CTFishTalk.com: Shellfish Harvest Disturbance & Shellfish Production IME - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

Shellfish Harvest Disturbance and Shellfish Production IMEP #48

Natural Bottom Disturbance following Storms as Compared to
Shellfish Culture and Harvesting Methods

(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

Environmental Issues and Regulatory Concerns for the
Shellfish Industry
A Presentation to the Long Island Sound Assembly – Western Region

Timothy C. Visel – June 23rd 2008
The Sound School – New Haven, CT

The Regional Water Authority – New Haven, Connecticut

Western Council Chairman, Michael Griffin Presiding

Revised for the Shoreline Preservation Taskforce
October 2012

Update-January 2015 Capstone Research

This paper originally presented in 2008 was an attempt to explore shellfish production in areas now closed to shellfishing. Much of the regulatory policy discussion included two issues: the use of shellfish growing in areas closed from high bacteria levels and the application of hydraulic shellfish harvesting gear for harvest operations.

The public policy issues included a bias against bottom disturbance (important to the shellfish industry) and shellfish loss to the public fishery in general (closed areas) as lost seafood production, jobs and economic benefits. It is also important to review the concept of marine preserves for shellfish management proposed in 2008. Several initiatives were under way at the time to set up sanctuaries for shellfish and I urged looking into those areas already closed, some since the 1970s, for guidance. Nearly always those closures resulted in shellfish population losses, not gains. Marine soils in organic matter produced sulfuric acids as part of the sulfate reduction process was not considered in shellfish larval studies at the time. This was quite evident in closed shellfish areas, an absence of habitat succession studies.

To more fully understand the importance of history and record keeping to this discussion, the concept of a habitat history was reviewed. Included was a historical look at bottom disturbance from storms. Storms create marine habitat change similar to those found after terrestrial forest fires. Years ago the shellfish industry felt that work (energy) put into shellfish acreage benefited other organisms and the absence of work often diminished those habitat associations now more recently termed “ecological services.”

Shellfish operations and natural fisheries produced “harvest energy,” the work that could clear silt and organic matter when oysters, or in the case of hard shell clams were harvested and cultivated marine soils. That work resulted in shellfish harvest increases as habitat sustaining activities. In terms of habitat succession and the sulfur Sapropel cycle in high heat, the chemical marine soil implications of energy to larval shellfish forms are just now being understood.

Setting aside acreage for no shellfish harvest or no energy (disturbance) these shallow habitats will succeed or transition faster. More often than not closed areas now support less shellfish, not more over time. They have, however, generally dropped from discussion as they no longer support commercial or recreational shellfisheries. Connecticut has had experience in this area, one account that occurred in New Haven when the difference is those oyster setting beds that were “stirred” or shells washed obtained a greater set (see appendix) was noted.

Long term historical reviews after storms is therefore important to the bottom disturbance issue, and if you compared it to “earth disturbance,” for agriculture parking the tractors would not automatically lead to crop increases. The same is true for estuarine soils that in high heat – no energy they become unsuitable for shellfish

Capstone questions/research area

Minimizing bottom disturbance (harvest energy) will not increase shellfish production or necessarily shellfish populations over the long term?

Students interested in a Capstone Project about the loss of economic potential in the closed areas, please see Tim Visel in the Aquaculture office.

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

Opening Remarks— Timothy Visel, The Sound School, New Haven, CT (2008)

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Western Council of the Long Island Sound Assembly this evening. The topics are important ones. Please let me first explain that I have always supported the harvest of renewable natural resources, from salt hay to snapping turtles. However, in 1975, I urged the fishing industry to pursue “No Discard” regulations. The waste of small fish incidental to capture fisheries even back then was alarming. At the same time, I strongly supported artificial reef creation here in Connecticut, especially for reef fishes such as tautog and scup. This effort was to enhance fishing and economic opportunities similar to those underway in Florida in the 1970s. I quickly learned that it is far more difficult to make more fish than to allocate the existing ones. But easy does not necessarily mean correct in terms of both the environment and natural resource jobs.

My research today reflects in some part my commercial and recreational fishing experiences—I have both. The basic question for me involves the sustainable and managed use of the habitat (fisheries) for without it no resource exists. To learn about the resource you must understand the habitat; the two are intrinsically linked. I learned that from many conversations with retired commercial shellfishermen. Only over time, does one gain an appreciation of both, and doing that means creating a “habitat history.” So over the last two decades, I have read numerous US Fish Commission reports and US Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF) annual fishery statistics and USDA climate records. You really need to like this research but for me it is often rewarding. Linking this fisheries habitat research to climate and improved fisheries yields is something I used to pursue as a cooperative extension agent for several Universities. The habitat history concept started on Cape Cod while employed by the Cape Cod Extension Service – UMASS Barnstable.

My historical research extends back 100 sometimes 200 years, mostly in Connecticut but often New England in general. Shellfishing is by far my favorite topic and represents most of my current efforts. Some of what I may say tonight may challenge both commonly accepted norms and principles, but I believe I can present a unique view of both fishery history and fishing experiences. I was asked to talk about both environmental and regulatory issues facing the shellfish industry. In my view, I will talk briefly about each. I see three: water quality, habitat quality and a realistic regulatory climate. The first two are old issues for the shellfish industry; the last is fairly recent as the nation turned its attention to the coast in response to the Stratton Commission Maritime Report during the early 1970’s. One of the largest contributions to my historical research into Connecticut’s shellfisheries comes from former industry participants themselves especially George McNeil son of one of the earliest New Haven Oyster Companies – The John P McNeil Oyster Company of City Point New Haven. Much of the early history comes from George McNeil in a series of meetings that started in 1972. The other John C. Hammond another oyster grower on Cape Cod, it was Mr. Hammond who suggested that I look very carefully at the 1880-1920 period for climate induced habitat change.

