HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Shellfish Management Plan_201401201310027580
Nantucket Shellfish
Management Plan
OCTOBER 2012
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page i
This Shellfish Plan was developed by the Nantucket Shellfish Management Plan Committee:
Matthew Herr (Chair), Nantucket Fisherman
Frank Dutra (Vice Chair), Nantucket Shellfish Association
Tara Riley (Secretary), Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
Sarah Oktay, University of Massachusetts Boston Field Station
Peter Boyce, Maria Mitchell Association, Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Doug Smith, Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Carl Sjolund, Nantucket Shellfish Association
Jake Kritzer, Environmental Defense Fund
Cormac Collier, Nantucket Land Council
Dave Fronzuto, Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
With Assistance from:
Kristin Uiterwyk, Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston
Jack Wiggin, Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston
Dale Leavitt, Department of Biology and Marine Biology, Roger Williams University
Steve Bliven, Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston
Allison Novelly, Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston
Dan Hellin, Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston
Cover Images (left to right): Bay scallops being grown out at the Brant Point facility; Bay scallop boat tied
up at the dock; Sign outside the Summer Shack restaurant in Hingham, MA
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Management Plan was produced with support from the Nantucket Shellfish Association, the Nancy
Sayles Day Foundation, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nantucket Land Council, and the Town of
Nantucket.
Many Nantucket shellfishermen and wholesalers participated in interviews during the development of
this Shellfish Management Plan. We are grateful for their time and candidness.
We would also like to express our gratitude to Whiting "Whitey" Willauer for his thoughtful
contributions, unflagging enthusiasm, and support for the planning process.
Lastly, we also thank the outside reviewers who provided insightful feedback on the first draft of this
Plan: Carl LoBue, Senior Marine Scientist, The Nature Conservancy; Stephen Tettelbach, PhD, Professor,
Long Island University; Kenneth J. La Valley, PhD, Associate Director, NH Sea Grant.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
Section 2: Purpose, Scope, Planning Process, and Larger Context ............................................................... 6
Section 3: General Characterization of Nantucket and its Shellfishing Resources ....................................... 9
Section 4: Characterization of the Harbors’ Environments and Habitats ................................................... 11
Section 5: Description of the Resources Harvested and their Habitats ...................................................... 25
Section 6: History and description of Nantucket shellfishing ..................................................................... 34
Section 7: Aquaculture, Propagation, and Seed Management Activities on Nantucket ............................ 54
Section 8: Other Marine Resource Uses ..................................................................................................... 65
Section 9: Other Programs Related to Shellfish Management on Nantucket ............................................ 69
Section 10: Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 77
Section 11: Adaptation of the Shellfish Management Plan ...................................................................... 108
Section 12: Research Plan ......................................................................................................................... 110
Appendix A: Matrix of Recommendations ............................................................................................... 125
Appendix B: Resources .............................................................................................................................. 155
Appendix C: List of Committee Members ................................................................................................. 160
Appendix D: List of Committee and Public Meetings .............................................................................. 161
Appendix E: List of recommendations considered but not included in this Plan ..................................... 162
Appendix F: Examples of Traffic Light Control Rules in Data‐Poor Fisheries ............................................ 166
Appendix G: Considerations for Developing a Marketing Collaborative .................................................. 172
Appendix H: Seafood Branding and Marketing Initiatives ........................................................................ 177
Appendix I: Memo of harvesting criteria ................................................................................................ 185
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nantucket’s shellfisheries are significant both locally and nationally. Locally, commercial and
recreational shellfishing are critical to the Island’s history, culture, and economy. Nationally, the Island’s
largest commercial shellfishery— the Nantucket bay scallop fishery—is one of the last wild‐harvest bay
scallop fisheries in the country, but there is growing concern over the health of the overall population
and the sustainability of the fishery. Given the importance of the shellfisheries on Nantucket and the
drastic decline of bay scallop populations elsewhere along the Atlantic coast, there is a compelling
interest in ensuring that the Town’s shellfish are managed to sustain both the shellfishing industry and
the resources.
This is the first official management plan for commercially and recreationally harvested shellfish in
Nantucket waters. The Plan addresses bay scallops, quahogs, oysters, mussels, soft‐shell clams, and
conchs.
A Shellfish Management Plan Committee, consisting of researchers, managers, and fishermen, met
regularly for more than a year to discuss issues, research, management strategies, and
recommendations. They focused on ensuring that this Plan would be developed by and for
stakeholders, with specific attention paid to (1) the biology of the shellfish resources, (2) the
interactions within the surrounding ecosystem, (3) the needs and interests of the shellfishing industry,
and (4) the cultural and economic attributes of the Island. Together the Committee identified the
following goals for this Plan:
The shellfish resources of Nantucket should be managed to support a viable and continuing shellfishery
for both economic and traditional purposes by:
Maintaining or improving the habitat associated with a healthy shellfish fishery, and
Maintaining or enhancing the populations and health of scallops, quahogs, soft shell clams,
mussels, conchs, and any other shellfish of commercial and/or recreational importance in
Nantucket waters.
The breadth of this Plan is reflective of the variety of issues affecting the resources and, as a first
iteration of a living document, the Plan is designed to (1) provide a solid foundation of background
information relevant to shellfish management on Nantucket, (2) provide a means for updating and
adapting its content on both an as‐needed and a regular, three‐year basis, and (3) capture a broad range
of issues and consider a wide range of needs and possibilities.
Sections 1–9 of the Plan provide background information about Nantucket’s marine habitat, shellfish,
and the fisheries they support. Section 10 contains goals, objectives, and recommendations for
improved management. Section 11 describes the process to adapt the Plan as needed. Section 12
outlines a Research Plan to support better management. When taken together, Sections 10–12
comprise the actions to be taken to achieve the Plan’s goals for the shellfisheries.
The goals, objectives, and recommendations contained in this Plan are numerous and diverse, covering
topics such as habitat management, shellfish resources, regulations, management implementation,
education, harvest documentation, support of the commercial fishery, and plan adaptation.
Accompanying each recommendation is a list of organizations charged with implementing the
recommendation, along with a lead organization. Examples of some of the goals found in this Plan
include:
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 2
Maintain and improve the habitat associated with sustainable commercial and recreational
shellfish fisheries
Conduct predator management activities
Ensure adaptive management of shellfish resources
Increase public education/outreach efforts to create a better understanding of how human
activities affect important shellfish resources
Given the significant need for more scientific information about the Island’s shellfish resources and
associated habitats and fisheries, the Plan’s management and research recommendations are
comprehensive and long‐term. As was done with the Nantucket Harbors Action Plan, the committee
charged with implementation of the Shellfish Management Plan will prioritize the actions based on
importance, available resources, feasibility, and other criteria as deemed appropriate. (Preliminary
prioritization was conducted by members of the Shellfish Management Plan Committee and is noted in
Appendix A). The implementation committee should also give thought as to how they will evaluate the
progress of implementation for each recommendation. The matrix of recommendations in Appendix A
is designed to help the Implementation Committee refine the list of priority actions and track the status
of implementation.
Readers will note that many of the recommendations in Section 10 also appear in the Research Plan
(Section 12). The Research Plan provides context for the research‐related recommendations, articulates
the management implications of the research, identifies opportunities for fishermen to participate in
research activities, and promotes collaboration and data sharing among research both off and on‐Island.
Some examples of research topics to be addressed include:
Understanding and reducing nutrient inputs from anthropogenic sources, both in Nantucket
waters and in Nantucket Sound
Obtaining data about the growth rates and movement of conchs to inform harvesting guidelines
Conducting stock assessments to define the resource available for harvest in any given year
Investigating the relationship between bay scallop spat recruitment and post‐set spat survival as
it relates to harvestable populations
Conducting studies on the impacts of propagation and seed management activities in order to
guide future efforts
Understanding the causes and impacts of eelgrass stress/loss in order to reduce those stressors
effectively
Monitoring and predicting the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification to clarify ways
to minimize impacts to the resources and the fisheries
Evaluating the economics of shellfishing to Nantucket in order to identify ways to maximize
financial benefits and to understand the overall significance to the Nantucket economy
Understanding the spawning cycle of nub scallops and their significance to the overall bay
scallop population
Utilizing research findings to educate fishermen and the general public about human impacts on
the shellfish resources and to guide future research efforts
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 3
As new information becomes available and/or conditions change, some recommendations and research
topics will need to be modified or eliminated, and others may need to be added. The Plan addresses
this reality and outlines strategies both for a three‐year updating process and an as‐needed updating
process. Through the public process of modifications to management, the intent is to ensure the
advancement of measures to achieve a sustainable shellfishery in light of changing conditions.
Implementing the Shellfish Management Plan will require the time and dedication of people and
organizations as well as financial resources. While some action items can be advanced through the
dedication of time and energy (e.g., the meetings of the Shellfish Management Plan Implementation
Committee and the Research Collaborative), other recommendations will rely on funding and in‐kind
contributions (e.g., enhancement of propagation and management activities conducted by the Marine
and Coastal Resources Department). Stakeholders should work together to identify and pursue funding
opportunities to carry forward the priority recommendations of this Plan.
Note to Readers: Please refer to the Amendments of this plan for any changes made subsequent to its
initial publication on October 23, 2012. Changes will not be made to the original document.
Shellfish Management Plan, April 2012 Page 4
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Located approximately 30 miles from the south coast of Cape Cod, Nantucket has a long history of
harvesting shellfish for human consumption and for bait. Over the years, fishermen have seen many
changes in species abundance and habitat conditions. Some fishermen claim that eelgrass used to be
incredibly thick and as high as a man’s chest in certain places; and that bay scallops were so plentiful in
the mid‐1900s that you had no way to avoid stepping on them when you entered the water. Today, in
comparison, bay scallop populations fluctuate and are not nearly as abundant, and eelgrass beds are
patchy.
Despite these changes, Nantucket’s shellfish fisheries continue today. As a highly seasonal economy
with few sources of year‐round employment, shellfish provide a way for residents to diversify and
supplement their income. The bay scallop fishery, in particular, is locally important. It is not only the
Island’s highest value fishery, but it is also important because it is a winter fishery and provides income
when the summer economy has subsided.
Furthermore, the bay scallop fishery is nationally, as well as locally, significant. Bay scallops were once
abundant in coastal waters of the eastern United States from North Carolina to Maine. Today, most
populations have been severely depleted, if not extirpated outright. As a result, bay scallop fisheries in
most other locales are gone as well, or at best emerge briefly when the few remaining spawners
produce a fortuitous set. Nantucket’s bay scallop fishery, on the other hand, is a predictable and
productive component of the Island economy, albeit less predictable and productive than it once was.
The ghosts of those other fisheries should not escape our attention. Indeed, the causes of the decline of
other fisheries could very well come to haunt Nantucket if the community is not attentive and diligent.
