CTFishTalk.com: Climate Change Habitat and Fisheries - IMEP #45 - Tim Visel - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

IMEP #45
Climate Change Habitat and Fisheries – Mr. Hammond’s Habitat History Lesson
Tim Visel, The Sound School

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

(IMEP Habitat History Newsletters can be found indexed by date on BlueCrab.Info™ website: Fishing, Eeling and Oystering thread) and CTFishTalk.com™ website under Salt Water Reports

A Capstone Proposal – Case History Discussions
February 2015

Preface

Mr. Hammond’s habitat history lesson goes beyond just Cape Cod or New England. When Mr. Hammond was culturing oysters on Cape Cod, the Dept. of the Interior- U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had the responsibility for coastal resources in the U.S. Much of the natural resource research in the marine area was on increasing resources and the use of best natural resource management practices, not environmental protection.

The use of environmental protection however, became more than a pollution control policy but to include conservation and preservation. Conservation and preservation does not consider fisheries history, as fisheries history relates to increases or decreases of resource abundance or reasons why over long periods of time. When an area is closed to fishing or shellfishing, fisheries history ceases. It was the time that Mr. Hammond so often talked about- time to look at long term changes. [Mr. Hammond had noticed as did many fishers the sudden appearance of tropical fish that seemed to occasionally brush Cape Cod and wondered if the Gulf stream current had perhaps shifted due to prevailing wind changes – an influence today now under review.] Conservation or preservation are important concepts no doubt, but today reflects an attempt to close “history” by staking off large areas of our coast and then protecting it as a resource management option tool. Over time this policy has not been effective nor has it provided an economical benefit, i.e, increased seafood production. Once a fishery is closed or an area restricted, the history of fish and shellfish catches ends; in time there is no seafood connection to those fish and shellfish habitats or what is natural and what is not for them.

The absence of history in fact allows interpretation of circumstances that may or may not be “natural”. It is much harder to work with fishers and fisheries than to just close it- I recall Mr. Hammond’s comment; he had seen that with bacterial closures for shellfishing. Health Dept officials had already closed substantial areas on the Cape and then just “walked away.” The shellfishers were just left with a closure notice. A growing conflict about resource allocation was also happening (Hen Cove and Lewis Bay) a focus of who gets what instead of increasing the resource for all. Seafood, it seems, was to be a part of a new conservation policy, that today many call that outsourcing. Instead of the research required for our fish and shellfish habitats, we just looked overseas for our seafood needs which we did. We now import over 85% of our seafood and in the process “protected” areas that no longer produce seafood.

I have included two examples of Mr. Hammond’s participation with U.S. Fish & Wildlife studies in the appendix. I am certain there are others. I hope his example (lesson) may be of value of today. I feel it does. We need more cooperation between fisheries and the agencies that govern it (my view).

The weather pattern that Mr. Hammond described so many times finally “broke” in 2011 two decades after his passing. He didn’t call it the Northeast Atlantic Oscillation as NOAA does today, he called it a New England Atlantic cycle. The early meetings with Mr. Hammond must have made an immediate impact on me especially for the 1880-1920 period as I found recently two letters sent to Rhode Island and Connecticut from me asking for seed oyster information for that period (1880-1920) including a detailed response from John Volk of the Connecticut Dept of Agriculture Aquaculture Division, they are now in the appendix of IMEP #44.

Mr. Hammond felt a warming climate could be measured by an increasing oyster set and did his climate and energy research upon fisheries especially oysters with what information he had. The wind direction and speed (he did mention some potential impact perhaps on the gulf stream itself) but the largest factors were temperature and storm frequency. Habitats could not be considered stable for species of fish or shellfish – rather they were in a process of long term change. If anyone looked for it (natural cycles) to him it was most obvious for oysters. I am looking at bay scallops for very cold and blue crabs for very warm periods as well. After many decades of a positive phase NAO – it turned negative in 2011 not so much since the 1950s a period of cooler temperatures and many more “Northeasters” has arrived. Since 2011 we have had a glimpse of the energy levels and climate of the 1950s. This followed the 1880-1920 period of Great Heat and few storms.

The 1974 to 2008 period has many similarities -

I think looking back it was Mr. Hammond’s agricultural background or knowledge that helped advance his climate and energy research for shellfish. He mentioned marine soil cultivation when “marine soil” wasn’t even a term, the importance of pH of marine soils from Cooperative Extension terrestrial soil testing and opening the soil pores to proper circulation (cultivating) and finally the Sapropel (compost) discussions that are happening today. He was able to make direct associations to agricultural practices decades before, and felt at times fishers were just as vulnerable to climate change as farmers and the species (crops) they sought. Finally he felt we should focus not so much on the biology but on also habitat quality in terms of resource abundance. In the 1980s Mr. Hammond felt we were entering a warming cycle – one that would impact larval sets and survival.

The observations made by Mr. Hammond are today being confirmed by marine soil pH, estuarine core and nitrogen studies. I have been able to continue to look into Mr. Hammond’s central research areas and have largely come to the same conclusion, biological snapshots of time does not give us an accurate habitat picture – we need a long term view (free of bias) to better and more fully understand habitat conditions for our inshore fisheries. The past four decades have been warm then hot and until recently a cycle of few storms.

