CTFishTalk.com: IMEP Newsletter Vol 1 No 2-Great Quahog Sets of Mid Century - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

The Sound School Inter-District Marine Education Program Newsletter

- IMEP -

Habitat Information for Fishers and Fishery Area Managers

Understanding Science Through History

The Sound School – November 2013

New England Hard Shell Clams (Quahogs) Return
During the North Atlantic Oscillation

Climate Conditions Reverse After 1931

Tim Visel- The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center,
New Haven, Connecticut

Vol. 1 No. 2

Housekeeping – The first IMEP newsletter reviewed soft shell clam habitats from the turn of the century. At the end of the newsletter however the link to the April 2008 paper was missing – A review of three case histories following the gale of 1898 soft shell expansion following significant marine soil cultivation / disturbances. This paper was submitted to the Long Island Sound Study Sub-Committee on Shellfish – Habitat Committee in 2008 and reviews the soft shell clam habitat research of A.D. Meade of Brown University in a Shoreline Times, March 8, 1906 newspaper article reprint. Dr. Meade (then a member of the Rhode Island Fish Commission) was investigating some of the 1898 Portland gale impacts to once “dead clam flats.” Shellfishers interested in soft shell clam habitats after such a storm should review the research of Dr. Meade. Click here for the link. He documented the positive impacts of storms including marine soil cultivation to the direct increase of soft shell clam sets.

This next newsletter reviews the habitat transition (reversal) from the Great Heat (1880-1920) which saw Quahog sets diminish and by 1887 its catch was secondary now to soft shells. By 1900, Quahogs were scarce but remnant populations still caused questions. Professor A.F. Verril linked Quahog populations in Maine to colder times and the appearance and disappearance linked to “the temperature of these waters has gradually declined, but was still somewhat higher at the period when Indian shell heaps were formed than at present” (pg. 596)1 Even a century ago researchers were examining shell middens for clues to past climate changes and fisheries abundance. The 1870s storms that had raked New England coasts had cultivated marine soils greatly benefiting quahog sets. One such set described (most likely a shallow set) is described in the summer of 1879 – “ The shallow sand beach opposite Babylon, Long Island, for 10 miles in length was crowded with young quahogs from the size of a pin-head to that of a silver 3 cent piece” (pg. 596). The report continues to say the winter of 1880 was relatively mild or frosts would have killed this set out to the depth of 2 to 4 feet. Shallow water surface sets of Quahog often perish from winter freezes or predators. Deep surface sets occur after the strongest of storms.

As winters turned milder and summers very hot, this change at first caused adult survival to be good - but mud filled soils soon turned acidic in the deeper waters and absent re-cultivation in these acidic habitats soon failed for quahogs. By 1908 the quahog fisheries collapsed as the surviving adults were “all caught up.” With soils now acidic and often covered with dense meadows of eelgrass (also acidic), quahog fisheries turned to soft shell clams on beach fronts and where they could, and of course oysters. It would take a colder and stormier climate a half a century later for the “Great Quahog Sets” to return. And they did return.

Tim Visel

1 See studies in Denmark for the study of similar shell deposits along coastal areas - some 1,000 feet in length, 200 feet wide and 10 feet deep. These were eventually determined to be the remains of coastal peoples looking waste and called kjoekken moeddings (Old Dutch), which apparently persists today as kitchen middings (pg. 599). Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States, George Goode, Editor Volume 2, Washington, D.C. GPO 188.

New England Hard Shell Clams – Quahogs Return

When the last large deep-water Quahog bed failed off Nantucket in 1908, the Great Heat (1880-1920) now favored tremendous sets of oysters, especially in Connecticut. By the 1900s the very cold winters of the 1870s were gone. The heat is what concerned people now and escaping it then created numerous summer villages along the coast. Along with the heat came very few storms. The four-decade period was relatively quiet – there was the Blizzard of 1888, the Portland Gale of 1898 and two smaller summer gales 1903 – 1905. The four-decade period was known for its habitat stability and its extremely warm temperatures, which favored oyster sets. Oysters set heavily on the inshore beds and even on hard, sandy and shelly bottoms offshore of Connecticut’s rivers they so called “natural beds.” Natural oyster reefs expanded quickly during the Great Heat (1880 – 1920) only to succumb to the colder and stormier weather of the 1930s to 1960s. By 1972, oyster sets had largely failed and surviving oyster companies had turned to oyster hatcheries during this climate period.