Presentation – Clean Water and Bottom Disturbance as Regulatory Policies and the Impacts of Climate and Energy Pathways upon Shellfish Populations

It is widely known that the shellfish industry in Connecticut was in fact what could be called the first marine environmental effort. I hesitate to say “movement” because the industry as a group had a stake or claim to the resource. It was after all the most water-dependent use— the need to have clean water and a healthy environment to grow and market a product (shellfish) that enjoyed widespread demand as food. In reviewing case history environmental law, I discovered that many of the first critical court cases about water quality were here in New Haven brought by several Connecticut oyster aquaculture businesses. One in particular, Lovejoy versus the City of Norwalk (which Norwalk won) was finally overturned by the Clean Water Restoration Act itself 1. That new law (1966) set aside the judgment of reasonable use of water bodies to receive wastewaters. Previously, the courts had ruled that such use was reasonable and was why in fact factories were built near water bodies. After the Clean Water Restoration Act in 1966, which really did not actually clean the water but rather established a time table upon which to treat effluents, wastewaters would need a treatment—primary, secondary and finally tertiary. The final third step tertiary I remember produced what was termed “slightly fit to drink wash water.” I never really understood what “slightly fit to drink” meant except that perhaps thirst had something to do with it. Truly clean water, especially marine near coastal waters, free of bacteria would arrive too late to save most of the oyster companies here. For 22 years, no oyster set was observed to survive in the Harbor itself 2. A combination of weather events and bacterial pollution would end most of the oyster companies in New Haven during the 1950s and 1960s. Clean water however was the largest issue impacting the shellfish industry – bacterial closures had removed much of the shallow near shore areas where growth (water temperature) was fastest. As temperatures cooled the growth of oysters slowed – some of the last companies sought bays and coves in other states which to grow “market oysters.”

But water pollution was not a new problem. George McNeil, one of the last original New Haven oyster growers, moved his business to Clinton where the water was cleaner and warmer. George McNeil provides a rare glimpse of the New Haven Harbor conditions at the turn of the century, that account is in another publication. His father, John P. McNeil, founded the McNeil Oyster Company on South Water Street. In fact, our Sound School cafeteria is located where the McNeil Oyster shop once stood. He told me of the pollution related to the war effort (1940s). Sometimes in the morning, copper sulfate tinged the harbor water a blue/green. Decades before following a typhoid and cholera (1916) outbreaks that were traced to the sale of “New Haven Oysters,” John McNeil tried in vain to save his market oysters, which actually were from Mumford and Quiambaug Coves not the Harbor. Sadly his oysters were burned by federal troops at the Railroad Station along with the others. As they watched the glow of the fire, which could be plainly be seen from City Point formerly called Oyster Point, his father went inside and died. His family blamed the fire for his father’s death, but George blamed the oyster companies who sold the tainted product causing sickness and the people who polluted the Harbor. They were the real criminals he once told me. Environmental issues, such as water quality quickly became very personal to the oyster growers. By the way, the McNeil family oyster grounds are near where IKEA is presently. Most of the McNeil oyster beds were filled by the completion of the interstate national highway we call route 95 today. Since the Clean Water Act – welcomed by those who grew food in coastal waters, chemical and toxic contamination of coastal waters has shown marked declines. The trace amounts of heavy metals in shellfish tissue continues to lessen. Today, we are making significant progress in reducing chemical discharges into coastal waters. Bacterial closures remains a problem and warmer waters which generally improves oyster sets and growth cultures bacteria and also fosters its growth.

Water Quality and Coastal Pollution -

Most of the 1966 Clean Water Act created a three-decade time period for the three steps outlined earlier which would have been 1997 for this highly treated, almost “fit to drink” effluent to occur. But in 1982, the EPA backed off this strict timetable and issued quite a number of 30-year exemption certificates or waivers3 to municipal waste water treatment plants. It is my understanding that these waivers are over in 2012, four years hence. There is some talk of providing an additional 10-year waiver to the 30-year waivers making it 2022 to fully implement the 1966 clean water requirement for a total of 54 years. This wastewater treatment schedule and permit process continues to be the source of frequent litigation. For bacteria there remains a permanent closure (tidal time failure) so often the creation of a plant does not improve bacterial levels – in fact pets and water fowl (ducks) complement bacterial contamination under the current ISSP regulations.

While much attention has surrounded the quality of treated wastewater, little has been done to address habitat concerns around shellfish populations in closed areas and how environmental degradation influenced shellfish industry practices. George McNeil used to say everything dumped in the water eventually “ended up on us.” His view was to eliminate the discharge altogether not just treat it. It has been difficult to connect a lessening water quality to shellfish habitat quality a huge concern to the shellfish industry 4. Although shellfishers and the shellfish industry have long claimed that shellfish were the estuarine “canaries in the coal mine,” public policies focused upon conservation and preservation and often resisted industrial intervention (practice), including enhancement or restoration, during a period of gross environmental habitat change. Enhancement is a broad term that describes increasing an existing resource while restoration, in my view, describes a resource that has been largely lost or destroyed. Although aquaculture is often a way to increase yields – it cannot be looked as a purely shellfish restoration ecological activity. Like farming people harvest, sell and consume shellfish as food – thus the economic activity benefits associated with it. It is however subject to human and natural environmental conditions much as terrestrial agriculture. In times of drought farmers seek to irrigate crops (work), while oyster growers may move oysters (work) several times to obtain the best grow out conditions called habitats. That is the foundation of bottom oyster aquaculture today.