Inshore fishers know about cycles as well, they need to be included in these fisheries and habitat discussions, we could learn from them as I did from Mr. Hammond. The observations of inshore fishers are at times personal having observed habitat changes that few could understand or see.

Several Sound School students are looking at habitat history for potential Capstone Projects, special senior research projects that may result in a paper. It is my hope that in years to come these reports will be read here as well.

I respond to all emails at tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us

Mr. Hammond‘s Habitat History Lesson

Mr. Hammond would continue to send me newspaper clippings from the Cape for a few years – I spoke to him once or twice while at the University of Connecticut. He was watching his humus ever grow deeper, while I was working with fishers who were noticing the same, shellfishers and eastern CT winter flounder fishers (see IMEP 15, parts 1 and 2) and noticing the increase of black mayonnaise behind many eastern CT railroad causeways. As Mr. Hammond had noticed organic accumulations first had occurred in areas of poor tidal exchange as summers continued to generally become warmer. I can recall one of the articles titled “Scientists Seek Input On Oxygen Depletion from the Cape Cod Times with a simple note “It’s happening” from Mr. Hammond. The article mentioned a research project at Brookhaven National laboratory which were dealing “with oxygen depletion of salt water along the mid Atlantic Coast from North Carolina to Maine – Cape Cod Times, July 5, 1984. Authors were asking for the public’s help with fishers reporting on habitat changes including “unusual smells”, “especially sulfurous bottom mud” (see appendix).

Our Connecticut Dept of Environment Protection here in Connecticut had also noticed the unusual smells at that time but attributed that not to a climate cycle but to coastal development and that was Mr. Hammond’s great fear – that in a rush to provide a solution “to the people problem” a full understanding of long term habitat change would be largely overlooked. A Spring/Summer 1986 Land’s End newsletter from the Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program had an article about a “New State Program To Restore Coastal Embayments” mentioning Special Act 83-13 setting up a Coastal Coves and Embayment Advisory Board “to study degraded coastal water bodies (Land’s End Spring Summer 1986 - NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

But the viewpoint of coastal managers then had already reached a conclusion regarding the cause of the degradation and Mr. Hammond’s largest fear – human pollution would eclipse the larger climate and energy cycles he had so long studied. Also in the Land’s End article was this statement,

“We are now seeing the effects of development at various trouble spots along the shore. Shellfish beds have been closed, healthy plant and animal life in tidal wetlands is being lost, uncharacteristic odors at low tide have been reported, and swimming and boating conditions have deteriorated.”

Looking back I wished I had kept in touch more with Mr. Hammond and I continued to obtain newspaper articles from him and as he predicted, development, conservation and pollution pushed the habitat questions and long term climate and energy cycles from public discussion. No one it seemed was able to balance public policy discussions as waters continued to warm and low oxygen which soon dominated coastal reports in regional and national press media started to kill fish and shellfish.

As fishers continued to press a review into cycles and the history of previous periods of shellfish and finfish abundance the association of negative human impacts overwhelmed any historical focus (my view). What Mr. Hammond feared the most would indeed did happen and now is being called into question – did we fully understand the nitrogen problem before making appropriate public policies? (IMEP 37, 38, 40, 42, 44)

In the fall of 2011 a series of environmental organizations on Cape Cod identified organic deposits that often smelled “bad” and termed it black mayonnaise. An article appeared in the Boston Globe – titled “Pollution in Cape Cod Waters Sparks Debate” written by David Abel, it was fair review in the description but as in other states missed the long term climate and energy cycles that impact nitrogen. The article highlighted both the negative aspect of nitrogen pollution and the presence of black mayonnaise. One issue that I mentioned to the Boston Globe reporter David Abel (a letter to the editor and rewritten Op Ed piece) is the need to look at what I discussed with Mr. Hammond, a need to look at temperature and energy cycles over the long term. Part of the problem is that almost every nitrogen study did not mention heat and energy cycles at a critical nitrogen review time it was not part of the discussion – we know that today as benthic flux and the Sapropel sulfur cycle.

By 2011, the long period of heat with little energy was ending the NAO – North Atlantic Oscillation which was in a positive phase for decades now had turned largely negative. A negative NAO defines a poorly defined Icelandic low, and with it an enhanced “Polar Vortex” first described by Hurd Willett in a book titled “Climate Change” edited by Harlow Sharpley, Harvard University Press, 1953. A negative pattern brings colder and more snows from Nor’easters. It was the storm energy and patterns that had so intrigued Mr. Hammond who a passed away on June 12, 1991 at the age of 91. If he was here today I believe he would say much the same thing – look at the cycles of storms, temperatures for explanations of shellfish and finfish abundance. I have included the article I wrote and resubmitted to the Boston Globe three times – they never printed it, the concept of long term climate and energy patterns were just being realized long after Mr. Hammond’s journals. He was, as they say, ahead of his time because he had looked at a much larger and longer picture. Nowhere would this become so apparent with the eelgrass – nitrogen habitat studies of the 1980s and 1990s

Long Island Sound Nitrogen History -

This nitrogen review in terms of habitat quality began in 2009 and the focus upon nitrogen sources. In the early years of our Long Island Sound Study non point (watershed) source nitrogen was considered to be significant if not the largest source for nitrogen entering Long Island Sound. That focus would soon change however to largely focus upon human nitrogen inputs in later years.

