blue Crab Forum’s Fishing, eeling and oystering thread). The link to clam sets appears now to be Sapropel and Sulfur Reducing Bacteria influenced. We need to start a benthic monitoring for these sulfur reducing bacterial strains, especially the Desulfobacterium, Desulfovibrio series as they relate to not only aquatic habitat health, but increasingly seen as a vector medium for seafood and at times even human infections. [A series of marine bacteria discussion newsletters can be found on the Blue Crab Forum’s Environment and Conservation threads].

After many years, I have been able to research this Nantucket clam bed which is the IMEP #58 habitat report that follows.

I always welcome comments and suggestions and respond to all emails at tim.Visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us
Any students wishing to research the Nantucket Clam Bed and the Seed Clams Transplants from it should file a Capstone Proposal and a FFA/SAE Non-Experimental Research form. The Belding Report (1920) issued by the Cape Cod Cooperative Extension is now available from the University of Massachusetts.

The Great Quahog Sets Recorded Are In Fisheries History
Can We Cultivate Marine Soils?
What Soil Types are the Most Favorable for Quahogs

For decades most environment organizations have used the term sediment to describe subtidal marine soils. The term is somewhat inaccurate as some soils have formed by sedimentation, others erosion from land, wind, ice scour and rains have all redeposited minerals into depressions or on flood plains. The largest concern is that the term denotes a sterile condition – minerals like silica does not fall into the category of life forms. But subtidal marine soils, similar to terrestrial soils support much life and many types of bacteria. These soils support numerous benthic species (worms, insects, etc) and undergo many of the same processes as terrestrial soils – for example they can become over time acidic, (such land soils) compacted or hard and have characteristics of clays, porosity and particle size. Marine soils have burrowing insects we term shrimp and crabs.

Similar to terrestrial soils many marine soils have organic matter in them in various degrees. As in these subtidal marine soils they contain numerous bacteria strains, these soils are “alive” and support many chemical and biological functions. These soils are very busy places and cause direct relationships to seafood production – as terrestrial soils to plants and animals that depend upon them. If any thing subtidal marine soils are protected from the extreme temperature flucuations and contain more life in many circumstances then terrestrial soils but share many “soil” characteristics. The type of bacteria on land that breaks down organic matter are much more efficient at recycling this organic matter, it takes sometimes centuries for dark “top soil” to form on land. Marine soils hold and grow many species that have been in various marine soils since early life forms.

Much of the sustainable agriculture effort that started in the 1970s focused upon “the living soils” the importance of bacterial and other microorganisms to a soil health. It was a difficult educational challenge to get the concept of soil of being alive and the importance of that life in soil to agriculture but it was time consuming but eventually successful. Backyard gardeners also recognize the importance of “healthy soils,” measure the pH before spring cultivation/planting and add compost organic matter containing bacteria. Many terrestrial soils are highly leached by acidic rains pH controlled by lime and can be fertilized. Soil pH tests are frequented conducted to maximize nitrogen uptake by plants. Soil pH appears to govern the mollusks as well, clam, oysters and scallops.

Subtidal marine soils are subject to many of the same chemical processes as land they contain bacteria, composting organic matter, can become acidic and have natural and man made cultivation events. The term “sediment” for describing near coastal marine soils should cease it does not recognize the “living” attributes of these soils. Instead it describes an analytical geological function and fails to recognize the complex biochemical reactions in it.