Aquacultural intervention often requires organized work. The efforts surrounding the program to reestablish a native salmon run in the Connecticut River is a good example. The program will eventually succeed because of its focus upon habitat quality not habitat quantity; you can have lots of habitat, but the key is will it support diverse marine life. Habitat quality is directly influenced by climate temperature and energy pathways storms, waves and tidal surges, not as much as by “us.” The salmon situation is a case in point it has gotten hot again, perhaps too hot for salmon habitats. Often it is not the resource use that determines abundance. Salmon for example prefer colder habitats. It is largely climate and energy systems that determine salmon habitat quality – not us. This difference has left a gulf in renewable natural resource management which, over time, has placed a huge responsibility on the resource harvester, the resource user group but not the habitat’s ability to support the resource 5. The question is do we conserve the resource or intervene to increase it? Without habitat intervention a century ago, I doubt we would continue to have buffalo today. Today I think the most successful example of habitat intervention is the US Fish and Wildlife Service Hunter Duck Stamp Program. This debate is an old one, but history at least says a strong user group is often both a legal entity and spokesperson, or as the courts would say, “they have standing 6.”

My research often involves what I call environmental fisheries history. I look long term at the impacts of temperature and energy – waves and storms to increasing or decreasing habitat quality. This opposite to current management philosophy that places most of the habitat quality issues upon our impacts. Can we, representing the public trust, fully connect healthy habitats of “work” to shellfish production and shellfish populations; this is quite opposite current regulatory policies which often seek to set parameters/allowances for human associated negative impacts of work. TMDL, which is short for total maximum daily load, describes what regulatory limit a discharge is permitted or sanctioned. It is far easier to measure effluent chemical content than to describe the biological habitat impacts of the effluent. How do you compare discharges, many years later and compare them to habitat conditions governed largely by temperature and energy. The shift in focus from biological management/understanding to analytical regulatory methods has been costly 7.

Temperature and Climate Control Habitat Quality – (localized impacts may be significant)

Nitrogen is a great example of this situation. Even before the turn of the century, shellfishermen witnessed the impact of nitrogen enrichment as compost and at times manure from Dairy farms (1880s) in the luxurious growth of aquatic vegetation often with devastating consequences, especially with eelgrass which in cold periods was naturally nitrogen-limited 8. Increased street runoff deposited huge quantity of silt and leaves on seed oyster beds. This would become the largest nitrogen “bank” in estuaries. It would form black jelly like deposits which would suffocate oysters. The oyster growers noticed this and sought to control it with increased cultivation schedules 9. Chlorinated sewage effluent in the late 1960’s is thought to have eliminated smelt runs in several Connecticut towns and is toxic to many marine organisms including oysters and clams. Insufficient road and railroad causeways altered current and salinity profiles along Connecticut’s entire coast. Bacterial contamination from non-point sources and waterfowl closed thousands of acres of shellfishing areas. So it is very hard to isolate one factor and point to it as a direct link to resource decline except nitrogen. Here the impacts of temperatures and storms upon the nitrogen link is quite clear, cold stormy periods nitrogen and leaf compost was quickly flushed from coastal coves and bays. Nitrogen enrichment was not a concern then, storms simply washed it out and it was much colder. Cold water contains more oxygen naturally breaking down leaf deposits from trees. In fact several researchers termed Long Island Sound as nitrogen limited in the 1950s. The warmer periods tell quite different stories at the turn of the century very hot and few storms coastal regions soon had nitrogen excesses considering the environmental conditions – that was “natural.” Coves and shallow basins filled with leaf compost which rotted in the hot summer temperatures. At night these coastal areas smelled badly, (usually of a rotten egg sulphur odor) an unpleasant agricultural reminder of the last century. This is the period I mentioned earlier – the 1880-1920 period in which summers become brutally hot – many of Connecticut’s shores cottages where built at this time, much different from the brutally cold 1870s.

Here we have good historical reports of the impacts of such nutrient enrichment when great heat returned. shellfish beds with reduced tidal or harvest energy simply filled in, we have the records from the oyster industry for much of that factor. Rather than focus on individual factors, I look at fisheries statistics. What is the habitat history? What do the historical fisheries tell us and can we look to find specific habitat quality indicators.

In 1978-79, during the States Development of Coastal Zone Management policies the shellfish industry here pleaded with state officials to review and study several shellfish habitat associations. They (the shellfish industry) contended that healthy shellfish populations were good for other marine species and the environment in general. Their view at the time was coping with often severe habitat quality issues. Relaying or moving adult shellfish from waters not meeting NSSP bacterial guidelines to cleaner offshore waters for natural cleansing is a good example. To mitigate increased siltation on cultch (shells), shell bases would be periodically cleaned and turned especially after the New Haven breakwater construction. As bottom sediments became more acidic, they would cultivate them and add shell in order to raise the pH. By doing this cultivation, the industry had managed to survive and realized a modest revival by 1978.

Today, we produce more hard shell clams than historic levels, by a factor of 5 times or over 300,000 bushels. This is do to habitat management on leased hard clam beds requires cultivation or work. In this period of high heat and few storms hard clam sets have been weak, subject to shell erosion from acids and heavy predation. The clam industry had prepared, marine soils for clam sets - recruitment by the rotation/cultivation schedules they employ. The harvesting equipment also functions to replace a lost energy pathway and to account for increased temperatures generally deeper acres are cultivated today for hard clams. Some areas have been found to obtain enormous hard clam sets – so many they would perish naturally and these areas have now been seed clam producers similar to locations that obtain good oyster sets.