Mr. Hammond gave me a habitat history lesson decades ago, one that is very important today as we learn more about estuarine habitat quality – this includes nitrogen.

A habitat quality study project shellfish/finfish proposed in December 2009 HRI did not reach consensus. Experiments were to look at habitat impacts of estuarine shell (pH) removal of organic debris (Sapropel) marine soil cultivation and dredging. It was on a much smaller scale that was first proposed in 1987 to the Long Island Sound Study as the Dowd’s Creek restoration proposal. That project description is now listed in the Sound School publication directory. (Tim Visel is a member of the Long Island Sound Study but this article does not represent the views and opinion of the Long Island Sound Study).

In 2008 it was becoming apparent that the long positive phase North Atlantic Oscillation was having an inshore habitat impact. Winter flounder, tautog and lobsters had all declined or continued to decline to very low harvest levels. However the long period of warmth had brought larger and larger striped bass, oyster sets were at times immense and blue crab populations increased (and exploded in Southern New England in 2010) what was a negative habitat profile for the shallows for some species – seemed to be very good for others.

The linkage of eelgrass to nitrogen and estuarine health was a concern in 2008 and remembering discussions with Mr. Hammond. I sent off a caution to the State of New Hampshire in 2008 and in 2009 started to look at nitrogen abatement policies – examining weather conditions and natural factors such as warming water for the eelgrass populations that were also cyclic, increasing coverage following cold stormy periods and declines followed long periods of heat. It was the soil chemistry of these hot inshore waters that was missing and nowhere has it seemed that the sulfur cycle reviewed. As 2010 came to a close it was becoming evident that the eelgrass – nitrogen connection might have a serious flaw – the absence of habitat succession.

Eelgrass in the end was also a victim itself of long hot periods. Much of this habitat succession can be attributed to eelgrass natural ability to trap organic matter and in effect “rise” over time over pre existing topography. Eelgrass as with many other habitat types in the coastal zone has a “clock” that measured habitat succession observed by fishers but missing from current eelgrass nitrogen discussions. Eelgrass a significant habitat feature has very different profiles over time – especially during long periods of heat. In the end the climate that allowed it to flourish would come to end it as well, as it had before.

In the fall of 2011 my habitat/eelgrass review was far from complete but tried to bring some of Mr. Hammond’s habitat history lessens to Cape Cod, nitrogen abatement policies were at a critical junction and in continued heat – black mayonnaise (Sapropel) deposits grew in one direction – higher as Sapropelic organic matter seemed to dominate almost every shallow area (especially these with reduced flushing). I think it is safe to say that in many coves and bays Sapropel overtime became a dominant habitat type. Certainly the buildup of Sapropelic mud should have been on everyone’s radar – not just as a habitat change but a factor in the nitrogen source determination efforts as well. The chemistry of Sapropel and organic deposits (frequently described as benthic flux) were known to contain nitrogen and phosphate compounds for over a century. The reduction of organics by way of sulfate bacteria was also well known and reported to negatively impact marine species.

The putrefaction of these organic deposits in low oxygen conditions were also known and implicated in ammonia generation (benefiting brown algal blooms called HABs) and in winter toxic sulfide purging episodes for decades. Submerged aquatic vegetation has a habitat clock as well related to sulfides and eelgrass natural ability to bind and hold organic matter enhanced the formation of Sapropel. It also pushed these deposits over time closer to solar radiation and in some of Mr. Hammond’s observations were “hot.” Although “benthic flux” is mentioned in many nitrogen studies its importance minimized or at times not included it (Latimer Charpentier, 2010). The term is somewhat misleading loosely meaning bottom changes, but it fails to describe the sulfur chemistry of organic reduction nor does the term fully explain ammonia shedding (generation) or sulfide purging. Benthic flux has been explained as a numerical analytical measure with few habitat implications. That was something Mr. Hammond was investigating in the 1980s – the sulfur cycle and root issue rotting of the eelgrass meadows. Mr. Hammond had noticed that as humus deposits put eelgrass closer to the surface (and nearer sunlight) the compost was warmer and eelgrass died off (roots broke free) in these deposits first – not the deeper cooler waters, to him it was the sulfur cycle that held chemical clues to the eelgrass demise as its roots were eaten away. He was at the time looking into rice plants and tropical soils for examples of this warm sulfur cycle impact.

Mr. Hammond was looking at the sulfur cycle and chemistry of this humus, three decades ago believing that temperature and energy had a vital piece of this estuarine nitrogen puzzle. He had started researching rice paddy cultivation for the some sulfur impacts. Certainly in the decades after my visits with Mr. Hammond others had noticed black mayonnaise deposits. In the November 26, 2011 Boston Globe article by David Abel its presence was acknowledged. (“Searching For The Right Cure for Capes Algae – Choked Waters”).

“Bourne – When the tide rolls out, the beaches on the west coast of Cape Cod often turn a shade of lime green, with splotches of a slimy substance that locals say resembles black mayonnaise and smells like rotten eggs”

The United States Geology Service (USGS) recently issued a publication that focused upon “benthic flux” and mentions the importance of reviewing it in Puget Sound - Washington – on page 2 is found this statement. “Ignoring or under representing benthic flux as a source of nitrogen (N) to marine waters can result in effective management actions and can lead to chronic water quality problems in sensitive areas.”