Some of the first hydraulic quahog clammers soon noticed the impacts of these “cultivated” subtidal soils upon clam growths – soils high in clays – clams tended to grow very slowly – soils rich in organic matter tended to become acidic, clams with thin shells are frequently associated with these acidic soils. Sandy soils could obtain sets but were frequently heavy predated by crabs especially green crabs. But those soils that were cultivated by severe storms show the most impacts – removing organics and changing pH characteristics in an event that can be dated - storms. The quahog is one of the better examples as it responds so well to soil characteristics – some of the largest sets occur after hurricanes and cooler temperatures. It also is one of the few shellfisheries that such have direct habitat sucessional processes, similar to forest fires – we call hurricanes. Such energy cultivation processes can destroy adult populations, but in the process redistribute shell hash, long buried up to the surface change pH and provide reef/shelter cover, protecting seed quahogs. When this occurs in an area years later quahogs populations surge – frequently in areas that had low or diminished populations. Although these populations changes are recorded in the fisheries history (most of the time of surprise or shock) with little or no connection to improve habitat conditions – there are important clues to large changes in subtidal soil quality. Early shellfishers researchers such as Kellogg, Meade and Belding wrote about these soil characteristics.

One area in which we may learn more about these marine soils and what happened to them after storms is an area just north of Nantucket – once known as the great Nantucket Clam Bed. Here an immense quahog bed discovered in 1913 and sustained a market and seed clam fishery for about two decades. It is estimated that some three million bushels of market and seed clams came from this bed which in time become known as “The Great Nantucket Quahog Bed.”

The Great Nantucket Quahog Bed

When I worked for the Cape Cod Extension Service stationed in Barnstable, Massachusetts I heard about a huge quahog (round clams or hard clams in CT) bed near Nantucket. By that time I had already started some investigations about marine soils and shellfish sets especially those that were covered by a “marine” compost – termed black mayonnaise. It was John Hammond a retired oyster grower on Cape Cod who introduced me to the enormous influence temperature would have upon shellfish sets. The deciding factor to him Mr. Hammond was energy – storms, that bring the “deep water” Quahog sets into shallow water. He reviewed that during the 1880s and 1890s in the heat soft shell clams set heavily – on “shallow” “new sand” cultivated by storms and now free of acids. Although “the heat” improved oysters and soft shell clams the higher temperatures were hurting bay scallops and quahogs – to him they like the storms and cold. He was keeping records of shellfish sets and harvests for decades. When I met with Mr. Hammond he was talking about a possible reverse – the cold water habitats were dying, he had watched it happen and pointed to the turn of century hot period when Chatham produced great quantities of the soft shell clam Mya from 1885 to 1900.

As the heat continued a century ago (and I am certain organic matter, leaves and at times manure) rotted in the heat Tannic and Sulfuric acids most likely became abundant and the “shallow” or bay sets of quahogs declined (much to the advance of eelgrass which during this time smothered many quahog areas) clammers switched to soft shells and even razor clams (called razor fish). The decline of shellfish raking had its own habitat impact as well, Mr. Hammond felt as shellfishers frequently reported the positive impact of working the soil, freeing the soil of paraffin’s (from leaf rot) and organic acids deadly to newly set veligers – many times called foul or sticky bottoms. The good bottoms were those that had a mixture of sand, shell and some organic matter – loose and not hard. I learned much of that from quahog dredgers here in CT in the 1970s – that the weight of water over these soils would pack them hard, dredges would bounce over the clams and many hours were spent just loosening them (bottoms) before good catches could be made. (NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-NE 220 2011).

Strong storms could cause waves to break up the bottom in a natural marine soil cultivation event, if the set was late and veligers still in the water column a widespread deep water set could happen. These deep water sets happened after Hurricanes during cool periods to the south, but in the warm late 1890s as well in northern areas great sets could happen – only in northern cooler waters thus the strong set of the Great Nantucket Quahog Bed now with a confirmed date of 1913 making it possible that the Portland Gale of 1898 was responsible for the massive “soil cultivation event” that conditioned the soil for a large later quahog set. Mr. Hammond recalled that this quahog bed was the largest in recent fisheries history and stories continued to be mentioned on the Cape seven decades later. He said it produced hundreds of thousands of bushels of “seed clams” destined for “bedding” planting in Jamaica Bay Long Island close to New York City markets, see appendix.

Large sets of quahogs do appear in the historical literature and show up in later catch statistics. The great sets in Rhode Island Narragansett Bay and in Long Island Sound were huge in 1941-2 and the 1950s. These sets were the deep water sets that seem to occur every 50 to 100 years during colder periods. After these sets quahog matured fisheries flourished.