Habitat Quality and Bottom Disturbance—

A century ago, the shellfish industry, particularly for oysters, had once experienced remarkable production levels, but by 1970, it had declined 98% and qualified for federal resource disaster funding 10. The colder 1950s and 1960s had changed habitat profiles. In 1974-75 was the turning point as the Housatonic River started to produce huge quantities of seed oysters once silt was removed from its shell base. It was also starting to again “warm.” One of the concerns expressed 30 years ago during the Coastal Zone Management process was how the new emerging environmental agencies was going to treat them (the shellfish industry) about cleaning “silt.” After all, the industry had a history of success at maintaining and developing monocultures or shellfish beds but felt rather strongly that these shellfish beds were not detrimental to the environment but actually provided valuable habitat associations themselves. I believe the more up to date term today is “environmental services.” While the industry acknowledged its agricultural focus (food production) it desired recognition that it maintained a certain degree of habitat quality for the marine organisms. They wanted those habitat associations, which they helped create or at least now maintained, acknowledged and studied. They were,

1) The soft shell clam with the American eel and blue crab;
2) Seaweed (aquatic vegetation) with shellfish habitat loss – especially eelgrass and its habitat values which were largely perceived as negative (note its association as a weed);
3) The placing of oyster shell cultch and cultivation of seed oyster beds cleaning silt with both adult (spawning) and habitat for juvenile winter flounder, perhaps the largest man-made New England habitat creation event;
4) Offshore clam (hard) and oyster grow-out beds with a small lobsters and tautog (Black fish). The use of estuarine shell to enhance their habitats.

A fifth association was more about habitat enhancement and restoration, the aspect of bottom disturbance and cultivation, and pH modification of marine soils by adding calcium in the form of “blank shell” specific to the hard clam fishery. This pH impacts was first noticed in the oyster industry a century ago according to Mr. McNeil. After seed oysters set on shell was planted a good set of hard clams could be found underneath after oysters matured. A small but sometimes important quahog seed industry developed this way barrels of seed clams were often shipped to Cape Cod. At the time 1978-79, the industry lobbied for aquaculture/shellfish restoration as one of seven new special priorities for the State 11. Concurrently it asked that a marine resource user group or marine fisheries council be established. Shellfish restoration also was to be a top goal of the new coastal area management legislation (CAM planning report #27). Guidelines were to be developed for aquaculture and shellfish restoration balancing user group interests with regulatory concerns. The balance represented these guidelines with the new rights of all marine organisms under the proposed Connecticut Coastal Area Management Act. The impact of bottom disturbances such as silt removal served to overshadow the positive habitat associations of the “work” of the shellfish industry performed to manage shellfish habitats.

The Regulatory Climate — Bottom Disturbance, A Large Issue

It is hard to talk about the regulatory issues for the shellfish industry back in 1978 or even today without reviewing some of the basic tenants of the environmental climate in which the industry soon found itself. After decades of coping with declining water and habitat quality, and fighting a 1972 FDA embargo of Connecticut shellfish that would have closed the entire state to recreational and commercial shellfishing, for the first time, it suddenly was on the environmental defensive. It maintained monocultures; the industry harvested (used) the resource; it cultivated and modified subtidal habitats. Industry officials then had to argue positive bio diversity, a renewable natural resource shellfish management, and habitat disturbance in a climate of preservation and conservation with equal rights for all marine organisms and environmental policies that minimized habitat disturbance. It had to argue all three at once and felt its entire right to an existence was being challenged . . . and it was.

My experiences with silt and marine soils and the shellfish industry practices is to document modified or delayed positive or negative habitat quality impacts. I witnessed this Cape Cod in the early 1980’s. There, two types of hydraulic soft clam harvesting equipment were used in coastal salt ponds and coves 12. What I experienced certainly was not main stream scientific reporting but their use in my observations universally improved Mya (soft shell clam) growth and created less anoxic oxygen depleted soils (sediments) and these areas certainly contained more fish. I expected fish to flee from the finest silt that such equipment generated in the harvesting process but they did not. In fact, just the opposite was occurring, silver sides and sand shrimp arrived in huge numbers followed by many different species. It was as if the dinner bell had rung, and everyone was scrambling for a chair at the table! This was quite opposite the regulatory beliefs at the time which tended above all place bottom disturbance the most severe negative impacts. But when this belief is placed against habitat histories of climate and temperature it does not hold up, in fact over time the habitat renewal aspects of coastal energy is totally ignored. That is the environmental issue of our time – now do our practices influence habitat quality as compared to natural events. This is especially true with dredging which often moves an acid sulfur containing compost which in heat can form sulfuric acids described on Cape Cod a century ago. Although much has been reported about silt, it is localized and covers only small areas. A Northeaster for example can stir silt over hundreds of square miles in one event. Most organisms have over time developed a response to silt, they flee. Others can adjust to silt for brief periods.

It is important to note that anadromous fish return each spring to Connecticut during the spring when silt and suspended solid levels in the water column are at their highest levels not the lowest level. Additionally, we do not find large numbers of dead trout after an intense rainfall. After a severe southwest blow, when Long Island Sound virtually is brown, with suspended silt, we should have wheelbarrows of dead fish cast up upon the shore, but we do not see that. Sedimentation from run-off has certainly increased however; not only is it noticeable, but it is measurable. The resuspension of silt which occurs during large storm events does not make sense when one looks at our fishery history. The 1950s a stormy and flood prone era here in Connecticut with massive silt and bottom disturbances had bay scallop production soar, if this belief is correct the massive amount of bottom disturbance would have devastated coastal sea life. In fact quite the opposite occurred. We had habitats and species change. This appears as a natural process spanning hundreds to thousands of years.