Nantucket is fortunate in its offshore location, more distant from the terrestrial impacts that have
affected other coastal waters. Population density and development have been lower, and slower to
increase, on Nantucket than in most other coastal areas. But the threats of shoreside contaminants as
well as environmental changes such as climate change and invasive species continue to grow in
Nantucket waters, risking the future of bay scallops as well as mussels, clams, oysters and other
shellfish. Although people continue to make a living harvesting shellfish from Nantucket waters, many
do so with concern for the future of the resources and the habitats that support them. This Shellfish
Management Plan provides an historical description of shellfishing on Nantucket, addresses some of the
existing pressures on shellfish resources and their habitats, outlines a strategy to fill data gaps that will
potentially affect management decisions, and makes recommendations to promote sustainable
commercial and recreational shellfisheries on Nantucket, now and into the future. For the purposes of
this Plan, “sustainable” refers to (1) maintaining a viable fishery for (at a minimum) the current number
of people actively harvesting shellfish; and (2) maintaining/improving habitats and other factors that
lead to a healthy shellfish population.
In order to most effectively address the needs of the fishery and preserve our local and national
heritage, the Shellfish Management Plan aims to meet three guiding principles, namely management
that is:
Community‐based, involving decision‐making by, addressing the needs of, and spreading
responsibility among as many local stakeholders as possible.
Ecosystem‐based, accounting for the interconnectedness of multiple physical, chemical and
biological factors, and addressing all relevant impacts alongside harvest.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 5
Adaptive, designed to learn from the outcomes of previous management actions and to respond
and evolve quickly and purposefully.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 6
SECTION 2: PURPOSE, SCOPE, PLANNING
PROCESS, AND LARGER CONTEXT
Nantucket initiated this shellfish management planning process as part of its efforts to implement the
2009 Nantucket and Madaket Harbors Action Plan, which recommended (in Section 3.7, objective one,
recommendation one) that the Town, “Develop and implement a shellfish management plan … to
protect and enhance the island’s shellfish resources, employing either community‐based management
or co‐management” (Harbors Plan Recommendations, 2009). This idea of community‐based
management is found throughout the Shellfish Management Plan (the “Plan”), as is the idea that this
Plan be able to adapt to changing conditions within the shellfisheries.
While this is the Island’s first “official” Shellfish Management Plan, the idea of shellfish management is
not new to Nantucket. Over the past several decades, many have worked to restore, protect, study,
and/or enhance shellfish resources, shellfish habitats, and the recreational and commercial traditions of
shellfishing. This Plan draws upon past and ongoing efforts and creates a coordinated approach to
management whereby select existing management practices are formalized; new management options
are identified; an approach for conducting research to fill in knowledge gaps is articulated; and
implementation methods are outlined.
This planning process was guided by a dedicated committee consisting of fishermen, scientists, and
resource managers. The committee met regularly from October 2010 through July 2012. Members
included: Matthew Herr (Chair, Fisherman); Tara Riley (Secretary, Department of Marine and Coastal
Resources); Frank Dutra (Vice Chair, Nantucket Shellfish Association); Sarah Oktay (University of
Massachusetts Boston Field Station); Peter Boyce (Maria Mitchell Association, Harbor and Shellfish
Advisory Board); Doug Smith (Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board); Carl Sjolund (Nantucket Shellfish
Association); Jake Kritzer (Environmental Defense Fund); Cormac Collier (Nantucket Land Council); and
Dave Fronzuto (Department of Marine and Coastal Resources). Members of the public were invited to
attend committee meetings, and offered significant contributions to the recommendations section of
the Plan.
While no official “planning area” was defined for this Plan, shellfishing is generally concentrated within
the vicinity of Nantucket and Madaket Harbors, as indicated in Figure 1. The Town, however, has
jurisdiction over fisheries issues within all Town waters; therefore this Plan’s recommendations extend
out to that boundary, as appropriate.
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has a role in managing shellfish in Nantucket
waters, and to that end, will be reviewing this Plan to ensure that it does not over‐step the Town’s
authority to manage its shellfish resources.
Additionally, this Plan only addresses molluscan species of commercial or recreational interest (conch,
mussels, quahogs, oysters, bay scallops, and soft‐shell clams). Lobsters are not considered “shellfish”
for the purposes of this Plan.
The Committee developed the following overall goals for this Shellfish Management Plan:
The shellfish resources of Nantucket should be managed to support a viable and continuing shellfishery
for both economic and traditional purposes by:
Maintaining or improving the habitat associated with a healthy shellfish fishery, and
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 7
Maintaining or enhancing the populations and health of scallops, quahogs, soft shell clams,
mussels, conchs, and any other shellfish of commercial and/or recreational importance in
Nantucket waters.
The recommendations contained in this Plan are consistent with the Committee’s goals and are based
on a review of both the current and historical states of the resource, habitat, and management
strategies. A reading of this Shellfish Management Plan will show few major changes to existing shellfish
management practices on Nantucket. As an initial version of a living document, this Plan is designed to
establish the groundwork to build the research and collaboration needed to further advance shellfish
management on Nantucket.
Information for this Plan was gathered through document reviews (Appendix B), interviews (Appendix
C), committee meetings (Appendix D), and public meetings (Appendix D).
Figure 1: This Shellfish Management Plan addresses issues in all Town waters (in green), with
emphasis on the focus areas (outlined in blue) where most of Nantucket’s shellfishing occurs.
The structure of this Plan is such that the background sections describe the history and current state of
knowledge pertaining to shellfish management issues. Those background sections provide the
information necessary to better understand the recommendations and the Research Plan.
While this Plan is aimed specifically at maintaining and enhancing the shellfish in Nantucket waters, it is
only one action, among many, that the Town of Nantucket is taking to preserve its water quality and
marine habitat. The primary step has been the Nantucket and Madaket Harbors Action Plan, which was
adopted in May of 2007 and approved by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in December of 2009.
This comprehensive document makes over 150 recommendations to preserve and protect Nantucket’s
waters, among which is the preparation of a Shellfish Management Plan (this document). The Harbor
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 8
Plan has a number of other recommended actions which are currently in the process of implementation,
such as curbing and treating runoff from the roads and streets, reducing fertilizer leaching, and
developing educational materials for the general public about how to improve water quality.
Implementation of the Harbor Plan is being overseen by a representative committee which provides
continuing impetus to follow through with enacting the Harbor Plan recommendations. The presence of
an active implementation committee is the crucial difference between a plan which sits on the shelf and
an action plan.
In addition to implementing recommendations from the Harbor Plan, several other steps have been
taken that relate to shellfish habitat. For example, the current Nantucket sewer system has undergone
extensive reworking to reduce leakage and to ensure that storm water sewers are kept separate from
the sanitary sewers. The storm sewers are being renovated and treatment basins are being installed as
rapidly as funding can be procured. Significant progress has already been made along the waterfront in
the Town and several mitigation projects are under way around Nantucket Harbor to remove sources of
excess nutrients in various marshes and springs which drain into the Harbor.
Another effort includes appointment of a citizen’s committee (by the Board of Selectmen) to look at
ways to better manage the use fertilizers. This Committee has produced a regulation which is currently
being adopted by the Board of Health requiring that landscapers be licensed and educated about how
much fertilizer to use and when to apply it. The Committee has also, over the last two years, produced a
150‐page manual of best practices (BMP) based on the latest turf science. The BMP is aimed at
educating landscapers and the public about the latest information on the use of fertilizer on Nantucket’s
sandy soils, especially when and how to apply both organic and inorganic fertilizers and compost. As the
garden and turf community becomes more educated, it is expected that by applying no more fertilizer
than the plants can use, the runoff of nutrients due to the use of excess fertilizer will be greatly reduced,
thus contributing to an improvement in water quality in the Harbors and Ponds. An extensive public
education program about proper fertilizer use is being fashioned as this Plan is going to press.
As a Massachusetts Community on the water’s edge, Nantucket is also subject to the Massachusetts
Estuaries Project which is mandating that the runoff of nitrogen and phosphorous be reduced to specific
levels (Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs). This has caused the Town to inspect every septic system
on the Island—and to force replacement of every failed system. At the same time, Nantucket has
extended sewer lines in the Nantucket Harbor watershed, and is contemplating extending the sewers
even farther, both in the Nantucket Harbor watershed and in Madaket. Considerable pressure is being
exerted to require the installation of advanced septic systems.
In addition to other education initiatives, the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee is in the midst of
producing a comprehensive booklet about things to do to protect the waters around Nantucket.
Modeled after the Martha’s Vineyard “Blue Pages,” the Nantucket version will feature scallops as the
signature species to be protected. The booklet is expected to be ready by the end of 2012.
In summary, this Plan is but one of a set of actions, and should be read with this in mind.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 9
SECTION 3: GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION
OF NANTUCKET AND ITS SHELLFISHING
RESOURCES
The introduction to the 2000 Nantucket Comprehensive Community Plan uses the scallop fishery as a
metaphor for issues facing the Island as a whole. For both, conditions have clearly changed over time,
cherished parts of the Island’s heritage have been diminished, and the steps necessary to ensure a
sustainable future are neither simple nor easy.
People are drawn to Nantucket in large part because of the community’s successes in preserving its
natural resources and the historic character of its built environment. More than 40% of the Island’s
barrier beaches and dunes, ponds and bogs, salt marshes, scrub oak and pitch pine barrens, coastal
heathlands, sandplain grasslands, and hardwood forests are protected open space which provides
habitat for a diversity of species and, importantly, contributes to maintaining surface and groundwater
quality.
For the past three decades, Nantucket’s economy has been dominated by tourism. The Island’s current
year‐round population of 10,172 grows to as many as 50,000 during peak summer months (Bixby, 2005).
The three largest sectors of the economy—service, wholesale/retail and construction—are all influenced
by the influx of seasonal visitors and summer residents. Nantucket has the highest percent of seasonal
homes, approximately 60%, in Massachusetts (Martha’s Vineyard Data Report, 2006).
Between 1980 and 2000, the Island’s year‐round population grew by 87%, and the number of housing
units grew by 92.5% (Census Bureau, 2000).
The Island’s two main harbors, Nantucket and Madaket, accommodate a range of human uses
dependent on marine resources. These include, along with commercial and recreational shellfishing and
fishing, the commercial transport of people and goods, swimming, and recreational boating. The latter
use has grown over the years so that now about 3,000 boats are moored and berthed in Nantucket
waters (Fronzuto, 2011).
The largest commercial fishery on Nantucket is that of the bay scallop. In addition to its historic and
cultural value to the Island, the commercial bay scallop fishery provides an important source of income
for year‐round residents living in the largely seasonal, tourism‐based economy, and helps to buffer
people from the impacts of a downturned economy.
Shellfishermen have a variety of options when it comes to purchasing a license. They can purchase (1) a
recreational license which allows them to harvest for their own personal consumption (options are
available for annual and weekly licenses for residents and non‐residents); (2) a commercial license which
allows them to harvest for the purpose of selling their catch, or (3) a 30‐day delayed entry commercial
license which allows fishermen a means to enter the fishery late. These options make the resource very
accessible, but not everyone uses his/her license to its full capacity, making it difficult to predict the
fleet size and overall shellfishing effort during any given year.