Other estuary programs outside of New England have also raised black mayonnaise concerns. The Indian River Lagoon program (Florida) has termed “black mayonnaise” a major environmental problem. In an article titled Indian River Lagoon What Went Wrong? James Wayne, Associated Press, May 11, 2014.

“A half century build up of muck that resembles “black mayonnaise” coats the lagoon bottom and that of it tributaries, in some spots more than 10 feet thick…. Much also produces noxious chemical compounds, such as hydrogen sulfide that creates the lagoon’s occasional rotten egg smell.”

The State of Arizona has a part of its water distribution system labeled as containing Sapropel* (not sediments*) [The term sediment generally implies mineral erosion particles that cannot undergo chemical or biological reduction other than chemical erosion (acidic rain) or weathering from mechanical process. Although few biological papers describe chemical impacts to fish or shellfish The Army Corps of Engineers describes it as acidic sulfate soil – mentioning two important chemical features pH and the sulfur cycle but do not include the toxic fish and shellfish larval impacts).] as it describes a condition as well as chemical characteristics. In this case wax residues from partial leaf digestion was ruining drip irrigation equipment as Sapropel deposits were discharged into irrigation networks and capillary distribution systems. This often resulted in an off color sulfur smelly liquid. Reservoir draw downs in times of water shortage can also send Sapropel that resembles “black waters” and often has sulfur odors into domestic residential water distribution systems.

Some questions have been raised about a full review of benthic flux in the nitrogen total maximum daily load (TMDL) process in estuaries. But such a review should be more that a review of the process but has climate and energy fully described and the chemical interactions from them explained.

That was the value of Mr. Hammond's habitat history lesson and why we need a long term environmental history that includes climate and energy (storm) frequency.

We also need to know more about the role of sulfur cycle and eelgrass biology in Sapropel formation. Some recent Danish research also implicates eelgrass and the sulfur cycle describing it as natures death rings.

Questions have also been raised as to the process that employed a plant eelgrass (Zostera marina) as an indicator to assess its impacts to estuarine habitats. The selection of eelgrass as an estuarine quality indicator is also under review, as it has been implicated in a sulfur/sulfide relationship that explains biological attributes of this plant – its high leaf silicon content, its ability to live in higher sulfide containing marine soils and its habitat successional characteristics that assist Sapropel formation.

Eelgrass meadows often have organic matter beneath them that forms high sulfide levels in times of few storms and high heat. In fact, that eelgrass dominates as a submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) might be directly related to its tolerances of higher sulfide levels that other SAV types and helps explain why it is so successful at forming monocultures. Some recent Danish research (Jens Borum University of Capenhagen) largely confirms these habitat characteristics.

It was in the cultivated marine soils and cooler temperatures (which also reduced algae growth) in the 1950s and 1960s which enabled eelgrass to expand its habitat cover. Although early eelgrass researchers targeted pollution and agricultural herbicides for eelgrass declines we may find out that the population changes merely reflect positive or negative habitat conditions over the long term. Some of Mr. Hammond’s concerns was some of the strains of eelgrass in our coves and bays may not even be native here, he was following up on a indication that one or more “aggressive” strains had moved here from the North Sea (IMEP #5). He was also investigating what chemically was occurring in the soil itself far beyond just pH but the presence of sulfur and the association of acidic oak leaves. He had seen something similar with the beach plum.

In addition to his shellfish work with United States Fish and Wildlife researchers Mr. Hammond was also respected for his terrestrial agriculture knowledge. One of the reports he provided me was a copy of The Cape Cod Beach Plum Growers Association Bulletin #10 issued April 1958. In 1958 the President of this association was John C. Hammond of Chatham. He also had articles and copies of cranberry culture literature which also grew in wet soil conditions.

Beach plums (a coastal fruit Prunus maritima) growing in light sandy soils produced very usable fruit, acidic but those growing in land away from the beach especially in an oak scrub mix tasted “sour” from page 10 of the bulletin is found this section.

“The plums that grow on sandy land and sweet, mild and luscious – away from the beach --- in swampy ground, in good pasture land, in scrub oak woods, in good soil in the perennial border, beach plums grow making a fine show of their feathering blooms, but in most cases when the bushes grow in fair to good soil the fruits are extra full of tannin content or pucker.” They do not make as good jelly; in fact, some refuse to jell “and the plums are not as good to eat out of hand as those from beach sands.”

He felt (but could not prove it) that diminished crops and the source of tannin came from those plants existing near oak leaf litter, that the presence of oak leaves was a negative factor and over time the soil characteristics failed for the beach plum.

The collection of oak leaves was some how changing soil chemistry that then influenced the fruit, or perhaps the ability or the plant to survive. He felt the best crops came from the dunes – successful (fruit producing) bushes were transplanted in land often in rows only to see the crops dramatically decline. As storms created “new sand” environments for the beach plum – they also washed marine soils of organics which paved the way for quick healthy green growths of eelgrass. He had also observed patches in which oak leaves collected and eelgrass growth darkened developed black leaves and rotted off. What he had seen influence beach plums on land he felt he was seeing on eelgrass meadows – eventually the collection of organic matter would cause eelgrass to decline as well. He linked these changes in the soil and connected them to the sulfur cycle. In the end he would be proved correct again about eelgrass.