A completely different story is told when you look at the fisheries’ history for the New England Quahog (Hard Shell Clam) abundance. Here the Great Heat (1880 – 1920) was devastating as high heat and now acidic, organic rich bottoms gave off the infamous hydrogen sulfide rotten egg odors. It was not a productive period for quahogs. It was the age of blue crabs and eelgrass and low oxygen and black water deaths or fish kills. Huge meadows of eelgrass trapped organics and rotted in high summer “heats” that lasted for days at a time. This was not the time of the cooler water quahog or bay scallops for that matter. Instead, the Great Heat would come to be known for huge increases in soft shell clams on coastal flats and an incredible surge in oyster culture and a decline of bay scallop and quahog habitats especially in Rhode Island and Connecticut.

When you examine the habitat history of the quahog in New England, you can see two different types of sets – shallow water or surface sets and deep water or deep subsurface sets. Quahog sets can occur in periods of high heat, but usually after a cold spell, new soil cultivation (storms) or the elimination of predators, but without energy it is a “shallow set.” Storms or wave surges often ruin these sets that are so close to the surface or they are quickly picked off by predators, mostly crabs (The green crab being the most damaging). Storms however have the ability to deeply re-cultivate shell hash or relic oyster shell into marine soils opening up closed soil pores and freeing it of organic acids. It is these events that often result in the “great sets” that can lie deep in the soil and deep enough out of the zone of predation. Those sets that are protected by the shell hash buffers acidic conditions also allow quahog spat falls to survive and grow in favorable habitat conditions. That is why when you look at climate energy levels; you do see these periodic sets, which show up in increased landings after extremely cold and storm filled periods. That is the story of Narragansett’s upper bay after 1931. Here a series of strong storms ruined the stable habitat conditions needed for oyster culture and oyster growers soon had noticed what happened in Connecticut for decades that under this oyster shell matrix quahogs now set heavily. Shallow sets were protected from predators by shell hash and acidic marine soils were buffered by the oyster shell itself. As these upper bay oyster habitats “failed,” for oysters they increased the chances of quahog sets to survive. Hard shell clammers soon noticed the sets of quahog below shell bases and planted seed oysters. Oysters were now “in the way” and resentment soon grew from a growing number of Quahogers (Bullrakers) who sought to rake clams on now abandoned oyster leases.

By 1938 the soils were already mixed as to promote shallow sets, but now as hurricanes deeply cultivated marine soils, the deeper great sets were beginning. After the great sets (many on the same bottoms once planted for oyster culture) Rhode Island’s hard shell clam production then soared. Quahog sets over the entire southern New England survived and Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts’ hard shell clam (quahog) fisheries flourished. The age of high quality habitats for oysters were ending – the era of the Quahog as “king” was just beginning.

This paper was written for the EPA – DEP (now DEEP) Long Island Sound Study in March 2010. It was written as a way to discuss bottom disturbance and impacts to clam habitat (marine soils) as a long term view of marine habitat succession.

Project Finfish – Monitoring Oyster Shell Habitats
For Clams & Winter Flounder

The Great Rhode Island Clam Sets of 1939-1940-1951-1952

Discussions with Quahog Skiff Fishermen of Narragansett Bay

Oyster Shell Clam Seed and Flounder Habitat Associations
In Rhode Island

March 2010

Timothy C. Visel
EPA/DEP LISS Habitat Restoration Committee

For decades the clam bullrakers and oyster companies in the Upper Narragansett Bay led at best an uneasy coexistence. Shortly after Connecticut oyster companies secured grow out acreage for seed oysters to mature there, a conflict ensued. First and foremost, it removed ground from the free and common fisheries and secondly, it prevented quahog harvesting on leased beds which then caught a natural clam set. These conditions would come to open arguments in the 1940’s.

Earlier, by 1900, most of Rhode Island’s seed oyster river producing areas except for a very few had been ruined – excess silt from land – best management practices would need another century for these watersheds. Those involved in oyster culture often looked to the “seed oyster state,” Connecticut, for seed oysters. The growth and quality of upper bay Narragansett Bay oysters was fantastic with culture of seed oysters in Narragansett Bay and within a decade the Connecticut oyster companies themselves would be in Rhode Island. The huge amounts of seed oysters now needed large grow out grounds and outside of three Connecticut harbors, Norwalk, Bridgeport and New Haven grow out ground in Connecticut was painfully scarce. The relatively open eastern Connecticut coastline invited storm disasters and made industry expansion difficult. Reports from Rhode Island however, told of high yields, great quality oysters and thousands of protected acres. But while the Upper Bay provided area for oyster culture growth, its softer muck bottoms had to be hardened with gravel sand and of course, shell. Large scale and at times massive habitat mitigation occurred as soft bottoms was made firm from shelling, making it suitable to cultivate oysters. The oyster companies from Connecticut believed that by investment and work, they could make the habitat suitable for oyster culture.