Our over-reliance on silt, some would say regulatory obsession with silt, precludes what actually occurs. Silt is a natural occurrence and can ruin trout and salmon habitats until a flood, at which time, huge quantities of it are washed downstream. New gravel and sandbars are the formed in its wake. Trout habitat is created again, perhaps in different areas but new currents washed silt from existing habitats preparing new habitat of a suitable quality to hatch eggs. That was natural; what was unnatural was to have a flood every three days. Storm water run off is a huge problem much more serious than energy or nitrogen long term. The same process happens in the marine environment; silt is deposited over marine soils until a hurricane occurs, and the soil is washed free of it and organics. As with a flood, the suspended solid loads were tremendous, and habitats changed or, in the case of shellfish quality, were renewed. I am doing some research on this process for the soft shell clam Mya, the “steamers” that so many people enjoy. Mya appears to thrive best historically in “disturbed bottoms” after severe coastal storms 13. Therefore, a best practice to enhance Mya might include a process that mimics this soil washing condition. Well that’s precisely what the hydraulic clammers discovered here in Connecticut after 1958—you can cultivate and modify marine soils and enhance growth/sets of Mercenaria—the hard shell clam quahog 14. I mentioned earlier that we produce many times the historical catch of quahogs, and this cultivation is why. With the soft shell clam the soil aspect of cultivation is observed to be much quicker. At the turn of the century after each severe coastal storm soft shell clam sets soared (1903-1905 summer gales). (It is in this 1880-1920 period a time of very warm summer temperatures and few storms soft shell clam production was often at record levels – so was pollution).

It also is important to recognize the gulf that separated these early CAM industry discussions of resource use, which included habitat modification, creation and restoration. One particular tense session included a discussion of eelgrass and leaves which many shellfish producers had spent decades fighting. Eelgrass living over dead leaves with nitrogen now abundant and not limited, had spread far beyond its heritage or historical habitat niche in the 1970s. In fact, eelgrass has become extremely abundant, so much so a federal study used dynamite to blow it up in Niantic Bay 15! For shellfish growers, eelgrass was the weed in the vegetable garden in many coastal coves and salt ponds 16. Studies are underway today to determine if eelgrass responds to nitrogen enrichment. It does; shellfishermen knew that a century ago. When the eelgrass blight occurred in the 1930’s, scallop fishermen cheered and catches of bay scallops on Cape Cod, Rhode Island and here in Connecticut soared 17. The Poquonnock River in Groton had euthophied with eelgrass growth in 1880’s (manure) and is extensively written up in US Fish Commission Reports 18. In my last conversation with Nelson Marshall, a famous bay scallop researcher and marine biologist, he was backing away from a direct eelgrass/bay scallop association, believing that other red algae species were more valuable but that eelgrass appeared to be important perhaps because it had so dominated the habitat that scallops had no other place to set during that habitat time19. Please, I do not want anyone to say that eelgrass is not important; it is at times. I am saying its habitat history over time is one that includes direct historical references that shellfisheries considered it the “dandelion in the strawberry patch.” I refer to one report of eelgrass abundance on Cape Cod in which the shellfishing industry participant quoted: “Most clams are found fairly close to shore in areas where there is little or no eelgrass 20.” I find many references to the presence of eel fisheries mostly by spearing in eelgrass. That habitat association may be more valid, than to shellfish and winter flounder. In fact when one looks at the long term fisheries landing history, energy and temperature plays a much greater role in habitat quality than nitrogen or capture fisheries. The long term habitat implications for eelgrass remain unclear, the largest increase of it occurs after a colder and storm filled periods it dies off after long periods of heat which appears to be natural.

Early on in the development of Connecticut’s coastal policies, as evidenced by regulation a focus was placed upon minimizing impact (disturbance) to estuarine bottoms. This certainly was at odds with the shellfish industry, which had long established practices that maximized bottom disturbance. Even the very act of harvesting shellfish disturbed the bottom. A second yet equally as strong emphasis included habitat and marine organism’s protection. All marine organisms had rights under the 1978-79 discussions. It was easy to see how initial meetings were strained to say the least. One memorable moment included a long discussion regarding the rights of marine worms at high tide compared to those at low tide and dug up for Striped Bass bait.

Looking back, the educating or at least understanding moment was lost over the impact of shellfish gear to marine worms. It was certain that marine worms were killed by the shellfish cultivation and harvesting gear or were exposed to predators. We have numerous reports of recreational winter flounder fishermen moving in or fishing close to oyster and clam boats as these activities attracted winter flounder. In the 1950s, winter flounder were no doubt attracted by the “chum.” I do not think anyone at the CAM meetings thought that a hydraulic clam dredge was sand worm friendly. The industry could not guarantee that sand worms were not killed, but what about the fact that they were a popular bait species? It was okay to use them as striper bait (death resulting), but it was not okay to kill them while harvesting clams? Imagine how a University of Connecticut master gardener would feel if challenged on the right to cultivate soil, pull the weeds and account for any missing earth worms? It was a key point in time and demonstrated how the regulatory climate would evolve with this established user group. They, the shellfish industry wanted those habitat associations studied and more importantly, a seat at the natural resource management table. To them, it was if someone had suddenly said you no longer could mow your lawn or rake the leaves, and we want to talk to you about the crickets. Talks then did not go that well. I recall one tense exchange of comparing marine worms and earthworms in regards to the construction of Route 95 (earth worms did not share the same rights as marine worms). The regulatory climate had turned chilly; it was a lost opportunity for the industry, the shellfish consumer and the state’s economy in general.