The trials and experiments with beach plums did not materialize and interest in the association declined. One of the members George Graves of Martha’s Vineyard apparently pursued registering Beach Plum varieties in 1950 he was appointed to maintain a plot of bushes of each of the varieties listed. In a Sam Libby New York Times Article (May 23, 1995) Glenn Dryer of the Connecticut College Arboretum comments that,

“One of the states rarest and most endangered plants is a beach plum variant called Graves Beach Plum which only grows on a one-one site in Groton.” (Named for Dr. Charles B. Graves in 1897).

It was during my last visit that he mentioned his research into eelgrass (mentioned before in previous IMEP newsletters) and its ability to trap organic matter. He was looking at other plants that had submerged root systems including the rice plant. He also gave me a chapter from a book (unfortunately no title page) and I think it was perhaps an English manuscript as the spelling of the word sulfur was in older English style “Sulphur.” From the references in this chapter I estimate its publication date was around 1966. It references work on page 463 of the International Rich Research Station (1963) Mr. Hammond felt rice held answers to many marine soils questions, including the impacts of eelgrass were contained in the “Sulfur Cycle” section including he felt a source of nitrogen that in high heat which favored the “Sulfur Cycle.” He was looking at rice as an example to compare eelgrass monocultures – meadows. He was convinced at some point the eelgrass roots rotted off as a natural condition – on page 444 is found this statement regarding the reduction potential of water logged soils (source unknown as stated above) “Subsequently Jeffrey (1961) proposed three terms to define the start of reduction of a flooded soil. The terms were oxidizing conditions, those of a normal aerated soil, where rice plants suffer from lack of ammonia nitrogen and where phosphorus is precipitated by iron type 3, healthy reducing conditions where rice plants can flourish, nitrogen and phosphorus are available and both iron type 2 and iron type 3 are present, and extreme reducing conditions, where the plants cannot flourish as the rhizosphere can no longer protect the roots from for example sulphide.”

I’m not certain if Mr. Hammond ever did solve his sulfur cycle questions about oak leaves but I think that the substance or factor he was look for included undigested leaf wax (paraffin) resides. That would explain the changing condition of wet terrestrial soils subjected to oak leaves in the presence of sulfur reducing bacteria, and perhaps declines he observed in beach plum yields over time. He was correct however about the sulfur and the rotting impacts of sulfide to eelgrass root tissue. That has been confirmed by Danish researchers and a series of articles last February 2014 that described “eelgrass death rings.” The ability of eelgrass meadows to trap organic matter in low oxygen conditions and help the formation of Sapropel sulfide underneath them is just now being reviewed.

I feel what put Mr. Hammond decades ahead of the current sulfur – Sapropel research is he watched it happen – over time. It looks like he was correct about the composting value of organic reduction to nitrogen levels as well.

Some of his research papers are abstracted in the following appendix as well as some correspondence in IMEP #44.

It is my hope that these references will be of interest to those researching the chemistry of estuarine marine soils today.

Almost every day, a new report gives a different habitat picture to look at, and for those involved in the eelgrass nitrogen TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Loads) a more complicated one. Eelgrass in long term natural cycles is not the best habitat indicator for nitrogen pollution promoted in hundreds of eelgrass/nitrogen reports) but actually kills the very species it was once supposed to promote, high heat low energy eelgrass meadows shed ammonia in summer, (as a secondary source of nitrogen) compliments several strains of sulfur reducing bacteria that live below them and purge deadly sulfides in winter. Shallow organic deposits, frequently called Black Mayonnaise by fishers can act as habitat refuge for eels and blue crabs (and why blue crabs and eels often are mentioned together in historical fishery reports). In slight amounts trace sulfides and with lower oxygen levels that did under ice keeps a wash of sulfur containing molecules.
Intermittent sulfide washes (smells) most likely helped keep potential predators away, but prolonged cold allows sulfide levels to build up especially in deep putrefied sediments to dangerous levels called Sapropel. After very cold winters adult blue crabs may be killed by high sulfide levels. On Cape Cod sulfide fish kills frequently occur on ice covered over salt ponds.
It is in Sapropel below sealed pore waters in organic deposits (mostly created by leaf waxes) that complexes metals in a natural process over time. Although Southern USA submerged vegetation researchers made the SAV (submerged aquatic vegetation) sulfide link decades ago and recently confirmed by ongoing Danish studies, few New England eelgrass/nitrogen studies referenced them. For many volunteers and civic groups who once promoted restoring eelgrass are faced with the prospect of learning just what the natural process of habitat succession for eelgrass looks like- and it’s often a grim picture. Planting eelgrass in high heat organic soils may have increased sulfide problems.
This is a type of research bias frequency termed the “funding effect” and exposed after release of the U.S. Surgeon General’s report on smoking in the mid 1960s. The first such smoking report was distributed by the Royal College of Physicians of London. At the time the science community was deeply divided and decades later the foundation of the “funding effect in science” syndrome. On January 11, 1964, Luther Terry, Surgeon General of the US Public Health Service released the report; the “science” that had cast doubt upon the linkage between smoking and health was discredited and subject to a Congressional rebuke.
The investigation that followed the Surgeon generals report shocked the nation for weeks and made national headlines for months. Science has limits and we may be facing similar a problem with eelgrass. We need to take a hard look at eelgrass and its role in nitrogen abatement (my view).