To complicate matters further, from year to year, the number of bushels of bay scallops harvested by
Nantucket fishermen and the dollar value per pound fluctuates greatly and, over the long term, total
landings have been decreasing. For example, from 1980–2000, the number of bushels of scallops landed
went from about 100,000 to 12,600 bushels, a decline of 87%. Statistics for two recent seasons report
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 10
13,800 bushels landed for a total value of $721,000 (2008–2009) and 7,000 bushels landed for a total
value of $644,000 (2009–2010). This population variability reflects fluctuations in recruitment,
magnified by the fact that scallops are short‐lived and populations largely rely on the successful spawn
and recruitment of a single year class.
The reasons for the decline and annual fluctuations are not entirely clear, but it is likely that stressors on
the environment associated with natural phenomena (e.g., storms) and human uses of the landscape
(e.g., landscaping practices, increases in impervious surfaces, etc.) are contributing factors.
Other commercial shellfisheries include quahogs, mussels, and conch. Recreational shellfishing is also
popular given the Island’s productive habitat, strong tradition of family scalloping, and large seasonal
influx of tourists. Recreational shellfishers harvest bay scallops, soft shell clams, quahogs, oysters, and
mussels.
In addition to shellfish, other fishery resources harvested by Nantucket fishermen include lobsters,
summer flounder, striped bass, bluefish, eels, black sea bass, tuna, sharks, cod, haddock and other
groundfish. Although this plan is specific to molluscan shellfish, a broader and longer‐range vision for
Nantucket might look for ways to build a more diverse set of target species for local fishermen.
The Town, with partners, has been engaged for years in the propagation of scallops, soft shell clams,
quahogs and oysters to enhance natural populations. Historically, bay scallop (and other shellfish)
abundance and productivity has varied by location in Nantucket waters, with some seasons being best in
Madaket Harbor or off Tuckernuck Island while other years saw peak harvests in Nantucket Harbor. This
is likely due to changing water quality and habitat conditions related to natural coastal processes and
anthropogenic influences, as well as spawning and recruitment success.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 11
SECTION 4: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
HARBORS’ ENVIRONMENTS AND HABITATS
The physical features of Madaket and Nantucket Harbors are significant to their abilities to support
shellfish and shellfish habitat. Additionally, locations for commercial and recreational shellfishing are
largely determined by the bathymetry of the Harbors, with recreational fishing dominating in the
shallower waters, and commercial fishing dominating in deeper areas.
The following section describes the physical features of both harbors as well as the habitats found
within the Harbors and the surrounding areas.
Nantucket Harbor – General Description
The area of Nantucket Harbor, including Coskata Pond, Haulover Pond, the Pocomo Marshes, and Polpis
Harbor is about 4,830 acres (Howes, 2006). The length of Nantucket Harbor from Nantucket Town to
Coskata is approximately six miles, and the width of the Harbor varies from almost 2 miles in the Head
of the Harbor to just below .5 miles at First Point. Mean tide range in the Harbor is 3.06 feet. A detailed
marine survey of several thousand depth measurements within the Harbor was conducted in 1991 to
determine the bathymetry of the Harbor, and all bathymetric data was tide‐corrected and referenced to
the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988 (Howes, 2006). The deepest parts of the Harbor are
the channels nearest Brant Point (‐33.9 ft) and First Point, which are probably maintained by tidal
scouring. Other deep regions of the Harbor include the basin off Polpis Harbor (maximum depth of ‐28.0
feet), and the Head of the Harbor (maximum depth of ‐25.2 feet and an average depth of ‐9.8 feet). The
maximum depth of Polpis Harbor is ‐10.6 feet; and its average depth is ‐5.0 feet. The average depth of
all of Nantucket Harbor is ‐8.5 feet (Howes, 2006, 5).
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 12
Figure 2: This map, taken directly from Howes (2006), shows interpolated finite-element grid
bathymetry of the Nantucket Harbor system, superimposed on aerial photos of the system from
2003. Bathymetric contours are shown at three-foot intervals (Howes, 2006, Figure V-6).
Madaket Harbor – General Description
Madaket Harbor and Long Pond make up a unique ecosystem encompassing approximately nine square
miles. These two systems are hydrologically connected via Hither Creek and the Madaket Ditch, as well
as a culvert running under Madaket Road. Long Pond is somewhat isolated from the whole system, and
may be evaluated as having separate water quality issues. It is relatively narrow and winding with
depths of ‐4–6 feet and no deep basins.
The system is also connected through groundwater and is impacted by the highly permeable nature of
the watershed soils. For example, very little surface water flows into Long Pond, and groundwater is the
primary discharge pathway. (Howes, 2010).
As described in the introduction to the Massachusetts Estuaries Project for Madaket Harbor,
“The western boundary of the Madaket Harbor system is generally open to Nantucket
Sound and Atlantic Ocean waters but [is] somewhat restricted by [a] very dynamic
network of sand shoals. Madaket Harbor has a northern shore (Eel Point) bounded by Eel
Point Marsh along the Madaket Harbor shore line and sand dunes on the northern side of
Eel Point adjacent to Nantucket Sound…. The southern boundary of Madaket Harbor is
defined by a long sand spit that periodically is breached—as was the case in 2007 when an
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 13
energetic coastal storm breached the spit and created a second opening to Madaket
Harbor” (Howes, 2010).
The shape of Madaket Harbor and the surrounding bathymetry allow for efficient flushing of much of
the system (exceptions being Long Pond and Hither Creek, whose structural features create limits for
flushing and circulation) (Howes, 2010).
Figure 3: Depth Contours of Madaket Harbor, as mapped in Howes (2010) show a fairly
shallow harbor system, much of which is less than eight feet deep.
Water Quality in Nantucket Waters
Shellfish sustainability relies on high quality habitat and clean water, which are closely related. Best
management practices for the fisheries, shellfish reseeding and recruitment programs, and protection of
eelgrass habitat will only succeed if water quality is adequate.
Water quality in Nantucket and Madaket Harbors is affected through multiple input pathways (sources)
such as runoff and groundwater, and by various stressors. Background levels of nitrogen, phosphate, or
other nutrients can be augmented and increased by man‐made (anthropogenic) sources. The biggest
addressable threats for the Harbors come from septic systems, fertilizers, runoff, and “on the water”
boat use artifacts (cleaning products, waste discharge from boats with no heads, etc.). These excess
nutrients serve as fertilizer, feeding algal blooms. The algal blooms increase turbidity and shading of the
sea floor, depriving plants (such as eelgrass) of the light needed to photosynthesize. Additionally, the
decomposition of algae creates conditions of low dissolved oxygen (hypoxia), which can lead to the
death of fish and other marine organisms.
Scientists have conducted experiments comparing the effects of nitrogen concentrations in the water
column and in the sediment under various water circulation scenarios (Burkholder et al., 1992) and
have found that, even when not associated directly with higher chlorophyll or algal counts, excess
nitrate can affect the ability of eelgrass to process nutrients internally. In addition, when
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 14
Nitrogen:Phosphorus (N:P) ratios vary from normal, different types of nuisance algae, both suspended
and attached, can overtake a system. For Madaket Harbor, Hither Creek and Long Pond, the latter two
were determined by the Massachusetts Estuaries Program Report (2010) to be impaired by nitrogen
enrichment while Madaket Harbor exhibited a relatively healthy water and benthic profile.
Of concern especially in other parts of the Commonwealth, and appearing in 2007 in Nantucket Harbor,
are incidents of “red tide,” considered a “harmful algal bloom (HAB)” normally caused by a species of
dinoflagellate known as Alexandrium fundyense found in water bodies with connections to the Gulf of
Maine in the Northeast. Blooms of these dinoflagellates cause severe disruptions in fisheries as the
toxins in these organisms cause filter‐feeding shellfish in affected waters to become poisonous for
human consumption due to elevated levels of the chemical saxitoxin—a neurotoxin.
While some HABs can be poisonous to humans, there are a variety of organisms associated with the
poisoning of shellfish (summarized in Baier, 2000). Over the past few years, warm sunny summer
weather has occurred after significant spring rainstorms that contribute large peaks in storm water
runoff and groundwater inputs. This confluence of events has led to the appearance of the so‐called
“rust tide” caused by the dinoflagellate (small unarmored 1‐8 cell organism with flagellas or little whip‐
like tails) called Cochlodinium polykrikoides. The filter‐feeding scallops ingest the dinoflagellate in the
water column which, in high concentrations, will kill all small seed scallops (Gobler et al., 2008) and
some larger scallops (Boyce, Personal Communication, 2012). Even in instances where an adult scallop
is not killed, the dinoflagellate may cause decreased body mass. Rust tide is different from the brown
tide organism (Aureococcus anophagefferens) which almost completely decimated the bay scallop
population in Peconic Bay (Long Island) in 1985. The Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources
Department is now monitoring for specific algal species each year with assistance from the UMass
Boston Nantucket Field Station. Nuisance algal species such as Lyngbya have been linked to excess
concentration of nutrients and are also theorized to be negatively impacting eelgrass in Nantucket
Harbor (Paerl et al., undated).
Pollutants from cleaning products, petroleum‐based chemicals (plastics, fuel oil, volatile organic
compounds), pesticides and herbicides, and pharmaceuticals and consumer product pollution (referred
to by the EPA as “Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products as Pollutants” (PPCPs))—even in small
quantities—have been shown to impact shellfish in shallow embayments similar to Nantucket and
Madaket Harbors. Additionally, bacterial (fecal and, to a lesser extent, non‐fecal) coliforms from animal
and human sources can shut down fishing in shellfish beds for species where the entire animal is
consumed (e.g., mussels, quahogs, and oysters). For the past several years, parts of Polpis Harbor,
Nantucket Harbor, and Madaket Harbor have been placed under shellfish quarantine during warmer
months.
Pollution inputs have been well documented in the scientific literature, and the Town of Nantucket and
various other State and local agencies have conducted studies over the past 30 years to evaluate the
concentrations of potential pollutants in Nantucket’s Harbors. Most of these studies have been “snap
shot” type reports that measure contaminant level at specific times (as opposed to long‐term data
collection). The Massachusetts Estuaries Project reports (including “Nantucket Harbor Embayment
System Total Maximum Daily Loads For Total Nitrogen”) (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2009)
organized some of the Town’s ongoing monitoring and developed a model for calculating TMDLs of
Nitrogen. These TMDLs were developed to identify the amount of nitrogen that could be tolerated
before adverse impacts (e.g., algal blooms and eelgrass loss) occurred. Importantly, a TMDL is an
average over the course of a year. The concentrations of nutrients are usually significantly higher during
the summer, and may have a significant negative impact during the shellfish growing season.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 15
The Executive Summary distills the report’s conclusions, which include a finding of “impaired” water
quality (a 303(d) listing status of a Category 5 state) in some locations of Nantucket Harbor and Polpis
Harbor. (Such a listing indicates that waters are too polluted/degraded to meet state water quality
standards, and requires the development of TMDLs. The listing is required under Section 303(d) of the
federal Clean Water Act.)
The control measures recommended to address Nantucket Harbor’s water quality issues include
installing sewer lines, better managing storm water, using impoundments and wetlands to attenuate
water runoff, and developing fertilizer use by‐laws (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2009).