This practice of firming bottoms from 1890 to 1910 occurred in a period of relatively few severe storms or hurricanes. However, by the late 1920s and 1930s this was not the case. A series of hurricanes hit or came close to New England and winter storm intensity increased, after which, some of the firm beds became soft. It was just too expensive to harden them again so they were abandoned. Some oysters survived and occasionally boats would be sent out to clean up shells or what was left, and according to local stories, boats started to dredge up tremendous quantities of small quahog seed and by 1945 clams were everywhere. So when the clammer’s production went up and prices fell; so much so that a strike happened in support of higher landing prices. The great sets of 1939-40 and 1951-52 would cause a spike in hard shell clam (Quahogs) production in Rhode Island.

What really irked the bullrakers was that they had to pay oyster companies a royalty on every bushel of clams they harvested from oyster beds that were long abandoned for a clam set that was now natural. And they were absolutely correct. This practice would leave a bitter taste and for 70 years would influence aquaculture practices/ aquaculture acceptance in Rhode Island. An uneasy existence was to put it best as the oyster industry sought to police its leases and bullrakers sought to harvest natural growth clams.
Then 1950 happened and Hurricanes Dog and Easy dealt the remaining oyster houses a final blow, delivering more energy to the created habitats which “failed” and with it the oyster business which did not recover. What did recover were heavy sets of hard clams on these shelled areas. Energy had reversed the hardening process and mixed remnant shells into bottom substrates- the sets following major storms sometimes 2 to 3 years later were tremendous. They would become known as the “great sets.” Some of the best sets were Bristol Neck/Ferry, Warren Neck and Rumstick Neck.

Several of the hard clam harvesters (bullrakers) from Wickford in 1980 had experiences in the upper bay around acreage formerly operated by the Warren Oyster Company and led to some further discussions over the next few months. My study at the time was focusing upon winter flounder as I was still conducting inshore fishing gear technology workshops for Rhode Island Continuing Education. Some workshops were cosponsored by Rhode Island Sea Grant at the Wickford Fisheries School. This provided an opportunity to meet with and review accounts with local clammers. The more we talked -- one fishermen told what was to become a very familiar story – yes, winter flounder were over the oyster beds and bullrakers knew that they would occasional “tine” one. It seems that as soon as the “oyster companies” we discussed long ago feelings soon resurfaced. [It’s important to note that several Connecticut oyster companies came to Rhode Island leased large areas of the upper bay displacing the local Rhode Island bull rakers, although it was 80 years ago the mention of Connecticut oyster companies evoked at times a very negative response.] When upper Narragansett Bay oyster firms started putting out shell and small seed oysters on top; they noticed two things, a dramatic increase in flounder and also great sets of quahogs. Eventually conflicts arose from bullrakers raking oysters into piles and digging the hard-shell clams that had set underneath the shells. The reasoning was that the oysters were in the way, and clammers couldn’t land the oysters legally anyway. The conflict was the oyster companies were less than pleased with immense heaps/piles of seed oysters every morning and would spend time each day respreading them. The quahog oyster conflict took on a nighttime activity except with the Blount family and arrangements were made with clammers to harvest what was underneath after the oysters were harvested. Unfortunately that agreement was unique and even today, this conflict is confused with illegal oystering according to these Wickford fishermen, it was not about the oystering, and it was about gaining access to the clams underneath the oysters.

A missed opportunity for poly-culture and even though these oyster companies had long ceased operations; the oyster shell/clam set association was still active. These old “relic” oyster shells still provided a modified habitat that suggested better clam sets. At later workshops the topic of aquaculture would come up and being from Connecticut I had more of a positive attitude, but during a December workshop, it was mentioned that perhaps I would like to swim the harbor if I continued to expound upon the positive aspects of aquaculture. I declined to continue the conversation, and with it the opportunity to pursue this oyster shell /hard clam habitat association was postponed.

This habitat association had been mentioned to me before by some of the Connecticut oyster growers I would talk to. They all agreed that the placing of oyster shell seemed to facilitate quahog sets. When oystering if quantities of hard clams started to come up in the dredges, they figured they were on the edge of the bed and soon oysters would thin out and clams increased; it always happens that way. George McNeil, a former owner/operator of McNeil Oyster Company, would comment that sometimes oyster dredges would fill to the brim with “seed clams” and they would be packed in barrels and sent to the Cape Cod for grow out. To my knowledge none of the Connecticut oyster companies saved and planted the clam seed, but an active seed clam fishery existed between Cape Cod and Connecticut for decades. Some areas in Connecticut caught heavy clam sets every year and would overcrowd each other. When oystering was slow in the summer, some oyster companies would harvest seed clams. When hydraulics (Dredge) was introduced in Connecticut, oyster companies that had survived knew exactly the locations of large hard shell clam populations.