The history of habitat succession is critical to better understanding the eelgrass/nitrogen estuarine quality indicator. This is a facet of many current studies that is “missing.” Mr. Hammond watched as eelgrass growths suffocated shellfish beds in Pleasant Bay and elsewhere on Cape Cod. He noticed that eelgrass tended to collect organic matter and over time migrate upward making some areas shallow warmer – which reduced tidal flushing. Channel edges moved out away from shore and often had an eelgrass crust over this organic material which at times was several feet deep. Mr. Hammond was not the only one to notice this eelgrass problem, other shellfishers observed it as well. Mr. Hammond belonged to groups that promoted agriculture and worked with many shellfish/aquaculture researchers as well to exchange more information and assist culture efforts (Appendix). He was willing to share his observations and habitat knowledge with them and me, and a life time on being on the water. I think we need more of that today, fishers and regulators exchanging information, I know Mr. Hammond would feel that way, I don’t think he would mind me saying that now.

His observations have a direct bearing upon habitat sustainability, that estuarine habitats change over time and cannot be considered a constant or sustainable (back then productive) over the long term. We cannot expect catches of finfish and shellfish to be always as the same level and declines always associated with “over fishing.” Fish and shellfish catches reflect habitat quality which fluctuates to variables largely or totally out of our control. That was Mr. Hammond’s habitat history lesson, one that has value today - my view.

Tim Visel

The Truth About the Cape Cod Nitrogen Problem – Habitat Cycles
Tim Visel, November 2011

Opinion Editorial – Submitted to The Boston Globe Marjorie Pritchard
December 2, 2011

No Mention of Environmental Fisheries History for Cape Cod Solution – Boston Globe
Letter To The Editor – Not Published (submitted three times)

To: Marjorie Pritchard, Op-Ed Editor The Boston Globe

From: Tim Visel

Dear Editor Pritchard,

I read with great interest the excellent Boston Globe article written by David Abel “Searching for the Right Cure for Capes Algae – Choked Waters” (11/26/11).

This started off as a letter to the editor but after several rewrites Mr. Abel suggested an OP-Ed submission for consideration.

The Op-Ed article comes from decades of work at three Universities, The University of Massachusetts on Cape Cod 1981-83, The University of Rhode Island 1978-81 and the University of Connecticut 1978-90. I’m currently coordinator of The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture School in New Haven, Connecticut and serve on two EPA committees for the Long Island Sound Study.

The viewpoint however is a personal one – gained from many field surveys and conversations with fishers in the coastal waters of New England.

The Cape Cod issue with nitrogen is a very difficult problem but perhaps your readers would like to read a different view on the matter.

Best regards, Tim Visel.

No Mention of Environmental Fisheries History for Cape Cod Nitrogen Problem

Cape Cod residents are wise to seek out and explore questions regarding habitat quality and investigate both regulatory and non-regulatory options to this habitat concern.

The impacts of nitrogen enrichment and excess vegetation has been the subject of much research and regulatory scrutiny since 1998. This issue also has been the subject of decades of personal inquiry, via historical fisheries research and fishermen interviews since 1972. During that year, shellfishing, was closed in Tom’s Creek, a small tidal creek next to my family home in Madison, CT – our favorite oyster and clamming area. Within two years of no shellfishing a thick blanket of ooze suffocated the oysters and clams killing them. By the time I began work with the University of Massachusetts Cape Cod Extension Service in Barnstable a decade later, I was very familiar with “Black Mayonnaise” and how it could change habitats. I used the term frequently at local Connecticut Shellfish Commission meetings in CT from 1978 on. It then followed me to the Cape.

It was sad to see shellfishermen on the Cape facing the same habitat transition Connecticut shellfishers had seen years before and that nitrogen and sewage were prime targets three decades ago. But some of the retired shellfishermen on the Cape urged caution. They had heard or experienced this nutrient enhanced plant growth before, when it got hot and when we had little in the way of strong storms at the turn of the century. While nitrogen was a large problem, especially in the poorly flushed, sluggish coves, they urged me to look below layers of Black Mayonnaise and examine the “real bottoms.” Often it contained two layers, a habitat history especially for oysters. The real bottom to them was from the 1940s – marking a gradual decline (loss) of habitat quality. John Clint Hammond of Chatham and John Farrington, both shellfishers, urged me also to look at the impact of temperature and energy, and I did. I learned a great deal from the shellfishermen on the Cape.