In summary:
“The N loadings (the quantity of nitrogen) to this embayment system, from all sources,
ranges from 24.09 kg/day at Head of the Harbor, to 66.15 kg/day at Town Basin, with an
overall nitrogen load of 149.51 kg/day to the Nantucket Harbor System from all sources.
The amount of nitrogen entering the system from the surrounding watersheds (runoff,
fertilizers, septic systems, and atmospheric deposition to natural surfaces) is 19.72 kg/day.
The N concentrations in the harbor system range from 0.30 to 0.41 mg/L (milligrams per
liter of nitrogen).
“In order to restore and protect this system, N loadings, and subsequently the
concentrations of N in the water, must be reduced to levels below the threshold
concentrations that cause the observed environmental impacts…. The Massachusetts
Estuaries Project (MEP) has determined that, for this embayment system, N
concentrations of 0.35 mg/L in Head of the Harbor and an N concentration of 0.36 mg/L in
Polpis Harbor will allow the restoration of the habitat. The mechanism for achieving
these target threshold N concentrations is to reduce the N loadings to the embayments.
The Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) has determined that the Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDL) of N that will meet the target thresholds range from 23 to 64 kg/day.”
A separate report was generated for Madaket Harbor, coupled with Long Pond (Howes et al., 2010) and
for two of the major ponds located on Island (Sesachacha and Hummock Pond). It is important to
remember that pollutants traveling in the groundwater are a significant part of the non‐point source
pollution entering both Harbors.
Many human uses can contribute to declining water quality. According to the “Update to the Madaket
and Nantucket Harbors Action Plan” (2009), Marine Department Water quality reports from 2004–2010,
and the Massachusetts Estuaries Program Report for Nantucket and Madaket Harbors, sources for
contaminants into Nantucket include:
Impermeable surfaces
Development activities
Landscape activities
Atmospheric deposition
Automobiles and boats
Fertilizers
Animal waste
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 16
Septic systems and septic system failures
Significant fluctuations in shellfish populations, coupled with noticeable algal blooms in Nantucket
Harbor and in some of the fresh and brackish ponds on Nantucket, have resulted in the Town of
Nantucket launching the “Water Quality Initiative.” The vision of this Initiative is, “To preserve and
improve water quality within and surrounding Nantucket Island.” Several links to reports and recent
research can now be found at the Town of Nantucket Water Quality Initiative webpage and at the
Marine and Coastal Resources website (www.nantucket‐
ma.gov/Pages/NantucketMA_Marine/waterquality).
The Town of Nantucket’s Marine Water Quality Policy is, "To maintain, improve or protect water quality
levels within all harbors, embayments, estuaries, wetlands, ponds and beaches within and surrounding
the island of Nantucket in accordance with local and state standards and to safeguard all Nantucket
municipal and private sources of potable water; and, to regularly inform Nantucket's citizens about the
Town's water quality measurement efforts and results.”
Of critical importance for predicting adverse impacts and tolerance to various water‐quality stressors is
monitoring, recording, and reviewing the following:
Water and air temperature;
Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). (PAR is a way to evaluate the depth to which light can
penetrate in a body of water and, by inference, how much excess algal growth other pollution
like silt or oil that blocks sunlight may be in the water):
Rainfall rates; and
Water circulation within the Harbors
Nantucket and Madaket Harbors Watersheds
The watersheds of Nantucket Island were delineated by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project team. In
geologic areas such as Nantucket, made up of transmissive sand and gravel deposits, watershed
boundaries are generally better defined by groundwater elevation and its direction of flow, rather than
by land surface topography (Howes et al., 2006, p. 36). Groundwater elevation was used to complete
watershed delineations for both Nantucket Harbor and Madaket Harbor—delineations that were
adopted by the Town as the Nantucket Harbor and Madaket Harbor Watershed Protection Districts
respectively.
The drainage basin for Nantucket Harbor is about 5,340 acres.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 17
Figure 4: The Massachusetts Estuaries Project identified four watersheds for Nantucket Harbor
(Figure taken from Howes, 2006).
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 18
Figure 5: The Massachusetts Estuaries Project identified six sub-watersheds for Madaket
Harbor (Figure taken from Howes, 2010).
Eelgrass
General description
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a type of seagrass that grows in the shallow coastal waters with low nutrient
inputs. It is the most common seagrass present on the Massachusetts coastline. The ecosystem value
of eelgrass is well documented and include its ability to stabilize sediments, buffer wave energy, and
provide habitat for juvenile fish and shellfish (Stauffer, 1937; Orth et al., 1984; Heck et al., 1989; Hughes
et al., 2002; Lazarri and Tupper, 2002, as cited in Leschen, 2007).
In Nantucket Harbor, eelgrass is able to grow in water as deep as eight feet, except at the Head of the
Harbor where reduced water quality only allows eelgrass to grow to a depth of about 6 feet (Curley,
2002). The seagrass, both alive and dead, is an important and valuable part of the coastal ecosystem.
As a live plant, eelgrass provides a sheltered habitat for many organisms, including the bay scallop which
attaches itself to the eelgrass blades; however, its value as habitat also attracts predators. Eelgrass also
stabilizes sediments in the Harbor which helps to improve water clarity. When eelgrass dies, it washes to
shore and accumulates along the tide line. Here, the mass of dead eelgrass provides a nursery for the
seeds of beach plants that will eventually help to form new dunes and stabilize existing ones.
Shorebirds feed on insects and small crustaceans that are found in the mass of dead eelgrass (Nantucket
Conservation Foundation, Inc., 2005).
The health of eelgrass beds is also an indicator of water quality. Eelgrass is able to store nitrogen in its
blades and stems; a trait that allows the plant to grow well in areas with low nutrient levels. However,
as nutrient concentrations increase, algae are able to grow more successfully. Ultimately, the algae out‐
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 19
compete eelgrass and may reduce sunlight penetration. Algal shading may occur in two forms; algae in
the water column or attached to the bottom may reduce light levels or epiphytic algae may grow
directly on the eelgrass plants, thereby reducing the light that can reach the eelgrass blades. The loss
that Nantucket Harbor has seen in the size and density of its eelgrass beds over the last decade is likely
due to this nutrient loading/shading process (Curley, 2002); however, since eelgrass is still present in the
harbor, nutrient loading into the harbor is only moderately high (Curley as cited in Valiela et al., 2002).
Figure 6: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection compared eelgrass
coverage from 1995 to 2001; and estimated coverage again in 2006. Clear losses were seen
between 1995 and 2001 west of the mouth of Nantucket Harbor and near Third Bend and
Fourth Bend. 2006 data for Nantucket Harbor are not yet available, and residents of Nantucket
suggest that present extent is not wholly represented by these data.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) carried out eelgrass mapping in 2006
and 2007 using digital imagery, and re‐mapped 33 of the original 46 embayments mapped in 1995 and
2001. The 2006‐2007 mapping exercise included Madaket Harbor, but not Nantucket Harbor. Some
gains in eelgrass coverage were observed, primarily near Tuckernuck and Muskeget Islands. The
research also showed some losses in eelgrass coverage, including near 3rd and 4th Bends and the
southeastern portion of the Head of the Harbor. For most mapped areas, however, research showed
unchanged eelgrass beds for the majority of the sites. These data are used to evaluate the impacts of a
proposed project but, given the variability of eelgrass beds in Nantucket waters, this information can
also be viewed as a tool to identify historical eelgrass beds for restoration projects.
Eelgrass spreads both vegetatively (rhizome expansion) and non‐vegetatively (seeds). Vegetative
spreading is limited to adjacent areas, so the natural spread of eelgrass to new areas must be
accomplished by the dispersal of seeds. Eelgrass seeds are negatively buoyant and do not travel far
within the water column once released from a vegetative shoot (Orth et al., 1994). Detached
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 20
reproductive eelgrass shoots containing seeds can float long distances, and thus can start new meadows
far from the bed of origin (Harwell and Orth, 2002).
While eelgrass has the ability to spread from healthy environments to adjacent sediments, the loss of
eelgrass can result in significant changes in physical and biological characteristics at a site, which may
also prevent natural recolonization. Transplantation can expedite the recolonization process, but the
removal of wastewater inputs, heavy organic loads, and siltation is very important to successful eelgrass
restoration efforts (Leschen et al., 2007).
Threats
A range of natural and anthropogenic factors may affect the health of eelgrass, including natural cycles,
storm events, disease, physical disturbance, sedimentation, and nutrient enrichment (including from
septic systems).
Natural causes of eelgrass loss, which can be seen in the variability of eelgrass in Madaket Harbor,
include changes in sediment type (due to factors such as changes in water circulation patterns) and the
extraction of eelgrass from the sediment during storm events.
There is a clear relationship between eutrophication (the increase nutrient levels which can lead to
growth of phytoplankton blooms and/or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)) and eelgrass loss (Kemp
et al., 1983; Valiela et al., 1992; Short et al., 1996; Hauxwell et al., 2001, 2003; Cardoso et al., 2004).
Nutrient enrichment, primarily from fertilizers from agriculture and lawns, wastewater, and acid rain,
stimulates excessive growth of phytoplankton and reduces light penetration. Nutrients may also
stimulate the growth of epiphytic algae (meaning algae that grow on other plants) which directly shades
the plant. Without proper sunlight, eelgrass cannot grow. This loss of eelgrass removes a vital part of
shellfish habitat.
Herbicides uses in agriculture may also impact eelgrass extent and health, causing impacts such as
impaired photosynthesis and growth (NYS Seagrass Taskforce, 2009).
Coastal development, dredging projects, fishing activity, boating activity, and other water‐based
activities may degrade water quality through increased turbidity which reduces essential light. Dredging
projects for navigation and other harbor‐related purposes may have a direct impact by removing the
plant and by potentially increasing water depth to an extent that eelgrass will not recolonize because of
insufficient light penetration. The impact of dredging used to harvest shellfish is largely unclear. Some
argue that the act of dredging during harvesting helps to “groom” eelgrass, removing epiphytes. Others
believe that dredges used for harvest may actually dig up eelgrass (Colarusso, 2011).
Estimates suggest that 90% of eelgrass died‐off in the 1930s due to an outbreak of wasting disease
(Tutin, 1942 as cited in Leschen, 2009). While wasting disease continues to occur sporadically (Short et
al., 1986, 1987), natural re‐population has been thwarted by degraded water quality from coastal
development, which limits the light essential for eelgrass growth (Batuik et al., 2000). This problem is
compounded by the limited ability of eelgrass to disperse to suitable areas over long distances (Leschen
et al., 2007).
Boat moorings in Nantucket waters have both direct and indirect impacts on eelgrass. As the wind and
currents cause a moored boat to swing around the mooring, the bottom chain of a traditional mooring
scours a circle in the sediment, often removing any eelgrass within that circle. In Nantucket, most
moored boats are secured with a mushroom anchor; however efforts are underway to understand the
implications of converting to conservation moorings. A conservation mooring is a type of mooring that
replaces the chain and rope with a length of elastic polyurethane (or similar material) attached to a
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 21
bottom anchor and a mooring float. The float reduces slack and keeps the elastic from scouring the
sediment, thereby minimizing the impact to nearby seagrass.