Does working the bottom sustain clam habitats and did shell planting activities enhance habitat for winter flounder?

Many researchers have determined by examining the gut cavity contents of winter flounder that shellfish forms a significant part of adult winter flounder diet, mostly soft clams. It’s not surprising that when coastal coves froze-- like Beebe Cove in Groton Connecticut --that a productive winter flounder spear fishery existed through the ice; the most productive places reporting were over soft shell clam beds. I can still remember that in the early 1960s you could buy a white container of frozen soft-shell clam “necks” that was the preferred flounder bait back then. Today steamers are much more valued as food than bait. Clammers also noticed an increase in flounder living amongst the oyster shells. Structure was provided by the planted shell and created voids perhaps hiding places or cover and certainly contained small worms and crabs and clams upon which to feed. I speculate that at the end of the day, all acreage combined in New York (Long Island), Connecticut and Rhode Island that had shell placed on it has to be one of the largest habitat creation (reef projects) in perhaps, the country. The habitat could have helped winter flounder also, and when I worked on the Quinnipiac, the dredge harvesting barge of Long Island Oyster Farms (1972), I saw thousands of juvenile winter flounder come up on deck. A conversation with J.R. Nelson, former manager of Long Island Oyster Farms confirmed the habitat association. He felt that the placement of cultch shell had greatly expanded suitable habitat for small flounder an association that would be echoed by shell fishermen and flounder fishermen countless times.

Oyster companies would use various substances to firm up soft bottoms, shell, pea gravel, cobblestone concrete waste and even coal ash/clinkers. Reports continue to include brick making waste and chips from construction if stone or crushed block buildings -- anything that could harden the bottom and support a layer of oysters. But what made it soft in the first place would come back to haunt these efforts. What was soft before was soft for a reason, a relative lack of energy and a flocculent setting area for terrestrial material to mix with salt water. Rivers carried tremendous silt loads and some rivers quickly filled after heavy rains. Suspended solids settled on the oyster beds, which needed to be “mowed” similar to maintaining a lawn today, but instead of mowing grass, you were flipping shells and not raking leaves, but washing off silt. The association of winter flounder on these habitats is created and not natural. This habitat needed constant low energy to be sustained. It would also be subject to energy events such as hurricanes. Although history of the oyster industry frequently included storm damage the 1900 to 1930 was relatively quiet, (1938) hurricane was the worst since the 1815 storm. That is not to say damage wasn’t done to production oyster beds, it wasn’t as devastating and inconsistent like a spring frost on an apple orchard in bloom – bad things could always happen. But 1938 was different, it was a huge energy event, burying oyster beds completely, fresh water killing others and redistributing hardened beds, breaking gravel and shell base layers to the softer bottoms underneath or mixing sand/silt and shell on production beds. For the oyster companies, the event was a disaster for the hard clam fishery; its habitat clock would now be reset. The great Quahog sets were on the way.

Oysters in heavy currents can roll; even “chips” (shell fragments) can slide in strong currents. Every tidal creek in Connecticut at the mouth has oyster shells that rolled out to the Sound, and they do not roll back in. Some production oyster beds were depleted when oysters literally washed off the hardened bed and slipped into ooze and suffocated. This was especially prevalent on the created hard bottom habitats (tabby a mixture of shell and building rubble) of upper Narragansett Bay. Rivers carried enormous quantities of silt from heavy rains and covered planted beds. But this entire bottom disturbance had some noticeable impacts, a growing winter flounder population and natural sets of quahogs under shells – especially these areas that had new bottoms or new sand and then covered with seed oysters. Hundreds of soft bottom acres had been changed to hard bottoms by the oyster companies. With what we know today, that isn’t really that surprising—that young flounder seek out shelly bottoms or that quahogs set and grow best in large grain size sandy sediments mixed with shells is well known. Fishermen for centuries have related the impacts of low energy in the positive impacts of working the bottom. This has been detailed in many Rhode Island reports. (Rhode Island Report of Inland Fisheries, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries – Made to the General Assembly at its January Session, 1906, Providence, RI 1906, page 105.