The History Nantucket Quahog Grounds – The Great Nantucket Quahog Bed
1913 - 1924?

In researching the long term habitat history for the hard clam - Mercenaria mercenia in New England waters, a relationship to cold and energy can be found. One of the aspects of this habitat history is the loosening of subsoils by strong storms and successful sets after. The Portland Gale was most likely a Category 1 or weak 2 Hurricane that occurred on November 26th and 27th in 1898 (sinking the Steamship City of Portland with much loss of life). 1898 was in a very warm period; the warm water most likely energized this system and the Northern Maritimes were hit especially hard. (The eye wall is now reportedly to have passed over Sandwich, Cape Cod). References to a large Quahog bed in shallow water between Tuckernuck Bank to Great Point about 20 to 30 feet deep came about a decade later. It’s rumored to have supplied tens if not hundreds of thousands of bushels of adults and seeds (small undersized clams for future aqua cultural grow out) in the early 1900s. Seed clams according to retired Cape Cod oyster farmer of oyster Pond River Chatham were shipped in barrels packed with eelgrass to other areas for grow out (J.C. Hammond, personal communication). Recently I did find references to where they were planted in Jamaica Bay, Long Island New York, about a million bushels – mostly seed clams and a newspaper article on June 6th 1914 in the Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror™ details both the discovery of the bed and the thousands of bushels being harvested from it each week.

The timing is in question believing that the Nantucket bed was harvested early to around 1908-1910 but I now believe that is when the bed was first discovered in 1913 and that large catches continued into the late 1920s. The timing does fit a soil/cultivation event of around - 1898. It would have been about ten years later that quahogs would be a catchable size considering sail and power equipment available during that time period putting the first harvest perhaps around 1912, not the last. (These clams would grow slower in cooler water). There is a chance to uncover more Nantucket records of this historic clam bed – perhaps in old town records or shellfish files (Nantucket).

Many Connecticut towns had shellfish committees that kept records- some times in a manuscript or ledger form. Historical societies also had manuscripts and papers (any duplication fees of course would be covered). Any leads would be greatly appreciated. The hard shell clam (Quahog) sets failed in the South during this very warm period. It is thought that extreme heat, organic matter and acidic (soil) conditions were responsible for the decline in sets. That’s now linked to the rise of Sapropel marine compost. Colder waters to the north held out the longest and why Nantucket shellfish history might provide important clues to climate cycle impacts of temperature and marine soil cultivation events for the hard shell clam in New England. The Portland Gale might have loosened an area that was able to then catch a set. About a decade later a huge Quahog resource was then “discovered.”
Any information would be greatly appreciated. Email or hard copies are fine. My email is tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us.

Tim Visel
The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center
60 South Water Street
New Haven, CT 06519
-USA-

US Fish Commission Comments about Nantucket (1887)

Sea clams thought to be surf clams (Spisula solidissima) were found outside of Nantucket Harbor in 1869-70. In January of 1870 a two days catch was 96 barrels of clam bait for Gloucester and other parts (largely Halibut bait) but by the 1880s clams “have grown more and more scarce every year.” (US geographical Review of the Fisheries US Fish Commission – Section II 1887 – Massachusetts Nantucket District pg 256). In 1879 it is reported that 150 bushels of quahogs were gathered last year from fishers on Nantucket and Tuckernuck Islands. Three decades later Nantucket would become the largest producer of Quahog clam seed on the east coast.

My research concentrates on the cultivation aspect of marine soils that natural cultivation events such as storms defines soil characteristics for a good set. This cultivation aspect is largely determined by temperature and soil bacterial properties – between cycles of warm or cold climate periods. In colder oxygen rich waters quahogs thrived and Nantucket’s quahog held the last productive areas a century ago (1880-1920).

The Portland Gale then (1898) could have been a massive soil cultivation event allowing a quahog set that may have become the Great Nantucket Quahog Bed years later.