Figure 7: Mooring scars in eelgrass off of Cathcart Road, Nantucket Harbor. (Image from
Google Earth, 2012).
While eelgrass (Zostera marina) appears to be the preferred habitat for larval scallops in Nantucket, the
decline in areas of this seagrass has lead to a search for alternatives. A short‐term research project at
the UMass Field Station in 2006 looked at whether scallops would attach to Codium fragile, an invasive
green algal form that has become common in Nantucket Harbor, in the same way they do with eelgrass.
The Field Station evaluation used several small tanks stocked with eelgrass, Codium, neither, or both
substrates. Findings suggest that scallops would, indeed, use Codium if eelgrass was not present—and
would sometimes use it even if both species were in the tank. To be more definitive, this sort of
experiment should be repeated in significantly larger tanks and over greater time periods.
Scientists working in other geographic locations have found similar results to the research done on
Nantucket. Working with scallops planted in the wild over a two‐year period, Stephen Tettelbach and
his students found that, in Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay on Long Island, NY, under some conditions,
Codium acted as a potential habitat. Additionally, they found similar densities of natural recruits of
scallops on the two substrates. This research led to the conclusion that substrates other than eelgrass
may serve as important habitats for bay scallops (Tettlebach, 2011).
Sediment/Substrate
In addition to eelgrass, marine and estuarine sediments are another critical environmental factor for
shellfish survival. Many, if not most, marine organisms, both plants and animals, have become adapted
to grow best in areas with particular grain sizes. Sediment grain size influences the settling of young
shellfish and the growth of adults as well as the distribution and abundance of bottom‐dwelling
organisms and plant life that provide a food source and shelter.
Sediments are typically characterized by size using the Udden–Wentworth scheme as shown in the chart
below:
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 22
Table 1: Sediment can be characterized by grain size.
Wentworth Size Class Max Particle Diameter
Gravel Boulder 256–4096 mm
Cobble 64–256 mm
Pebble 4–64 mm
Granule 2–4 mm
Sand Very coarse sand 1–2 mm
Coarse sand 0.5–1 mm
Medium sand 0.25–0.5 mm
250–500 microns
Fine sand 0.125–0.25 mm
125–250 microns
Very fine sand 0.625–0.125 mm
Silt Coarse silt 31–63 microns
Medium silt 15.6–31 microns
Fine silt 7.8–15.6 microns
Very fine silt 3.9–7.8 microns
Mud Clay 0.06–3.9 microns
Sediment size and types have several effects on shellfish populations. The young generally have specific
grain size requirements for burrowing. Consequently, the success of adults of the species is dependent
on the availability of the grain sizes needed by the young. The texture and size of the sediment particles
are important to the settling of larval stages and they will not settle if the conditions are not right.
Finally, the oxygen levels in the interstices between sediment particles affect the ability of larvae to
“breathe” and, by extension, their mortality rate; though dissolved oxygen levels in the water column
will exert a greater effect on larval survival than interstitial oxygen levels. These levels of oxygen are
affected by particle size and type.
Sediments also become a repository for chemical contaminants ranging from nutrients to heavy metals
to petro‐chemicals, with finer‐grained substrates typically showing higher levels of contamination than
areas with more coarse sediments. Understanding which, if any, contaminants are being sequestered in
the sediments and how they might be released by either human or natural processes can be important
to understanding impacts on shellfish life cycles and human health.
A secondary aspect of the role of sediments is that they provide a site for a wide range of bio‐geo‐
chemical processes that affect overall nutrient levels and flux within the embayment.
In general, the distribution of sediment types is controlled by the hydrodynamic setting, estuarine
circulation, and sediment supply to the estuary. Sands are found most frequently in the intertidal zone
and along shorelines exposed to wave energy. Fine‐grained or muddy sediments are found in more
quiescent areas, such as Head of the Harbor, and in areas of high sediment runoff from land.
Sediments in Nantucket Harbor
From 2006–2008, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Atlantic Ecology Division sampled
sediment in Nantucket Harbor as part of a research effort to understand habitat characteristics of bay
scallops (Weissberger & Chintala, Personal communication, 2012). Their data showed that, in 2008, the
dominant sediment sizes were medium to coarse on the Wentworth Scale (41.55% in the .5‐1mm range,
and 28% in the .25‐.50mm range), with smaller‐sized sediments located in Town, the Head of the
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 23
Harbor, and the deeper waters west of Pocomo. Their data also indicates slight variations grain size at
sampling sites between 2006 and 2007 (2008 data are not yet mapped, and may show additional
changes). The primary differences between 2006 and 2007 were found in the vicinity of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and
4th Bends. (Their report is forthcoming.)
The EPA’s data provides an update to the sediment survey conducted in 1956 by Louis Lidz. Lidz’s
survey found that the Harbor sediments consisted of gravel, sand, silt, clay, and shell debris with the
mean diameter of most of the bays sediments being less than 500 microns (medium sand on the
Wentworth scale). Some areas with coarser sediments (greater that 1,000 microns—very coarse sand
and larger) are found in areas with significant wave energy (beaches) or tidal currents (along channels).
Fine sediments (diameters between 8–16 microns) were typically found in areas such as the Head of the
Harbor and off of Third Bend, and generally in depths greater than 2 meters.
Figure 8: Sediment sizes in Nantucket Harbor as mapped in the 1960s (Lidz, 1965)
Lidz went on to characterize four unique traits related to sediments within Nantucket Harbor:
1. “A distinct mineral composition, almost pure quartz, which serves to distinguish the bay
sediments mineralogically from bays and coastal water bodies of other geological settings.
2. “Current energy and depth of water control grain size distribution and sorting of sediments.
Where tidal flow has the greatest velocity, gravels with pebble‐to‐cobble‐size sediment are
found.
3. “Organic content is highest in areas that have a water depth of at least 4 m and sediment mean
diameters of less than 62 microns. These values, which are greater than 15% organic carbon,
reflect protection from oxidation afforded by the impermeability of the sediment type.
Historically sewage dumped from boats and ships and emptied into the bay from outlets of the
town of Nantucket may cause organic content to be increased.
4. “Shoreline physiography and bathymetry remain relatively stable. During long periods of
intense storms, however, major changes have occurred, such as those found in the record of
Haulover Break.”
Sediment sizes and types can be modified either by human intervention (e.g., creating or modifying the
breakwaters at the mouth of Nantucket Harbor or dredging channels within the Harbor for navigation or
to increase flushing) or from natural phenomena (e.g., the storms that breached the barrier at the
eastern end of the Harbor in the early portion of the 20th century).
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 24
Sediment types can also be modified by the addition of “artificial substrate” such as solid structures or
the shells that may serve as a settling place for shellfish larvae, or to modify the chemical balance of the
waters.
The Massachusetts Estuaries Report for Nantucket Harbor (Howes et al., 2006) addresses the additional
need to evaluate the organic content of the sediments as “their extent and relative concentration
represent a reserve of reduced organic material and nutrients which through the process of sediment
respiration constantly recycle nutrients to and withdraw dissolved oxygen from the overlying water.” A
survey by the Massachusetts Estuary Program (MEP) found a general correlation between sediment size
and organic content with fine sediments having a greater percentage of organic matter than larger
particles. Further the MEP report for Nantucket Harbor reported that, “with the exception of tidal
current scoured channels, there is a strong positive relationship between water depth and the
percentage [of] organic material in the sediment.” This correlates with the EPA’s and Lidz’ findings of
finer‐grained material in deeper waters.
Sediments in Madaket Harbor
Significant mapping of sediments in Madaket Harbor is not presently available. Howes et al. (2010)
characterize sediment there as “generally composed of fine sands with silt and some areas of
consolidated mud…. Hither Creek is an artificially deepened basin that is depositional with typical
sediments consisting of very soft organic rich mud.”
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 25
SECTION 5: DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES
HARVESTED AND THEIR HABITATS
In order to identify the management needs for shellfish in Nantucket waters, it is vital to have an
understanding of the life cycle, reproductive and feeding strategies, habitat requirements, and likely
stressors for each species of interest. The following section describes the biological traits and habitat
needs of commercial and recreational harvested species found in Nantucket waters, and describes some
of the factors which influence a population’s success. In general, as depicted in Figures 9 and 10,
suitable habitat exists throughout much of Nantucket waters.
Figure 9: DMF has identified potentially suitable habitat for a variety of shellfish in Nantucket
Waters—some of which are harvested, and some of which are not. This map shows the
suitable habitats identified by DMF in and around Nantucket Harbor, but does not necessarily
indicate the presence of that species. This map also does not (1) show suitable conch habitat,
which extends throughout Nantucket Harbor, or (2) reflect seasonal and annual variability in
suitable habitats; however this map does provide general information about where shellfish
might be found, and is part of the information used in regulatory processes to evaluate the
impact of proposed projects.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 26
Figure 10: DMF has identified potentially suitable habitat for a variety of shellfish in Nantucket
Waters— some of which are harvested, and some of which are not. This map shows the
suitable habitats identified by DMF in and around Madaket Harbor, but does not necessarily
indicate the presence of that species. This map also does not (1) show suitable conch habitat
or (2) reflect seasonal and annual variability in suitable habitats; however this map does provide
general information about where shellfish might be found, and is part of the information used in
regulatory processes to evaluate the impact of proposed projects.
Bay Scallops
Biological characteristics and environmental requirements of the species
The northern bay scallop (Argopecten irradians irradians) is a bivalve distributed along the east coast
from Cape Cod to Maryland. It has a nearly symmetrical ribbed shell, a pair of equal‐sized ears at the
hinge, and a white to dark brown or gray color. Bay scallops are found at varying depths and salinities
between 14–32 parts per thousand (ppt). Scallops thrive in areas that have healthy eelgrass and optimal
water quality. Bay scallops are filter feeders and their primary food sources are phytoplankton and
benthic diatoms.
Bay scallops are relatively short‐lived, with an average longevity of 20–26 months (Belding, 1910).
Because of the short life span of this species, only two age classes are typically represented in their
populations (Fay, 1983). Scallops that do not bear a well‐defined annual growth line are defined as seed
scallops.
The bay scallop’s biology directly influences the commercial fishing industry—specifically in terms of its
spawning cycle, life span, development of a growth ring, and population size. Bay scallops (those
approximately 12 months in age) typically spawn during the summer months when there is a rapid rise
or fall in water temperature to around 20–22.2° C (Conant & Curley, 2005, 2). Scallops from a summer
spawn grow through the summer and fall months, reaching a shell height of between 31–51 mm before
the water temperature drops and their shell growth slows. Over the winter months, a ridge develops at
the shell’s edge. This ridge—referred to as a “growth ring”—suggests that the animal has lived through a
winter.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 27
Bay scallops are functional hermaphrodites where both gametes mature at the same time. During
spawning events, eggs are released and fertilization occurs in the water column. After approximately
10–14 days as larvae drifting in the water column, the animal becomes a juvenile attaching onto a
substrate—preferably a blade of eelgrass. They have also been found on alternative substrates such as
seaweeds, filamentous algae, stones and debris. After growing to roughly 7.6–30.5 mm, the juvenile
drops to the bottom where it will either stay in one place or “swim” by clapping its valves open and
closed, which forcibly expels water and propels the animal (Tettlebach, unpublished data).