A Test Case: The Soft Shell Clam Dilemma, Habitat Quality, Water Quality and a New Regulatory Balance —

A recent article about shellfish closures in Maine due to poor water quality (bacterial counts) mentions that 29 million in landings are lost each year, lost to the shellfish industry and to consumers. These were shellfish populations in closed shellfish waters that just perished for lack of harvesting. In Connecticut, I estimate that this loss in soft shell clams alone could easily top 25 to 50 million each year. This figure does not include oysters and clams in prohibited areas unsuitable for clean water relays or those populations too small or isolated for transplanting. Almost all of Connecticut’s near shore and river soft shell clam habitats are now in waters closed to direct shellfishing. About 90% of the states very productive area for soft shell clams are “closed” to harvesting. I surveyed soft shell clam beds off Ledyard and Montville in the Thames River that encompassed hundreds of acres in the middle 1980s. The amount of soft shell clam resource is huge and consider that New Haven’s soft shell clam production was estimated between 50,000 to 100,000 bushels/year.

In fact, most of Connecticut soft shell clams are sub-tidal in 2 to 12 feet of water. The historical CT production of 100,000 bushels in the 1880’s was from public beds only 1 to 2 percent of the available habitat, that which was tidal and suitable for hand digging 22. I am presently conducting some historical research on soft shell clam habitat creation. In this project, I am focusing upon three case histories between 1898 and 1910 23. This time period was chosen because of a rare November hurricane commonly referred as “the Portland Gale.” It was a very powerful storm that devastated shipping interests and sunk the City of Portland Steamship. After the storm, thousands of acres of new soft shell clam producing habitat were created in New England, including in Town of Clinton, CT 24. It was during this period that Guilford, Connecticut was a large soft shell clam producer with Norwalk the leading soft shell clam producing community. Habitats had changed with the hotter climate in New England softshells and blue crabs greatly increased during this period into Southern Massachusetts.

The last commercial Connecticut landings of soft shell clams were 500 bushels in 1950. The clams did not leave; it was just the water quality declined below that of legal direct harvesting. Since 1950, I estimate 2.9 millions of bushels of soft shell clams have been lost from the tidal areas, the loss of sub-tidal areas were more much of the suitable habitat acres exist sub-tidal area and is in the tens of millions of bushels. The cooler 1950s and 1960s soft shells retreated into bays and coves but since 1974 soft shell sets have become intense and widespread in response to warmer waters. Therefore, the sub-tidal economic loss estimates are far greater today; an estimated standing crop of 3.8 million bushels of soft shell clams which a potential 10% or 380,000 bushels could be harvested each year from sub-tidal areas are now lost to the industry and consumers. Connecticut has far larger sub-tidal soft shell clams than anyone really suspected. One trial in Niantic Bay (1980’s) uncovered more than 30 bushels in a one hour test below the low tide line. To calculate what this yearly loss means to Connecticut’s economy or “new dollars,” I took the pound equivalent, 60 pounds or about 23 million harvested pounds at the wholesale price of $2.00 per pound (includes the cost of shore side depuration plant similar to Massachusetts) for a $45 million landing value. The seafood industry has a high economic multiplier (3.0) so the enhanced impact is over $140 million to Connecticut’s economy each year. When I calculated a decade loss or more, the numbers became truly staggering! The soft shell clams have been so intense on the flats bordering Long Wharf (2004 set 100 inch clams to the square foot) that they push each other out as they compete for space. The Long Wharf flats are now covered in such dead shells and at low tide appear to have white paint on them. Those are the dead soft shell clam shells that have been bleached by sunlight. To utilize this resource now would require bacterial pasteurization – a process now used in many countries and Massachusetts since 1928. Similar to milk pasteurization it requires a facility in which to reduce bacteria to levels acceptable for consumers.

But could shellfishermen harvest soft shell clams from huge sub tidal populations, say in the Thames and Mystic Rivers with today’s regulatory climate? To do so would require extensive water quality testing, comprehensive habitat quality studies (maps) and a new regulatory look at how bottom disturbance may enhance soft shell clam growth and production 25. Above all, it would require the use of hydraulic harvesters, both hand held and hand pushed, and small boat mechanical hydraulic lift dredges. I am afraid marine worms would be lost to hungry fishes. It would certainly generate those 1978 CAM priority use guidelines as the habitat studies unfolded. That would require comprehensive review by all stakeholders. I am cautiously optimistic on how this opportunity would be received by regulatory agencies, so I am keeping an open mind. For $140 million economic benefit we could do the modest 1978 habitat studies, but in order for that to occur, we need a new and different regulatory climate—a “what is possible” approach rather than a “what is not.” We need to explore and fully explain to the citizens of Connecticut what has been lost in the closed shellfish areas by not utilizing a practice Massachusetts has used since 1928 – shellfish pasteurization. This would require shellfish regulators to work closely with local shellfish commissions to determine the extent of the resource and develop harvest/management plans. It would take a new regulatory “climate.”

Presently, I am looking at some recent examples of this new regulatory climate in Maine and Rhode Island 26. In these states, multi-agency collaboration exists to promote and enhance shellfish production. If only one thing is reported as a result of my presentation tonight, I hope it would be this. Shellfish resources are a valuable asset to our state's economy. Let’s use them wisely in a new open and honest atmosphere, with all the stakeholders involved. The public needs to be told the truth about the resource that has been “lost” in the closed shellfish areas. Only by doing so can we put the last thirty years behind us; I for one, look forward to such a moment in history, and the opportunities it would bring.

Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions or comments you may have.