When the quahog clams became scarce in the 1880s soft shell clam production surged ahead in the high energy active shores. Here summer storms cultivated these marine soils and some of the densest sets over recorded occurred in Rhode Island over four thousand clams to the square foot. (1905 Rhode Annual Island Report to the Commissions of Inland Fisheries 1906- pg 105).

While quahog sets diminished, soft shell clam sets became frequent and more intense or thick. The Chatham/Monomoy area with hundreds of acres of shallow high energy soils would soon lead all soft shell clam fisheries .

In time with investigation of historic fisheries, we may find habitat quality indicators we can associate with climate cycles. Until then comparisons of storms and temperature can be referenced to Quahog landings. From my research to date, Jamaica Bay and Nantucket Island hold important clues to a massive habitat reversal that occurred a century ago. Tim Visel

Hard Clams, Fisheries and Cold Water Species Decline in High Heat Quahog Sets Fail in 1888.

From the Collapse of the Cold Water Fisheries in New England 1910
IMEP 55
Connecticut During “The Great Heat” 1880-1920 Climate Period

SAD NEWS FROM THE CLAMS (QUAHOGS)

GROWING SCARCER AND THEIR DAYS SEEM TO BE NUMBERED

New York Times, Dec. 13, 1891

MIDDLETOWN. DEC.12, 1891- As if Connecticut were not sufficiently afflicted with epidemic and endemic diseases, the tidings now come from the sad sea strand that clams are bound to be very scarce this Winter. Clams, say the discouraged diggers, not only are few and poor, but they are pretty nearly exterminated already all along the Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Long Island shores. Said an old clam digger to-day:

“The scarcity of clams will make the Winter a very hard one, for thousands of poor people in this and neighboring States, particularly the shore folks, who dwell along shore and depend mainly on the clam flats, after cold weather sets in, for breakfast, dinner, and supper. A few years ago the baymen at Port Jefferson, L.I., could catch eight or ten bushels of clams a day along that shore, and they got 25 cents a bushel for them; but now they have to work hard to get a bushel at a tide, while they have no trouble in getting $1 a bushel for their catch. Of course, the increased price helps them somewhat, but the trouble is that clams are getting scarcer and scarcer all the time.”

Of course, the long-neck or “soft” clams are the best, and they are found most plentifully along the Connecticut and Rhode Island shores. They are the clams that go into the old-fashioned Rhode Island clambake. The hard shells, or little necks, called quahogs in Rhode Island, are useful chiefly for chowders for the nutritious and stimulating juice they yield, and the little fellows are eaten on the half shell. They abound on the Long Island strand. Still, the finest and sweetest soft clams in the world came from the seven miles of sandy desert shore on Eastern Long Island known as Napeague Beach. (1891 Account).

5 Meadow Street
Guilford, Conn.
March 7, ‘1966
Mr. Elmer Sonnichsen
Chairman of Shellfish Committee
Madison, Conn.

Dear Sir:
I am very interested in purchasing round clams in the waters of Long Island Sound under Madison’s jurisdiction at a minimum water depth of your determination.

I am prepared to pay sixty cents (60¢) per bushel at any interval you so desire: week or month.

I would also agree not to work the grounds during any summer months so as to avoid silting of any beaches and henceforth controversy with any waterfront land owners.

I am prepared to furnish upon request references pertaining to my honesty and payment from previous dealings. I would also invite your committee to inspect my catches and or record books at any time, whether prearranged or otherwise.

If you are interested I would like very much to take the Chairman, [shellfish] committee or any other interested person on a spot survey so as to determine the amount of clams that might be available. I would also like an audience with your Board of Selectmen to explain the situation in detail if they so desire.
- May I hear from you soon? Thank you.
Sincerely, John E. Walston, Jr.
Guilford, Conn.