Some bay scallops may also spawn in the fall, producing scallops that have a shortened growth period
before the water temperature drops and shell growth ceases. These shellfish over‐winter at 1–20 mm in
size (Conant & Curley, 2005, 2), and develop a growth ring between 1– 20 mm from the hinge. These
scallops are referred to as “nubs” or “ring at hinge” scallops.
In spite of all of the information available about the biology of this species, more research is needed to
understand the reproductive capabilities of nubs. Specifically, there is debate as to whether or not an
adult nub can over‐winter and whether or not it can spawn twice. If it is found that nubs can spawn
twice, that information may influence management decisions related to their harvest.
Threats/Stressors
One of the vexing problems of the bay scallop industry on Nantucket is the fluctuation in scallop
populations from year to year. Given the short lifespan of these animals, their population levels rely on
the successful reproduction of every year class. Successful reproduction depends on two factors—the
first of which is a successful spawning that produces the larval supply. The second factor is recruitment,
which relates to how many of these larvae survive and “set” as juveniles.
The relationship between spawning and recruitment can lead to a variety of outcomes. For example, a
relatively small spawning stock can produce a strong year class when conditions for recruitment are
favorable. The opposite can also be true, meaning a large spawning stock can produce a weak year class
when unfavorable recruitment conditions exist. Landings data from year to year clearly illustrate this
dynamic.
In order to have the best possible outcome for any given year class, environmental conditions must be
favorable for both spawning and recruitment.
Though exact numbers are uncertain each year, the boom and bust cycle of the fishing industry shows
scallop populations to be vulnerable to environmental changes such as the stress placed on the habitat.
While the precise reason(s) for this fluctuation may be unknown, the general downward trend in bay
scallop abundance in Nantucket waters (as indicated by annual landing reports) may be linked to a range
of stressors including poor water quality, loss of habitat (e.g., decline in coverage and health of
eelgrass), the over‐harvest of nub scallops, predation by marine species, the loss of larvae on outgoing
tides, harmful algal blooms, and various other factors. Ocean acidification is also a threat to bay scallops
(Talmage & Gobler, 2010). It is probable that all of the aforementioned stressors individually play a role
in the health of the bay scallop population. It is also possible that the cumulative impacts from various
combinations of stressors may have additional impacts on populations in Nantucket waters.
Quahogs
(Unless noted otherwise, this section is based upon Stanley & DeWitt (1983).)
Biological characteristics and environmental requirements of the species
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 28
Also known as “hard clams” and “little necks,” quahogs (Mercenaria mercenaria) are found in sandy and
muddy tidal and subtidal areas up to 15 m deep. They prefer sandy bottoms to muddy bottoms, and
salinities ranging from about 10–35 ppt; but juveniles and adults can tolerate freshwater for up to a few
weeks at a time. Optimum temperature ranges are uncertain—estimates range from 10–31°C for
various activities including spawning, burrowing, and feeding. Of critical importance is water circulation
adequate for transport of eggs, larvae, food, and waste.
Quahogs have hard, thick, white shells showing several concentric lines spaced most closely toward the
perimeter of the shell. The interior of shells are often white with violet borders. Adult shells typically
measure 60–70 mm in height. Quahogs are also known for their short siphons which are yellow, brown,
or orange toward the end.
Spawning events often begin in July among animals 2–3 years of age and older. Size, not age,
determines sexual maturity. Unlike some other shellfish that can spawn all at once, a female hard clam
may require up to 2.5 months to complete the spawning process. Most spawning activity takes place
during the beginning of the season, with more intense spawning during neap tides (likely because of
warmer waters during that period). Studies in New Jersey showed that the majority of spawning activity
occurred while water temperatures were in the range of 22°–30°C.
The size of quahogs differs geographically with animals seeming to grow faster in warmer water. In
Florida, it takes approximately three years for a quahog to reach 51 mm, whereas in Maine, it takes
about five years to reach the same size. Growth is faster for animals living in sandy substrates, as
opposed to muddy bottoms and is influenced by tidal currents—currents that are too slow do not bring
enough food, and currents that are too fast can scour the bottom, reducing suitable habitat.
Threats/Stressors
Predation—by humans, birds, and marine organisms—is the primary threat to quahogs. Crabs are the
most serious predator, having the capability to dig quahogs out of sediment or dig themselves into the
sediment to crush the shell. Oyster drills, moon snails, conchs, and horseshoe crabs are other significant
predators.
Human harvest also has the ability to affect quahog populations. Andrews (1990) describes quahogs as
being harvested in the late 1800s between the beach at Smith’s Point and the south side of Tuckernuck
as well as on the flats on the north side of that island. Fishermen built fifteen or twenty shacks on
Muskeget and the Gravelly Islands in order to spend the summer there digging (Andrews, 1990). By the
2005–2006 season, however, only one commercial license was issued for quahogs and the fleet has
been similarly small in size for several years.
Changes in habitat is another factor that can have an impact on quahog populations. In 1890, the beach
of Smith’s Point and Tuckernuck and Muskeget began to break up and the sand pushed through these
breaks produced new sand bars that provided habitat for great numbers of quahogs. However, if sand
bars are too exposed during the winter, quahogs may freeze to death.
Dredging can also disturb stocks—though the long‐term impacts of dredging activities seem to vary from
project to project.
Other stressors include turbidity (which can reduce the growth of clams because of the additional
energy expended to process the extra suspended material as they filter feed) and exposure to hypoxic
conditions and pesticides which can ultimately cause death.
American Oysters
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 29
(Unless otherwise noted, this section is based on Stanley & Sellers (1986).)
Biological characteristics and environmental requirements of the species
The American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is most commonly found on mudflats and offshore bars in
well‐mixed, shallow estuaries, lagoons, and bays, as well as on the sheltered side of barrier islands.
These animals can tolerate tremendous fluctuations in environmental conditions such as water
temperature (ideal temperature for adults is between 20–30 ˚C), salinity (they are most successful in
brackish waters where there are fewer predators), and the concentration of suspended solids (pumping
rates decrease as concentrations increase).
The shape of an oysters shell depends, in part, on the environment. Where there is hard bottom,
oysters’ “beaks,” (the pointy ends) are usually curved, whereas oysters on reefs and in silty
environments are straighter. Single oysters from hard‐bottom areas also have a thicker, more ornate
shell with radial ridges than those found on soft sediments and reefs. The inside of all oyster shells have
a purple scar from the adductor muscle, a feature that distinguishes it from similar species. The shell
continues to grow throughout the animal’s life, and is typically 10–15 cm in length when the oyster is 3–
5 years old.
Oysters spawn when stimulated by a change in water temperature, though the specific triggering
temperature differs among populations. In the northeast, spawning usually takes place during July and
August. Males typically spawn first, stimulating females to release their eggs (23–86 million eggs per
female per spawning event) when they detect the sperm and pheromones in the water column.
Oysters live in the water column for 2–3 weeks after they hatch. Their swimming behavior during this
period often prevents them from being flushed out of a harbor. Only a minority of larvae survive the 2–
3 week period in the water column. The surviving larvae, stimulated at least in part by the higher water
temperature over tidal flats, begin to look for a solid substrate (ideally shells) upon which to attach
through the secretion of a cement‐like liquid. At this point, the oysters are considered to be juveniles.
Growth in oysters is fastest during an animal’s first three months of life. Water temperature
significantly influences the rate of growth, with oysters growing faster in warmer water than cold. In the
winter in Nantucket waters, oyster growth stops. Other factors such as change in salinity, exposure to
air, turbidity, and access to food also affect growth rates.
Threats/Stressors
In Long Island Sound, studies showed a downward trend in oyster landings starting around 1920. The
decline was partially related to the increase in the sale of oysters “in the shell” which removed an
important settling substrate from the environment. Empty shells on the bottom are also habitat for
other animals, such as slipper shells and barnacles; and oysters often have to compete against these (as
well as against other oysters) for space to settle. (There is no scientific information specific to the
impacts of shell removal on oysters in Nantucket waters.)
Oyster population numbers are also adversely affected by bacteria such as Vibrio and Pseudomonas;
parasites such as Haplosporidium nelson, which causes a disease referred to as MSX (Multinucleated
Sphere Unknown); and predators such as flatworms, oyster drills, sea stars, and crabs.
Additionally, extreme warming of the water (in the vicinity of 35 ˚C) that lasts an entire tidal cycle can
cause adult oyster mortality. Similarly, prolonged exposure to low salinities (around 6 ppt) can halt
reproduction, and may cause death.
Blue Mussels
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 30
(Unless otherwise noted, this section is based on Newell (1989).)
Biological characteristics and environmental requirements of the species
Mytilus edulis, commonly known as the blue mussel, is found in the tidal and subtidal zones (<99m), in a
variety of settings including flat intertidal areas as well as rocky vertical areas such as the jetties.
Estuarine littoral environments provide some of the most challenging conditions for blue mussels
(including daily variations in temperature, salinity, exposure to air, and access to food).
The exterior of the shell is often a shiny dark blue, with many fine concentric lines. As the shiny layer, or
“periostracum,” wears away, a white inner layer is exposed. The interior of the shell often has a dark
blue or violet border with a pearly white center.
One of the primary requirements for a population of blue mussels is the presence of a hard surface to
which they can attach. Blue mussels anchor to a secure substrate (which may include other mussels)
using byssus threads which are secreted from the animal’s foot. Through the adjustment of the length
of existing threads and the secretion of new ones, a mussel has the capacity for limited mobility,
allowing it to reposition to avoid smothering by sediment, to move to the outside of a mussel bed, or
reposition itself in water currents.
Blue mussels typically spawn at approximately one year of age, though some environmental conditions
(such as prolonged exposure to air) can slow the animal’s rate of growth and delay sexual maturity until
sometime in the second year. Males typically spawn first, triggering the spawning of females. Animals
may release all of their eggs or sperm at once, or they may slowly release them over an extended period
of time. Spawning events are influenced by many factors (water temperature, salinity, air exposure,
hormonal cycle, and genotype) but are dominated by the availability of food. Mussels that are stressed
by environmental factors experience reduced spawning capacity.
The larval stage of a blue mussel may last between 15–35 days, depending on environmental conditions.
Temperatures of 15–20 ˚C and salinities of 15_35 ppt were shown to be ideal for “normal” development
in larval mussels studied in Connecticut; however studies from elsewhere indicate that salinity and
temperature requirements for “normal” development vary depending on the population being studied,
and, in particular, the environmental conditions in the vicinity of the spawning adults.
Once the larvae develop feet, they use byssus threads to attach to substrates such as algae, and
metamorphosize into juveniles. A juvenile will stay attached to this substrate until it is about 1–1.5 mm,
at which point it releases its hold and re‐enters the water column. When the juvenile makes contact
with an adult, the juvenile produces new byssus threads and attaches to another mussel or to the
adjacent substrate.
As the animals grow, they become more tolerant of environmental variations, and can live up to twenty
years.