The so-called Great Heat (1880-1920) caused many of the first New England shore communities to be built. Summers were often brutally hot especially in 1896, and winters were generally mild. Coves in many coastal areas stagnated, stank and fish died often by the millions. In 1905 the water temperature in July at Wickford, Rhode Island reached 82o F; barracuda were caught on area beaches. Lobsters perished and bay scallops disappeared. Habitats transitioned during The Great Heat that eelgrass became so thick in the Poquonnock River in Groton, Connecticut it was declared a public health hazard. All this would change however during the New England oscillation of 1951-1964 with much colder winters and many powerful storms. Storm energy (waves and tides) washed organic matter (nitrogen sinks) from bays and coves; inlets widened; barrier beaches split when waves scoured and recultivated bay bottoms leaving firmer, “cleaner” sandy areas covered with bivalve shell. The age of the bay scallop and winter flounder were upon us. Lobsters also recovered in southern areas rejuvenated by thousands of acres of near-shore kelp/cobblestone habitat. That would change again as hot periods (such as the one we are in now) with few storms occurred. Until recently, heat produces a much different habitat condition. Inlets and barrier breaks tend to heal (close) tidal exchange is reduced; and bay bottoms tend to become softer and muck covered and smell of rotten eggs at night caused by oxygen loss and exhibit acidic conditions, thanks to a greatly renewed oak tree forest. Increasing the tidal exchange is probably the only viable tool in our management capacity to reverse these habitat conditions. This is natural, shellfishers would probably comment that in general Cape Cod bay bottoms are softer now then before and that is why. When it is hot, nitrogen is a huge issue; when it is cold, it is not.

Much has been promised to coastal residents in New England about nitrogen reduction and the return of sea life. Without examining the impact of energy systems (long term) and climate (temperature), most of these resource assurances will bare little fruit. For many species, the seafood cupboard will remain empty for decades until it gets cold – again.

A long-term habitat history and environmental fisheries history is desperately needed for the Cape as it is for other coastal areas. The decline in habitat quality is not always about our involvement – nature has a say also. Missing from the excellent article was a discussion about climate and storm activity and the fisheries from habitat changes over time. The Cape resident needs to understand that environmental fisheries history/habitat history relationship – it is an important one.

I met with shellfishermen on Cape Cod three decades ago who shared their knowledge about temperature and energy changes. They were very much stewards of the area environmental fisheries history. All of us could benefit from their experiences. They urged caution before attributing habitat changes just from nitrogen alone; it is just a piece of a very complicated habitat puzzle. I also would urge the same caution before the Cape spends billions of dollars that decades from now could be explained by climate and energy cycles.

As for Connecticut, our habitats continue to transition into what is now a four- decade-long warm period – our conch population (channel whelk) is soaring; oyster sets are excellent; and 2010 was the Connecticut blue crab year of the century – the best since 1912. Conch, blue crabs and oysters do well in warm periods – winter flounder, bay scallops and lobsters do not.

Tim Visel
10 Blake Street
Ivoryton, CT

PAGE 8 CAPE COD TIMES, THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1984

Scientists seek input on oxygen depletion

Upton, N.Y. – Marine scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory are conducting a research study dealing with oxygen depletion of salt water along the mid-Atlantic coast, from North Carolina to Maine.
They would like to receive first-hand reports from shore residents and others who are familiar enough with a body of salt water to recognize some of the unusual or abnormal things that occur as a result of oxygen depletion. The study deals with salt water only in coastal areas or in estuaries, not with fresh water.
The scientists are interested in information on the following things, particularly if they have occurred since 1970: fish kills, red tides, algae blooms or scums, unusual smells (especially sulfurous bottom mud), the disappearance of “regular” marine life (fish, plants, or birds), and the appearance of “new” marine life.

The results of the research study will be important to people who live in coastal areas because oxygen depletion can destroy marine resources, particularly fish and shellfish.
Anyone who can contribute information is invited to write or call Terry Whitledge, Ocean Sciences Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y. 11073; telephone (516)208-2965.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Stewart L. Udall, Secretary
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Clarence F. Pautzke, Commissioner
BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, Donald L. McKernan, Director

RAFT CULTURE OF OYSTERS
IN MASSACHUSETTS

By WILLIAM N. SHAW

FISHERY BULLETIN 197
From Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service
VOLUME 61

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1962

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D.C. – Price 20 cents

RAFT CULTRE OF OYSTERS IN MASSACHUSETTS

By William N. Shaw, Fishery Research Biologist

BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

The harvest of oysters in the United States has dropped more than 50 percent during the past 50 years. For the decade 1893-1902, the annual harvest of oyster meats averaged 164.9 million pounds, but for 1943-52, it was only 76.8 million pounds (Galtsoff, 1956). An even greater decrease has occurred in Massachusetts. Figure 1 shows that in this State the annual average harvest of 1,222,500 pounds of oyster meats during the ten-year period 1910-19 has fallen to the present low level of 204,700 pounds (1950-59), a decline of 83.3 percent. Since 1952 this trend has continued at a substantially higher rate and only 113,000 pounds were harvested in 1958, an all time low for the State (fig. 2).

I wish to thank Dr. Paul S. Galtsoff for assistance in organizing the project and for suggestions in preparing the manuscript; J.C. Hammond, commercial oyster grower, whose help in construction and maintenance of the raft made this project possible; Gilbert Covell, commercial oyster grower, who donated young oysters for the observations. The late Charles Jones, former Chatham shellfish warden, gave permission to use certain areas where oyster spat could be caught. Without the cooperation of local oyster growers and officials the project could not have been carried out.

Because of the recent scarcity of oysters in Long Island Sound, the Connecticut and New York growers can no longer supply Massachusetts with enough bedding stock; therefore, many Bay State oystermen have gone out of business. For example, in Oyster Pond River, Chatham, where 20 men were once in oyster business, only 3 are working at present. Since the oyster industry of Massachusetts can no longer afford to rely on obtaining bedding stock from other States, new and more effective methods of oyster culture are needed, if the industry is to prosper.