Rekeyed by Susan Weber -January 28, 2016

Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tidewater Administration
Tawes State Office Building 580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

William Donald Schaefer Torrey C. Brown,
M.D.
Governor Secretary

April 9, 1990

Timothy Visel
University of Connecticut Sea Grant Advisory Program Groton, Connecticut 06340

Dear Mr. Visel

Your presentation at the NSA meeting was very practical. I am interested in the design and effectiveness of the hydraulic dredge used to clean the oyster bed.

Do you have any reports on the hydraulic dredge you can send me? In Maryland we sometimes dredge a “bagless” metal oyster dredge across the bar to clean fouled cultch and extract buried cultch. Do you think metal dredges can effectively extract buried cultch? Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chris Judy CJ/cp
Rekeyed by Taylor Samuels, Communications, The Sound School – August 25, 2015

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-220

Review of the Ecological Effects of Dredging in the Cultivation and Harvest of Molluscan Shellfish

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts
December 2011 Historical and Anecdotal Observations on Dredge Harvesting
Historically, opinions on the best methods for shellfish dredging have varied widely. Fishermen who used hand tongs or rakes often considered dredging detrimental to shellfish, while those who operated dredges believed that dredging of the seafloor enhanced the environment for clam and oyster recruitment (Glude and Landers 1953; Manning and Dunnington 1955; Visel 1990b). Rake and tong fishermen believed specifically that dredging activities could injure, smother, or kill shellfish; increase exposure to predation; interfere with successful recruitment; destroy eelgrass; or damage the seafloor (Glude and Landers 1953; MacKenzie et al. 2002b). In contrast, dredge operators felt that bottom cultivation improved seafloor conditions, kept sediment from becoming too compact for habitation by clams, and enhanced bivalve recruitment and growth rates. Anecdotal observations by fishermen have suggested that dredging may be more efficient than hand tonging or raking and results in less shell breakage, mortality, and unintentional burial than manual techniques (Kyte and Chew 1975; Coen 1995). Further benefits of dredge harvesting may include reduced mortality among target species, decreased impact on the benthos, increased catch rates, and reduced labor as compared to nonmechanical collection methods (Coen 1995).

Observations made by shellfish growers can provide valuable data on harvesting impacts and recovery. Harvesters sample the seafloor each time their gear is deployed (Cranfield et al.
1999), a level of effort which exceeds sampling regimes associated with most experimental studies (Dorsey and Pederson 1998). Access to local knowledge held by fishermen allows for a better understanding of habitats when selecting areas for study (Peterson et al. 1995). Frank Dolan, a Connecticut clammer for over fifty years, associated poor clamming and high clam mortality with acidic sediment conditions. He monitored acidity by rubbing clam shells together in a bucket of seawater; formation of a white cloud indicated “sour” or low pH substrate, while shells from healthy beds produced no cloud when rubbed together (Visel 1990a). Dolan indicated that spreading a light coating of shell to remediate or “sweeten” sour bottom could improve setting of shellfish. These anecdotal observations suggest that dredging and adding shell may actively increase pH levels. Dolan also believed that differences in sediment pH can impact shell morphology and observed that clams grown in “sweet” areas exhibited sharp edged shell margins compared to slower growing clams with blunt shell edges found in “sour” areas of little or no shell cover. He found that rotation of shellfish beds, light shelling, and allowing a 5-7 year waiting period before harvest were key elements to good shellfish production (Visel 1990a). He avoided detrimental practices such as early harvest, which exposes small clams to predation, planting in water deeper than 30 ft and cultivating in areas with too much clay. Dolan found cultivation of oysters to be associated with improved growth and enhanced production of hard clams. Interviews conducted with long time clammers and oystermen provide a rich history of observations concerning habitat and resources and suggest that shellfish cultivation may improve bottom environments and increase clam and oyster abundance (MacKenzie 1979; Rice et al. 1989).