Spawning activity has not been monitored in Nantucket waters to determine if it occurs with regularity
from year to year or if it varies; whether or not environmental stressors have reduced the spawning
capacity in Nantucket waters; and what the ideal temperatures and salinities are for “normal”
development.
Threats/Stressors
Predation by humans, birds (eider ducks in particular), and marine organisms is one of the main threats
to blue mussels. Pressure from marine organisms is highest during the animals’ three‐week stage as
planktonic larvae. Predation is also higher among those animals with soft shells. As mussels grow and
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 31
their shells harden, they become prey for large predators such as gulls and oyster catchers, lobster,
crabs, sea stars, conch, and a variety of fish. Mussels also must compete for settlement space, both with
other species and with other blue mussels. As filter feeders, mussels in dense groupings can reduce the
amount of available food in the water column. This can result in slowed growth and the migration of
mussels to the outer edges of the beds to have access to more food.
Within mussel beds the attachment to each other can result in weak attachments to secure a substrate,
which, in turn, can lead to entire beds being washed away during a significant storm event.
Water quality issues such as anoxia, or the lack of sufficient dissolved oxygen in the water, can harm
mussels, depriving them of the oxygen needed to function. Blue mussels do have the ability to increase
their efficiency of extracting oxygen, but if there isn’t enough oxygen available to them (below 60%
saturation), the increase in efficiency is not beneficial.
This species is used as a sentinal for red tide and other contaminants. Blue mussels are quite resilient to
contamination—studies show that a 50% mortality rate in a mussel population would likely only happen
in rare contamination events. However, while contamination may not kill the animals, it may affect
some aspects of their physiology, such as their ability to spawn. One of the specific concerns related to
the human consumption of mussels is Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP), a poisoning that results from
the bioaccumulation of toxins produced by dinoflagellate algae during warm‐water blooms. While PSP
can affect all bivalves in Nantucket waters, mussels are specifically monitored to inform shellfish bed
closures because, “they have the capacity to uptake and release toxins of ambient dinoflagellates in
close temporal relationship to the actual duration of … blooms” (DMF Shellfish Sanitation and
Management, undated).
Human harvest may also put stress on the resource. When mussels are present, there is a significant
recreational fishery. Given the variability in mussel populations, however, the fishery is not consistent.
Soft‐shell Clams
(Unless otherwise noted, this section is based on Abraham & Dillon (1986).)
Biological characteristics and environmental requirements of the species
Mya arenaria have a thin and brittle chalky‐white/grey egg‐shaped shell. The average shell length is 75–
100 mm, but can reach up to 150 mm. Due to the influences of water temperature on growth (colder
water results in slower growth than warmer water), northern soft‐shell clams, including those found in
Nantucket waters, are often smaller than those found in warmer waters.
Ideal conditions for adult survival and growth are generally found in intertidal and subtidal areas with
water depths of no more than 3–4 feet, temperatures less than 28 °C, salinities greater than 5 ppt, and.
“stiff” sands and muds that will not collapse against the shell valves when the shell is closed. Given a
relatively limited tidal range, the Island does not support extensive clam flats except within narrow
stretches along Nantucket Harbor and around the edge of some ponds (Kelley, 1986).
Spawning events are triggered by water temperature, with water temperatures affecting gonadal
development and the release of gametes. Spawning usually happens once in the spring and again in the
fall. Soft‐shell clams begin to spawn around the age of five years. Larvae live in the water column for
roughly 2–6 weeks, eventually settling to the substrate as a juvenile, anchoring to the ground via a
byssus. The animals soon shed their byssus and burrow into the sediment, becoming sedentary adults.
While adult soft‐shell clams burrow into the sediment (up to 30 cm deep), juveniles move about the
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 32
substrate, and only burrow 1–2 cm, exposing themselves to wave action, resulting in the animal’s
common “clumped” distribution.
Growth of adult soft‐shell clams is related to:
Availability of phytoplankton
Sediment type and bottom topography (growing best in sediments that can be easily
penetrated),
Density of clams (growing best when density is less than 25 clams/sq. ft.)
Water temperature
Size of clam (as clams get larger, their growth slows)
Spawning activity (clams grow at greater rates when not spawning)
Threats/Stressors
In the early 1900s, soft‐shell clams supported a small commercial fishery on Nantucket, but harvesting
pressure, along with changing environmental conditions, is believed to have depleted the stock. As a
result, harvesting is currently limited to recreational harvesting (Kelly, 1986). In addition to human
pressures, soft‐shell clams on Nantucket are also at risk of predation by moon snails, horseshoe crabs,
green crabs, lady crabs, blue claw crabs, mud crabs, grass shrimp, flounder, and Canada geese (Kelley,
1986).
Issues related to water quality may also impact soft‐shell clams by altering the biota so that soft‐shell
clams have more competition for space.
Because adults are sedentary and live in shallow and intertidal areas, they are often affected by coastal
pollution resulting in closures to harvesting.
Conchs
Biological characteristics and environmental requirements of the species
Conchs include the channeled whelk (Busycotypus canaliculatus) and the knobbed whelk (Busycon
carica), both of which are found in Nantucket waters. Most channeled whelk are brown or
orange/yellow. The outside of their shells is often a yellow‐ish white and is covered by minute hairs
(Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce, undated). Their pear‐shaped shell is spiraled with a series of
small bumps and a deep channel along the top of the spiral. The channeled whelk can grow up to 8
inches in length (Marine Biological Laboratory, Undated).
The knobbed whelk’s shell grows up to about 10 inches in length and has a ring of projections, or
“knobs,” along the top of the spiral (Marine Biological Laboratory, undated). The shell is usually tan to
grey on the outside, although some have dark brown streaks on the outside. The inside of the shell
ranges from dark red to orange to pale yellow.
Conchs live on most bottom types in subtidal bays, moving about with their strong foot. The foot lays a
layer of “slime” which acts as a road upon which the conch can pull its body. It is believed that, during
winter months, conchs move to more shallow areas, and then migrate to deeper water (up to 40–50 m
deep) during the summer months.
These carnivorous animals are known to feed on bivalves, including burrowing clams, which they dig out
of the sand and then pry apart.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 33
Conchs reproduce by laying disk‐like egg capsules which are joined together by a shared “spine.” One
end of this string of egg capsules is buried in the sand, and within each capsule are approximately one
hundred embryos including a mix of fertile and infertile eggs—the young resulting from fertile ones may
feed upon the infertile ones. When the animals are approximately 3.175 mm in size, they crawl out of
the capsules (Marine Biological Laboratory, undated).
Given the increasing importance of the conch fishery, as well as its invasive species status on the west
coast (Cohen, 2011), more research is underway to better understand the movement, reproductive
habits, and life cycle of the species and to manage the fishery accordingly.
Threats/Stressors
The largest threat to conchs seems to be from fishing pressure. Once thought of as a nuisance species,
conchs are now caught and sold commercially—though some communities do still consider conch a
threat to bay scallops and remove the egg cases from certain ponds (Edmundson, 2012). While the
exact cause is not known, the Maria Mitchell Association has conducted surveys of Nantucket Harbor
which show a decrease in the number of conchs since 2006 (Boyce, 2012).
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 34
SECTION 6: HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF
NANTUCKET SHELLFISHING
Historical Significance of Shellfish
Shellfish resources on Nantucket have played an important role in shaping the Island’s history,
character, and economy; however the significance of the different species has changed over time.
Human population growth, economic fluctuations, environmental alterations, and advances in science
and technology have all influenced shifts in the abundance, distribution, and economic/social
significance of Nantucket’s shellfish.
The bay scallop fishery is currently the Island’s largest commercial shellfishery in terms of the number of
people employed and its economic significance; however this is a departure from the bay scallop’s value
among early European settlers who believed that the bay scallop was poisonous. Though they were
eventually harvested in the early 1800s for bait, bay scallops were not commercially harvested for
human consumption until the late 1800s (Andrews, 1980). Archeological explorations into the Native
American diet on Nantucket also suggest that bay scallops were not consumed by Native Americans to
the same extent as other local shellfish. The scallop shell, however, has long been used for decorative
and religious purposes on Nantucket (Patrick, 2002).
Quahogs were a very important commercial shellfishery in the early 1800s, in part for their use as
codfish bait for dory fishermen.
Conchs, on the other hand, were not valued for their commercial significance until relatively recently.
Up through the 1960s, this predatory shellfish was seen as a nuisance, and fishermen who caught
conchs as by‐catch were encouraged to leave the conchs on culling boards to die. In the 1970s however,
conchs became marketable. While the fishery has never been large two fishermen from Nantucket fish
for conch today—mostly in Nantucket Sound.
In the mid‐1800s, sea clams (which early European settlers also believed to be poisonous to humans)
and soft‐shell clams were harvested in great numbers for bait. Soft‐shelled clams were also the principal
shellfish consumed by locals in the mid 1800s, but they are no longer abundant in Nantucket waters.
Recreational shellfishing has also played an important role in shaping Nantucket’s economic and cultural
history. On average, approximately 1,700 family permits have been issued each year for the past ten
years. Recreational fishermen turn out each fall to uphold a long‐held family tradition. Their visits help
bolster the Island’s shoulder season economy through the purchases of rakes, buckets, gear, and
lodging.
Presently, the only wild shellfish commercially harvested are conch, quahog, mussels, and bay scallops.
In addition, oysters are also harvested through aquaculture. Recreationally harvested species include
bay scallops, mussels, quahogs, soft‐shell clams, and oysters.
The following sections focus on management topics for those types of shellfish currently commercially
and recreationally harvested.
Past and Present Shellfish Management
Previous attempts at developing a management plan for Nantucket’s shellfish resources have been
written, and have been implemented to varying degrees (Kelly, 1981 and 1986; Norton, 2000; Starbuck,
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 35
undated). While no plan has ever formally been adopted, shellfish are currently managed through the
application of a number of federal, state and local regulations and administrative practices. These
management activities include the assessment of and protection against risks to human health, control
of entry into the fishery, fishing effort, specification of fishing technologies, and fishery area
management. The following sections describe available information about both past and current
shellfish management on Nantucket, including: who shellfishes; when, where, and how people shellfish;
catch limits; size regulations; aquaculture activities; and the shucking and selling processes.
Shellfish Licenses
Since the late 1800s/early 1900s (MacKenzie, 2008, Andrews, 1990) commercial shellfish harvesters
have needed licenses in order to gather shellfish. The first commercial municipal shellfish licenses were
issued to people having a legal residence on Nantucket for at least 12 months. The residency
requirement was instituted as a way to prevent Cape Cod fishermen from taking bay scallops from
Nantucket waters (Andrews, 1990). In more recent times, the license requirement has been expanded
to include both commercial and recreational harvests and continues to distinguish between Nantucket
residents and non‐residents. The original state conch regulations of 1992 required a license to fish; and
shortly thereafter it became a limited‐entry fishery open only to people previously licensed to harvest
conch. Originally, conch licenses were non‐transferable, but they became transferrable in the late 1990s
and remained so for approximately 10 years. Recently though, the licenses became non‐transferrable
again—in part to minimize demand for the fishery’s primary bait source, the horseshoe crab.