A century ago, oyster companies here in Connecticut noticed the same impacts when they recovered seed oysters for movement to deeper grow-out beds. The quahogs living underneath them were hard to miss. Few operations, however, capitalized on this “double crop.” The flounder, however, that came up in oyster dredges were given to the crew (George McNeil personal communication), and they also were hard to miss large firm flounder living over the oyster beds. At one time, Eastern Connecticut supported a fyke net fishery in the 1880s and the best place to set them was “among the shells”. Hard sandy bottoms that contained relic quahog and steamer shell hash were some of the best to place your flounder fykes (eelgrass and soft bottom habitats were avoided). Later, seed oyster and hard clam tongers noticed this flounder shellfish habitat association and consistently report tonging flounder with the tong heads themselves. Flounder spear fisheries in or near shellfish beds especially among soft shells (steamers) was a well known practice in coves along the Connecticut coast. Even today, local antique shops along our coast have old flounder spears (many hand wrought blacksmith) for sale. These spear fisheries were conducted in the same areas that contained shellfish. In fact, the first reported flounder/oyster habitat association dates from 1375 as a group of English oyster growers complained that a primitive devise many refer to it as the first beam trawl was catching flounder (plaice) over their production oyster beds.
Life Cycles and Energy Events

Hard shell clams can live to be in excess of 80 years and produce spawn every year. It is believed that this accounts for some of the heaviest sets of hard shell clams after severe storms – they may spawn every year, but the largest sets such as those in Rhode Island only occur 3 to 4 times in a century. The long life span therefore, ensures continuity of the species, as compared to “habitat extinction events” of much shorter living species such as the bay scallop in coves and salt ponds.

The rapid growth of the aquaculture oyster industry in Rhode Island occurred during a period of relatively few storms and warmer temperatures. Between 1901 and 1930, only a few large storms occurred then, and it was a period of minimal coastal energy events. Oysters flourished and so did winter flounder reaching similar high points years after oyster peaks. Between 1931 and 1961 has storm energy increased dramatically 20 named hurricanes happened during this 30 year period, while only 3 the previous 3 decades. Oysters declined, and hard shell clam sets increased. Two large hard shell clam sets, 1939 – 1941 and 1951 -1952 were after the most severe hurricanes. The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 and 1950 hurricane season which had several hit the New England area were some of the most severe energy event periods. It wasn’t instant, the hurricanes fishermen believed “turned the bottom”, changing soil structures, but perhaps modifying pH roughing the surface of the bottom creating relief eddies currents and even reducing predators. It may be that the bottom itself needed time to restructure and stabilize, but at some point a year or two later (in periods of larval abundance) would have the capacity to sustain enormous bay wide sets and this appears to be the case for two distinct periods in Rhode Island shellfish history 2 to 3 years after the 1938 and two to three years after the powerful 1950 hurricane season.

Fishermen especially on Cape Cod had had also seen large sets of quahogs occur after heavy storms or barrier beach inlet breaks. After a long period of reduced coastal energy, quahog productivity generally declined as bottoms turned softer. Areas with hand and bull-rakers sustained frequent sets and these areas with oyster shell or shell fragments caught better sets than smooth mud. The continued input of low energy activity on tends to prolong habitat suitability and gives rise to the constant and continual comments by shell-fishermen that it is advantageous to work the “bottom.”

It is positive practice, up to a certain point for clams especially the hard-shell. The introduction of hydraulic hard clam harvesting opened a new chapter in Connecticut’s shellfish history. For the first time, shell fishermen had the equipment that resembled the hurricane cultivation aspects. They were in fact, able to cultivate marine soils and by doing so, modified soil structure and pH. The harvest of hard shell clams was no longer dependent upon storms for the great sets, the concept of marine soil cultivation commenced.

In 2012, I submitted a paper to the NACE Conference and presented it last December. It reviews habitat characteristics for marine soils with what information I had been able to assemble. It is not a complete work but does discuss many of the habitat questions often raised by Connecticut Shellfish Commissions. Click here for the paper titled, “Climate Induced Acidification of Marine Soils and Impacts Upon the New England Historical Soft Shell Clam (Mya arenaria) and Hard Shell Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) Shellfisheries.”

The HIFFM IMEP Newsletter is possible by an Inter-District Cooperative Grant (Public Act 94 -1) and regional marine education bulletins can be obtained or accessed on the Adult Education and Outreach directory by accessing the Sound School website: www.soundschool.com/publications%201.html. For information about The Sound School website, publications, and / or alumni contacts, please contact Taylor Samuels at taylor.samuels@new-haven.k12.ct.us .

The Sound School is a Regional High School Agriculture Science and Technology Center enrolling students from 23 participating Connecticut communities.

Program reports are available upon request. For more information about New Haven Environmental Monitoring Initiative for IMEP reports, please contact Susan Weber, The Sound School Adult Education and Outreach Program Coordinator, at susan.weber@new-haven.k12.ct.us.