Anecdotal evidence suggests that disturbance from large-scale coastal storms is often followed by large natural clam sets, likely because of removal of surface detritus to reveal clean sandy bottom (Visel 2008, 2009). Storms and hurricanes in the marine environment act much like forest fires in terrestrial habitats by facilitating succession from one type of community and habitat to another through wave action and sediment transport. Natural storm disturbance, which washes silt and organics off the seabed, mimics the action of hydraulic dredging (Visel 2008, 2009). Extended periods without benthic disturbance can reduce sediment quality with a corresponding decline in clam populations. The concept of “marine soil cultivation” using dredges, rakes, and tongs has long been advocated by the shellfish industry to loosen and oxygenate sediments and to remediate unoxygenated and heavily silted bottom devoid of clams. A lack of shellfish cultivation in certain coastal areas of Long Island Sound may have resulted in reduced shellfish sets and a loss of potentially harvestable clams and oysters (Visel 1990b). Cultivation efforts which remove silt from cultch may create good settlement habitat for oyster spat and may benefit clam recruitment by increasing sediment pore size to improve water circulation (Visel 2006). Many fishermen believe mud bottoms are detrimental to shellfish and that turning over of oyster shell matrix improves clam and oyster production (Lenihan and Micheli 2000) by promoting settlement of larval shellfish (Coen 1995) and keeping the bottom free of silt and organic matter (Ingersoll 1881; Visel 2006).

Reprinted with Permission Given By
Doug Adamo, National Park Service
January 26, 2016

Historic Resource Study

JAMAICA BAY: A HISTORY

Gateway National Recreation Area
New York, New Jersey

Cultural Resource Management Study No. 3

Frederick R. Black
Associate Professor of History
C. W. Post Center, Long Island University
for the
Division of Cultural Resources
North Atlantic Regional Office
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Interior

Washington, D.C., 1981

Electronic Transcription
Formatting and Editing
James L. Brown

Gateway National Recreation Area
2001

iii

FORWARD

Cultural Resources and Natural Areas

Jamaica Bay is a place well known for its flora and fauna. This study adds another dimension to Jamaica Bay - -its use by humans, especially during the Historic period. Understanding the human use of the Bay and its shore is both timely and historically interesting. Historically it is often entertaining, as well as Informative, to learn how our ancestors, and the Native Americans who lived here before them, made their livings in an environment that is at once the same and different from the one we know - - the same in that much of the geography is similar; different in that the recent past has witnessed massive alterations to the natural environment of the Bay.

This study helps place the substantial modern changes in perspective. In doing that, it is timely.
Increasingly we are made aware of the relatedness of cultural and natural phenomena. Jamaica Bay is no more a strictly natural resource than Manhattan Island. The history of human land use is an essential guide to comprehending the Bay’s natural environment currently and in the near future. The goals of Dr. Black’s research were primarily managerial. We sought sufficient information to evaluate cultural resources, that is, historic and prehistoric archeological sites and historic structures within the Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area. Happily, the study provides much more than a fine management aid. It has a large potential to inform interested persons about the area and assist the Gateway staff in interpreting it. For these reasons the Park Service has funded the printing and distribution of the study.

Francis P. McManamon
Chief, Division of Cultural Resources
2 March 1981

III JAMAICA BAY AFTER 1865: FISHING, SHIPPING, TRANSPORTATION, TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGE

After the Civil War, the perceptions entertained of Jamaica Bay became more varied and complex. No longer did the bay appear mainly as a waterway whose borders provided farmers with food for their livestock. Agriculture declined in importance, and increasingly larger numbers in the communities of the area turned to non-agrarian callings. Some of them looked to the bay for their livelihoods and undertook commercial utilization of the shellfish that abounded or could be made to abound in the shallow waters.

Fishing

With the improvements in transportation to its shores and across its waters, Jamaica Bay became a highly popular fishing area. Fishermen were served by boat liveries and other facilities at Canarsie, Bergen Beach and the various stations that grew along the railroad trestle from the mainland to Rockaway. On the bay’s periphery and islands, hundreds of bungalows, boathouses, and other vacation structures appeared, many of whose occupants and owners came to the bay because of its fish. In 1892 it was estimated that a summer Sunday would find fishermen in over one thousand small boats anchored between Canarsie and Rockaway, especially at Broad Channel. The more venturesome and affluent sportsmen could hire larger vessels and their captains for a days fishing in the Atlantic. Numerous oystermen and other commercial fishermen made their boats available for a day's rental, particularly in poor seasons and slack times. All of this activity centered on the finfish of the bay or the Atlantic.