The present paper summarizes the observations made between 1956 and 1959. Particular attention was given to whether the benefits obtained from the cultivation of raft-grown oysters would justify the possible additional cost of production.

Bulletin #10

Issued April 1958

Being a Short History of the Association, together with
Modern Methods of Producing and Caring for the Bushes and Processing the Crop

Prepared by Frank H. Jones and Ina S. Snow

The Association

History

In October, 1941, a group met in Barnstable at the office of County Agent, with the intention of forming an association of those interested in the beach plum crop. Shortly after that meeting the disaster occurred at Pearl Harbor, and soon rationing of gasoline caused the committee formed at that early meeting to put off trying to get an association started.
Again, on November 17, 1948, the County Agent, Bertram Tomlinson, who had been over twenty years interested in the beach plum and the little household industry of processing it, called together those still interested in forming an association. On that day some fifty people came to the Town Hall in Brewster, and formed the Cape Cod Beach Plum Growers’ Association. The same day they adopted a Constitution and By-laws, and officers were elected to serve until the annual meeting in the early fall.
They were: President, Ben D. Fleet, Sandwich; Vice-President, Channing H. baker, Harwich; Secretary-Treasurer, Mrs. Ina S. Snow, North Truro; Executive Board, Joseph H. Putnam of Eastham, Frank H. Jones of Brewster, George Graves of Boston, Wilfred Wheeler, Falmouth, and Grace B. Cahoon, Chatham.
It was voted to pay a life membership fee of $1.00 and to take up a collection at each meeting to defray expenses. The projects outlined at that first meeting were pruning, spraying and otherwise caring for the existing bushes; learning improved methods; studying modern methods of propagation and planting; and seeking the best methods of protection from inferior and adulterated beach plum jellies and jams.
Several years have been well spent by members interested in producing plants by the easiest methods of propagation and selecting those that met their fancy and their aims. Talks and demonstrations by members were presented and discussed in forum settings.
In 1950 the Association added to its duties the Registry of Beach Plum Varieties. George Graves of Vineyard Haven is chairman of this Committee. It is now proposed to establish a plot of bushes of each of the varieties listed, which can be procured, and which have proved their worth. This Varieties Register designates the producer or sponsor, the name and chief merits of each variety. Some of these are being propagated today, but some were found to give too much trouble to the propagator, or for other reasons have been discontinued.
The present officers are: Acting President and former Vice President, John C. Hammond of Chatham (President Frank H. Jones of Brewster passed away January 12, 1958); Secretary- Treasurer, Mrs. Ina S. Snow of Provincetown. Members of the Executive Board are: Jon Morris of Harwich; Joseph L. Putnam, Eastham,; Mrs. Estelle Ames, South Harwich; Ira S. lewis of Brewster; and Mrs. Esther Stidstone, Harwich.

United States Department of the Interior, Fred A. Seaton, Secretary
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arnie J. Suomela, Commissioner
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Donald L. McKernan, Director

Observations on Habits and a Method of Trapping
Channeled Whelks Near Chatham, Massachusetts

by

William N. Shaw
Fishery Research Biologist

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Special Scientific Report – Fisheries No. 325

Washington, D.C.
May 1960

William N. Shaw
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wood Hole, Massachusetts

Abstract

A wooden trap for the purpose of removing the majority of channeled whelks from oyster beds was designed and successfully tested on Oyster Pond River, Chatham, Massachusetts. In 1957 and 1958, 2,174 channeled whelks were trapped from a 2-acre lease. This paper gives the design of trap, types of bait, trapping procedure, cath rate, and rate of whelk predation on oysters. It appears advisable for oyster growers to undertake trapping operations each spring to minimize oyster losses inflicted by the channeled whelk.

In the spring of 1957 the oyster growers of Chatham, Mass. reported high losses of oysters from predation by two species of large snail, the channeled whelk, Busycon canaliculatum (fig.1), and the knobbed whelk, Busycon carica (fig.2). In response to their request for help the Woods Hole Biological Laboratory of the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries conducted studies in 1957 and 1958 on the habits and possible methods of controlling these predators. Trapping appeared to be the most efficient, safest, and cheapest method of removing the whelks from the oyster grounds. Since previously devised traps were inefficient, it was necessary to devise a new type and test its operation and efficiency in the field. This paper reports the results of those studies.

The author is indebted to J.C. Hammond, commercial oyster grower, whose help in the field made this project possible; and to Robert K. Brigham of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to publish the photographs of the channeled and knobbed whelk.

Study Area

The study was conducted on Oyster Pond river, a small indentation of Stage Harbor, 2 miles west of Chatham, Mass. Depth of water on the oyster grounds ranges from 2 to 8 feet at mean low water. The average height of tide is approximately 4 feet. Water salinity ranges from 29% to 32%. The substrate over most of the area consists of fairly hard-packed sand, but in deeper water away from shore the bottom us rather soft owing to a higher percentage of silt and clay. This locality is near the northern limits of distribution of the whelks. According to Summer, Osborn, and Cole (1913) the range of the channeled whelks extends from Beverly, Mass. (north of Cape Cod) to the Gulf of Mexico, and that of the knobbed from Cape Cod to St. Thomas, West Indies. Though frequently not distinguished, both species occur throughout the length of Oyster River, but most of them concentrate in the commercial oyster grants.