Tim Visel
Tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us

Rhode Island
Aquaculture Initiative

Peer Review and Decision Process for Aquaculture Proposals

Purpose

The RI Aquaculture Initiative received a $1.42 million grant from NOAA to be dedicated to the promotion, development, and enhancement of Rhode Island’s aquaculture industry and related activities. With this funding, the initiative will underwrite projects in extension, communications, technology demonstrations, capacity building, and competitively funded research. Funding will be dedicated to applied, industry-relevant competitive research on the following topics of critical interest and value to Rhode Island aquaculture:

o Innovative methods to decrease user conflicts (present and future);
o Improvements to comprehensive ocean mapping for aquaculture;
o Alternative species for RI aquaculture (marine and freshwater fish, seaweeds, new shellfish species);
o Novel approaches to shellfish aquaculture development of RI (e.g. predator protection, new equipment designs, etc.);
o Innovative research on shellfish diseases/monitoring/surveys;
o Comprehensive evaluation of economic impacts of aquaculture on RI economy;
o Comprehensive evaluation of environmental impacts of aquaculture on RI environments;
o Innovative marketing research/product differentiation.

Peer Review

The Rhode Island Aquaculture Initiative applied research program is utilizing peer review as the foundation for evaluating research proposals. We received many excellent proposals, far exceeding our funding capacity. Proposed research should be well designed, scientifically valid, and competitive with ongoing research in the pertinent scientific fields.

The RI Aquaculture Initiative will provide the opportunity for PIs to read and respond to the (anonymous) reviews prior to an Executive Committee making final response to all the reviews not to exceed two pages, single-spaced. Responses to the peer reviews should be considered optional.

The RI Aquaculture Initiative Executive Committee will meet in early October to evaluate the proposals, their peer reviews, and any responses to the peer reviews. The Executive Committee will conduct final ranking of proposals, based on peer review comments and criticisms, and agree on which will be funded, given available funds. Written notification of research proposal funding decisions will be issued to the proposes by October 31, 2002.

References and Accounts of Records

1 Lovejoy v. Norwalk 112C 199 (1930) – The right of riparian owners to drain harmful refuse of the land into the sea – upheld.

2 George McNeil, Personal Communication July 1988 – waste incident to the war and sewage moved oyster business to Clinton and east to coves having cleaner waters – oysters shipped out of New Haven but grown elsewhere.

3 The New York Times Monday September 13, 1982. “Cut In Treatment of Sewage Backed by Administration E.P.A. Is Encouraging Localities to Reduce Treatment of Sewage.”

4 Discussions Regarding Coastal Area Management Act – Planning Report #27 Shellfish Industry concerns Sept 1978, CT DEP publication (Chapter 444 Coastal Management Habitat Values Section 2-A Alteration of Flats may outweigh the long term benefit). Summary of discussions written for Adam Whelchel, The Nature Conservancy, New Haven, CT (date).

5 “A Theoretical Evaluation of Shellfish Resource Management” – Steven Malinowski and Robert B. Whitlatch Journal of Shellfish Research Vol. 7, No. #1 Pg. 95-100 (1988).

6 See Majority Opinion State of Connecticut v. Nash 62C 47 (1892) Court Ruled in favor of natural growth oystermen – established resource user group could have standing in courts.

7 An Economic Analysis of The Long Island Sound Oyster Industry, W. Davis Folsin, Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation University of Connecticut, 1979 pg. 34.

8 Written Communication J.C. Hammond to Robert Wallace – December 31, 1978, High Oyster mortalities from Nitrogen pollution Sea Lettuce and reference to Duck Farms on Long Island Great South Bay – 1960’s.

9 Oysterman Fights for Clinton Crop – The Clinton Recorder – Thursday, April 23, 1953 page 1, reference of increased sedimentation (leaves and sticks) (George McNeil). See also nitrogen sources of reduced leaf deposits.

10 “The Influence of Regulatory Policies on the Production and Marketing on the Production of Long Island Sound Oysters” Madelyn Huffmire, Larry Frankel, University of Connecticut School of Business (UCONN Sea Grant proposal document) March 1982.

11 Coastal Area Management Act Planning Document #27 page 11, special priority area. Shellfish Area Aquaculture – Restoration Area of Particular Concern – Shellfish Areas – Suggested Priority Use – Aquaculture Restoration. (If designated priority use guidelines would be identified). (These guidelines still have not been identified, some 3 decades later).

12 “A New Hydraulic Rake for Soft Shell Clams” – JC Medof and J.S. MacPhail. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Biological Station St Andrews N.B.

13 HRI Review April 21, 2008 – Soft Shell Clam Habitat Creation and Associated Population Expansion following Significant Marine Soil Cultivation/Disturbances LIS/EPA HRI Sub-Committee on Shellfish guidelines. A Review of Three Case Histories following the Gale of 1898 – work in progress – Tim Visel.

14 The Frank Dolan History of the Connecticut Hydraulic Hard Shell Clam Fishery – Personal account. The Cultivation of Marine Soils – Tim Visel Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program 1988 reprinted in 2006 - The Sound School.

15 Environmental Assessment of the Use of Explosives for Selective Removal of Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) Michael Ludwig N. M. F. S. NOAA Milford CT 06460 – 1975, 6 pages. (See negative eelgrass impacts on Cape Cod).

16 Hydraulic Harvesting of Soft Shell Clams – A Report of the First 6 Months – Galon Barlow, Diane Flynn, Christina LaHoon, Richard Lahoon, Bourne Sandwich Shellfish Association Inc., March 1981 – 14 pages.

17 Fishery Statistics of the United States 1949 – Also see CT landings Blake Et AL 1985 DEP Marine Fisheries of Connecticut – Bay Scallops.

18 J. W. Collins in his 1889 Notes on the Oyster Fishery of Connecticut mentions the negative impacts of “stagnant water.” He states, (Poquonnock River) the current is choked by eelgrass, and during hot weather it sometimes becomes peculiarly offensive and causes the death of the oysters within the limits of the stagnant water (United States Fish Commission, Vol. 9, 1889; GPO 1891).