During much of its history, Jamaica Bay gained fame because of the number and quality of its oysters and clams. However, not until after the mid-nineteenth century did oystering and clamming provide employment for significant numbers of men or did they constitute major industries. Commercial oystering became feasible after the introduction of techniques of planting seed oysters.2 Those techniques appeared in the 1860s. Thereafter, oystering expanded rapidly. The industry is said to have increased between ten and twenty-fold during the ten years before 1882. Probably it reached a peak in the first decade of the twentieth century. The industry continued to employ large numbers for a while longer, before disappearing in the 1920s, owing to the mounting pollution of the bay.
Reinforced by legislation passed by the state government in 1868 and 1871, the towns of Flatlands and Jamaica leased underwater lands in their parts of the bay to town residents. In Jamaica, the board of supervisors itself granted leases for oystering, whereas Flatlands established a special oyster board.

After the consolidation of Greater New York in 1898, oyster beds in Jamaica Bay were managed by the state commissioner of fisheries and briefly by the New York City Department of Docks.

The town of Jamaica's first lease was issued in 1863 and authorized use of 100 square yards at Hell Gate Marsh for a fee of six cents. Subsequently the town decided on a rate of $5.00 per year per acre, and leases were granted for beds ranging from one half to three acres. At times, only a few residents applied for oyster rights. The largest number granted was forty-three, issued in 1897.4 Although the town of Flatlands had a special unit within its government to administer its oyster regulations, its practices closely resembled those of Jamaica. Leases were issued at the rate of $5.00 an acre, and oyster beds were two acres in size. According to the state Commissioner of Fisheries in 1885, Flatlands leased 656 acres. Apparently much activity was located at Big Channel and at Pumpkin Patch Channel.5

In conjunction with the state forest, fish and game department, the New York City Department of Docks briefly handled leasing of Jamaica Bay oyster beds. Although it continued the basic system earlier followed by the independent towns, the-docks department issued leases for terms up to ten years and for beds up to twenty-seven acres in size. Most oystermen took shorter leases and for smaller beds. However, that sizable beds could be obtained invited planting on a larger scale by those who could afford the necessary equipment. Both the state and the docks department charged a rent of 25¢ per acre per year, a drastic reduction from the $5.00 rate of the former towns.6

Rental of beds did not constitute a major expenditure for Jamaica Bay oystermen. Other costs involved more substantial funds. Seed oysters varied considerably in price from one season to the next. Prior to 1899, the price was generally 40¢ a bushel. For at least five years thereafter, the price ranged between 80¢ and $1.00. Seed oyster was generally obtained from the Great South Bay, Long Island's north shore, or Connecticut. Small quantities were produced in Jamaica Bay. The larger oystermen had a considerable investment in equipment, which might include a scow-type planting boat, floats for "drinking” oysters, a skiff or tow, and a gasoline or steam-powered boat, furnished with a dredge. During the first decade of he twentieth century, sailing sloops continued to be more common than powered oyster boats. With the availability of large beds and the emergence of powered vessels, dredging appeared as a method of harvesting among larger planters. Other baymen continued the nineteenth- century practice of tonging.7

A recent study of oystering in the New York-New England region identified a few of the powered boats used in the Jamaica Bay oyster industry around 1900. That writing about the state's oyster industry at large, the superintendent observed that there were essentially two types of oyster planters--the poor bayman with little capital, who relied on his own labor and perhaps that of a relative or partner; and the larger oysterman with sufficient funds for a steam dredge and a number of hands. The less well-equipped oystermen seemed to be on the increase.
These types doubtless were to be found at Jamaica Bay. In 1905, the department of docks made leases to some oystermen for beds as small as one or two acres, whereas a few rented between twenty and twenty- seven acres.9
The best season for planting oysters was from the middle of March to the middle of April, although planting could be extended until June. Harvesting began in September and lasted until December. During those months, oystermen with their own sloops made weekly trips to New York, carrying their harvested mature oysters. According to an 1891 source, those weekly jaunts were highlights in the life of Jamaica Bay oystermen. 10

Informative and reliable statistics on the Jamaica Bay oyster industry are scarce. Those that do exist seem to conflict one with another, although this might result from the significant variations in activity and productivity from one season to the next. In 1882, it was reported that the "Rockaway district," made up of both Jamaica and Hempstead bays, harvested 100,000 bushels annually. That harvest had a sale price of $400,000. Eight hundred planters and shippers and 400 other men were employed in the industry as were 120 vessels.11 The @904 state report indicates that 27,500 bushels of seed oyster produced 350,000 bushels of market oysters, having a value of $301,800 and sold mainly in New York. One hundred and fifty-one men were engaged in oystering in the bay.

Congressman Law estimated that in 1906 the combined oyster and clam fisheries in Jamaica Bay produced 450,000 tons of shell fish, having a value of
$2,000,000. A report a decade later states that from 750,000 to 1,000,000 bushels of seed oysters were planted annually, representing an investment of a half million dollars. A total of 1500 persons were employed in oystering and clamming in the bay.12

Clamming in Jamaica Bay was apparently a somewhat smaller industry than oystering. Soft shell clams or steamers grew naturally in the bay, and hard shells were produced through planting techniques. In 1917, it was estimated that baymen invested $1,000,000 in 300,000 bushels of hard clam seed, and that 350 men engaged in the clam fishery. The typical clam boat resembled in its basic design the flat bottom craft still in use in parts of Long Island today.13 Doubtless many of the baymen in Jamaica Bay mixed clamming and oystering.

Nature endowed Jamaica Bay shellfisheries with a mixture of advantageous and disadvantageous conditions. In the 1880s, the beds were described as whimsical. Areas of clean ocean sand suitable for oysters one year might be covered by six inches of mud in the next. The bay's shallow waters experienced a wide range of temperatures. Oysters had to be harvested from beds only slightly covered by water lest they freeze during the winter. On the other hand, the warmer waters of summer enabled oysters to mature quite rapidly. Starfish and drill, the bane of oystermen, generally were rare in Jamaica Bay. Favorable conditions outweighed adverse features, and one authority described shellfishing in Jamaica Bay as the best in New York state, if not in the nation as a whole.14 Whatever its relative merits, Jamaica Bay lost its fisheries in the 1920s.

The collapse of oystering and clamming had local causes, but also was consistent with a regional decline in shellfish production. The peak year in the history of oyster yields in the middle Atlantic states was 1887, when 9,000,000 pounds were produced. After a precipitous drop in 1889, harvests during the next fourteen years were generally near the 30,000,000 pounds. In 1904, a twentieth- century high of 33,000,000 pounds was realized. Production decreased by 10,000,000 pounds in 1908. A slight recovery took place thereafter, but harvests steadily dropped following 1929, so that in 1939 only 12,000,000 pounds of oysters were harvested.15 Jamaica Bay's yields of shellfish essentially followed these trends, except for the years after 1921.

The end of the bay's shellfishing industry did not result from a disappearance of oysters and clams, but from the mounting contamination of the water. In 1904 oysters from Inwood caused twenty-one cases of typhoid. Seven years later, twenty-seven cases of typhoid and almost 100 of gastroenteritis resulted from the consumption of Canarsie shellfish. By 1917, 50,000,000 gallons of sewage were being daily discharged into the bay from Rockaway, Jamaica, the Twenty-Sixth Ward, and Paerdegat. This polluted an estimated twenty-seven square miles of the bay and led to the closing of the shellfishing beds in 1921 by health officials. 16