19 Personal Communication Nelson Marshall 1992 – Concerns about historical habitat niche of eelgrass – association with hard sand environments and available nitrogen. Structures as habitat services.

20 Cape Cod Village Advertiser, February 3, 1983, pg 23 letter to the editor “Hydraulic Harvesting Help Not Hindrance” by John Nawoichik.

21 “Coastal Pollution Costs 29 million in Lost Revenue” Working Waterfront, Inter Island News, March 2008, page 7.

22 George Goode - US Fish Commission – “The Soft Shell Clam Fisheries” Section V Volume II GPO Washington 1887 Norwalk is State of CT Leader at 7,000 bushels pg. 589-590 estimates CT production at 75,000 or more. (Public grounds more productive, see George McNeil estimate New Haven alone 50,000 bushels).

23 The Shoreline Times – March 8, 1906 “Successful Clam Culture – A Constantly Growing Commercial Pursuit.” Huge set of clams in Clinton Harbor following summer gales.

24 The Clinton Recorder – January 23, 1903 “To Propagate Shellfish.” Huge set of soft shells following the Portland gale – Clinton Harbor.

25 “Management For Increasing Clam Abundance” Clyde L. Mackenzie Jr. Marine Fisheries Review October 1979 – Pg 10-22, pg 13, 15, 16.

26 The Rhode Island Aquaculture Initiative – one page fact sheet.
The RI Aquaculture Initiative received a $1.42 million grant from NOAA to be dedicated to the promotion, development, and enhancement of Rhode Island’s aquaculture industry and related activities. With this funding, the initiative will underwrite projects in extension, communications, technology demonstrations, capacity building, and competitively funded research. Funding will be dedicated to applied, industry-relevant competitive research on the following topics of critical interest and value to Rhode Island Aquaculture.

Bottom Disturbance and Increased Oyster Sets
February 2015 Update

Note:

The concept of “cultivation” refers to some type of bottom disturbance such as cultivators – older terms for farm (terrestrial) implements. This historical reports mention is “cultivation” to include such mechanical disturbance, towed iron frames, with or without cotton mops. In the New Haven area over seed oyster setting beds this practice was also termed “stirring.” By 1905 the practice of stirring mechanically turning planted or natural shells on “seed beds” became common practice. Those private areas that were “stirred” obtained much higher spat falls (sets) than those just left “natural” such as on the states natural beds (1889).

This practice was in time to deeply divide those who seed oystered on the natural beds “natural growthers” and those that cultivated (planted) private grounds. This conflict would lead to the redesignation of natural beds in New Haven in 1915. The concept and justification for this practice is discussed in the State of Connecticut Biennial Report of the Shellfish Commissioners for the years ended September 30, 1909 and September 30, 1910, on page 19 under the section titled The Set.

“The set has been poor and uneven in both the past years. Some planters have secured good sets where their adjoining neighbors have had little or nothing, and the general report has been of grounds shelled for a set at considerable expense for which no adequate return has been received. On the natural beds the set has been a practical failure and the question whether the possibilities of future sets on the great natural oyster beds are not gradually disappearing is a serious one. It is not impossible that some form of cultivation such as is practiced by the planters might improve the chances but the workers are adverse to allowing any such experiments being suspicious of ulterior purposes on the part of those willing to make them for the public good.”

And the impact of “disturbance” increasing sets is often found in the oyster historical literature. In 1887 US Fish Commission Report of the Massachusetts Fall River District (pg 279) it talks about large areas of oyster culture in the Tauton River (that once was rumored to be capable of producing as many seed oysters as the entire Coast of Connecticut).

In Southern New England colder spring temperatures would delay oyster sets sometimes until the fall, one as late as November. (See Loosanoff studies in the 1950s). In culture operations stirring or scratching up shell exposed shell surfaces that were buried in acidic muck and formed the shell base. These shells as Clyde Mackenzie demonstrated in a 1970 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries bulletin were acid washed and therefore “clean” and suitable for spatfalls. Oyster growers therefore by accident could expose such long buried shells for spatfalls and this Tauton River example describes such an event in the 1880s (pg 279).

“The ground is cleaned up pretty thoroughly by the time the 1st of June is reached, and in the fall little raking is done, it being considered poor policy. A well known lessee on the Freetown shore, however, thinking, at the expiration of his lease a few years ago, that he would be unable to renew it, resolved selfishly to dredge his whole land in the autumn, leaving as barren a ground as possible for this successor – a proceeding quite characteristics of the locality. He did so, but succeeded in renewing his lease, and returned to his raking the ensuing spring rather ruefully, expecting to find little or nothing. To his astonishment, he picked off an area that had usually yielded him 6,000 to 7,000 bushels no less than 12,000. Therefore he concluded that the thorough scraping had done the bottom good, though where he got the spawn at the late day is a mystery. This small seed, less than a year old and about the size of our thumb-nail is widely distributed, going to beds on Cape Cod, in Buzzard’s Bay, along the southern shore, and in all parts of the Narragansett. It is highly esteemed on account of its hardiness. Wonderful stories are told of the cold and heat, drought and exposure, water too salt and water too fresh, which it has survived and prospered under. There is no difficulty about selling to planters all that can be raised, and the present high prices are due to the rivalry which has been brought about between buyers. The vessels which come to carry it away are small sloops and schooners of 30 or 40 tons, which carry from 300 to 1,000 bushels. None, I think, is sent anywhere by rail. Starfishes nowadays are few in Taunton River; but the borers (Urosalpinx cincreus) are growing more and more numerous and troublesome.”