Licenses are obtained through application to the appropriate state or local agency and the payment of a
license fee. The Town fee for a commercial shellfish license is $150/species; the fee for a commercial
bay scalloping license is $250; the fees for annual non‐commercial shellfish license are $25 for residents,
and $100 for non‐residents, and; the fees for weekly non‐resident recreational licenses is $50. (The
original shellfish license fees were a dollar.) A commercial shellfish license (an individual commercial
permit endorsed for shellfish) is obtained from the DMF and is required for an individual to land and sell
shellfish to a licensed shellfish dealer. In addition, the harvester must have a DMF‐issued Shellfish
Transaction Card for identification purposes.
A license to allow an individual to harvest shellfish within the waters of Nantucket (up to 3 miles
offshore) can be obtained from the Nantucket Department of Marine and Coastal Resources and is
awarded as either a commercial or a recreational license. A commercial license is awarded for general
shellfish or for bay scallop, and allows the holder to harvest, land and sell his/her catch to a licensed
dealer. Obtaining a commercial license is restricted to residents of Nantucket and, in some cases, may
require additional conditions (e.g., a designated apprenticeship period in the case of a bay scallop
commercial license).
Residency as a license requirement for the Town’s Commercial and Resident Recreational Shellfish
Licenses states that “The applicant must…live in the Town of Nantucket for at least one year, and
maintain a domicile on Nantucket” (Town Code, §122‐2). Additionally, licensees must now be at least 14
years of age (Town Code, §122‐2). A Town shellfish license is only good for one year, and applications
for bay scallop licenses need to be filed between January 1 and March 31 (Town Code, §122‐2).
A recreational shellfish harvest license can be purchased by any individual who applies, and allows the
holder to catch a limited harvest for personal consumption only.
There is no fee for people over 60 years of age who wish to obtain a senior citizen permit (Town
Shellfish Regulations, §230‐3). This free license is good for the rest of the fisherman’s life, and entitles
him/her to harvest up to 2 bushels/day with commercial gear. However, the animals caught under this
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 36
license may not be sold. If a fisherman is 60 years or older and wishes to harvest in order to sell his/her
catch, he/she must obtain a commercial license and pay the full fee. The 2012 Annual Town Meeting
will address whether or not this senior citizen permit should be restricted to Town residents.
Regulations do not limit the number of commercial shellfishing licenses sold each year; however in the
early 1980s, a survey of commercial scallopers showed that most (78%) were in favor of some type of
limit on licenses. The majority of those surveyed (73.6%) also felt special allowances should be in place
to assure that “native Nantucketers” could get a license (Kelley, 1986). At the time of the survey, the
fishery seemed to be stable and doing well, and a management strategy report (which was never
implemented) suggested not only that the number of licenses be capped at 400, but also that there be
an effort requirement whereby a certain percent of a person’s income had to be obtained via
shellfishing (Kelley, 1986). In 1983 the Town voted on and defeated an article to set a limit on the
number of commercial licenses sold (Kelley, 1986), and the number of commercial licenses has never
been capped.
Even without a cap, the number of people commercially fishing for shellfish on Nantucket has fluctuated
over time and is associated with factors such as the economic and cultural significance of the resource,
abundance of shellfish, start‐up and operating costs, and economic conditions—with more people
entering the fishery during difficult economic times and/or times of plentiful shellfish. The following
plot (Figure 11) shows the different numbers of shellfishing licenses issued by the Town of Nantucket, as
reported to and recorded by the DMF. Records are kept for different categories of licensees. It is worth
noting that the non‐residential licenses are only recreational, but are not included in the numbers listed
as “recreational.” In looking at the data, specific trends can be noted, particularly the gradual increase
in recreational licenses over the forty‐year interval and a general decline in the number of commercial
licenses since the early 1980s. Since 1997, the number of licenses in all categories appears to have
stabilized at approximately 160 commercial licenses, 1,700 resident recreational licenses, and less than
100 non‐resident recreational licenses. (The way that recreational license data are tracked will change
now that the Town is offering a weekly recreational license.) ,
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 37
Figure 11: A plot of the total numbers of shellfish licenses sold between 1967–2007, as
recorded by the DMF. The non-resident licenses are not included in the “recreational” license
numbers listed, though they are both considered recreational. The Senior Citizen licenses (age
60 and older) were added to the recreational license numbers from 2001–2007. It is uncertain
as to what caused the drop in Senior licenses in 1989. Updated commercial license numbers
from the Town report the following totals: 153 (2008); 156 (2009); 164 (2010); and 160 (2011).
Shellfish Seasons
Times during which one can legally land shellfish are limited primarily by regulation, although natural
conditions can influence harvest times as well. By dictating active harvest times, shellfish managers can
protect populations during times of reproductive activity, allow juvenile members of the population to
grow into a marketable size, and control the total landed amount to prevent an overfishing situation.
The following harvest seasons have been established on Nantucket through regulations developed
either at the state or town level (Table 2).
Table 2: A summary of the seasonal limits for landing shellfish species in the waters of
Nantucket.
Species Fishery Season Days/Week Time of day
Bay Scallop Commercial November 1–
March 31
Monday–Friday 6:30 am–4:30
pm
Recreational October 1–
March 31
Wednesday–
Sunday
Dawn–dusk
Quahog Recreational April 1–March 31 No restrictions Dawn–dusk
Commercial April 1–March 31 No restrictions Dawn–dusk
Oyster Recreational September 1–
April 30
No restrictions Dawn–dusk
Mussel Commercial April 1–March 31 No restrictions Dawn–dusk
Recreational April 1–March 31 No restrictions Dawn–dusk
Soft‐shell Clam Recreational September 16–
June 14
Sundays (all
season);
Saturdays
(limited to
December 15‐
March 31)
Dawn–dusk
Conch Commercial April 15–
December 15
No restrictions Dawn–dusk
The development of these seasons is influenced primarily by the need/desire to limit fishing effort, give
the shellfish more time to grow, and improve safety conditions. For example, in 1992, in an effort to
protect Massachusetts conchs from being overfished, the DMF issued size and catch limit regulations
and regulations to establish a season and daylight restrictions for conch fishing.
While the history of the development of seasons for most shellfish species is not well‐documented,
much has been written about the limits placed on the commercial bay scallop fishery season. Those
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 38
limits, described below (and shown in Table 2 above), have been affected by changes in the demand for
the bay scallop, changes in technology, weather conditions, and shellfish abundance.
The commercial season for bay scallops was first restricted statewide in 1885, when it was set at
September 1–April 15. In 1896, it was further restricted to October 1–March 31 (Mackenzie, 2008). In
1910, the current commercial season (November 1–March 31 (Nantucket Town Code §122‐12A)) was
established; however people were allowed to harvest from April 1 until May 15 for the sole purpose of
harvesting scallops for bait (Mackenzie, 2008). The restrictions on the start date were established in
part to give scallops more time to grow before harvest, thus increasing the meat yield; and to
accommodate the fact that people were typically employed through the fall and found it difficult to take
time off for scalloping (Mackenzie, 2008).
The bait extension no longer exists, but the season has been extended in the past (pursuant to MGL CH
130 §73) due to abnormally good (e.g., 1968—where people were still bringing in their daily limits when
the season ended in mid‐April (Patrick, 2002)) and bad seasons (e.g., 2009—when only a handful of
fishermen were still fishing) (Fisherman interview, 2010)), and seasons where fishermen lost several
days of fishing because of poor weather conditions (e.g., 2004—when fishermen lost over forty days of
fishing due to weather and the season was extended into the first week of April) (Town and County of
Nantucket, 2004).
In seasons with poor catches, some believe that extending the season is not very useful because the
bottom conditions are poor, the product is generally inferior to what it was earlier in the season, and
few people are still fishing (Fisherman interview, 2011). In fact, in 1996, due to a poor harvest, the
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board (SHAB) suggested that the Board of Selectmen shorten the season
(both commercial and recreational) to make it end on January 1. Their arguments included the fact that
most of the legally harvested animals have been caught by then; and shortening the season would
protect eelgrass from being dragged over for the sake of catching only a few animals. (Patrick, 2002).
The bay scallop season was again changed in 1977 when a rule was established to restrict hours of
harvesting to 6:30 am–4:30 pm. This rule was put in place primarily for safety and enforcement reasons
(Patrick, 2008). Previously, commercial bay scallopers could harvest in the dark, making it difficult to
perform inspections and rescues. Another reason for limiting the fishing day was the argument that
limiting the hours fished each day might actually increase the number of fishermen fishing later into the
season (Mackenzie, 2008).
Up through most of the 1950s, fishermen could harvest scallops Monday–Saturday. In the 1980s,
scallopers advocated moving to a Monday–Friday work week (Kelley, 1986). The shortened week was
enacted to extend fishing later into the season (Mackenzie, 2008) and to reduce the number of “part‐
timers” in the fishery (Kilburn, 1986). Additionally, fishermen advocated for a shortened harvest week
because the catches on Friday and Saturday did not yield the same financial benefits for fishermen as
did their catches earlier in the week—scallops caught on Fridays and Saturdays were not sold until
Monday, so the product and prices associated with a Friday or Saturday catch were inferior to the
products caught and sold earlier in the week.
While fishing is typically limited to Monday–Friday, the regulations still allow for a Monday–Saturday
week in order to provide flexibility when holidays, weather, and ice conditions impact fishing during
weekdays.
In addition to the aforementioned restrictions on the bay scallop season, natural conditions such as
storms, extreme cold, and frozen harbors can keep people from fishing. (Historically, when boats fished
under sail, a very calm day could also prevent people from fishing (Mackenzie, 2008)). While extreme
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 39
cold can be dangerous to fishermen, it can also cause death to seed exposed to the cold air during
harvest. To minimize seed deaths due to exposure, a rule was established in 1983 prohibiting
shellfishing if the air temperature fails to rise above 28 Fahrenheit by 10:00 am (Town Shellfish
Regulations 230‐1F). Extreme cold can also cause the Harbors to freeze over, preventing boats from
leaving the docks for weeks at a time as it did in 2003, when Nantucket Harbor froze over twice during
the shellfishing season (Town and County of Nantucket, 2003). On average, scallop boats are iced in 5–
10 fishing days/season (Fronzuto, personal communication, 2011).
The Marine Superintendent can also close the commercial scalloping season when seed is stranded on
the beach (Town Shellfish Regulations 230‐1B).
Recreational scalloping, which begins a month before the commercial season, experiences the most
activity in October while the weather and water are still warm; however some people do recreationally
fish longer into the season.
Size Regulations:
Minimum size limits are frequently placed on a fishery to provide protection for juveniles within the
population to allow them to attain an adult size before harvest. This not only ensures the optimal
market value for the product but also generally includes an opportunity for an individual to attain
reproductive maturity and reproduce at least once in its life cycle, prior to its removal from the
population.
Table 3: State and Town regulations specify the legal size for harvested shellfish
Species Size Rule Source
Bay Scallop Must have well‐defined raised growth
line
230 Nantucket
Commercial Shellfish
Regulations §1(B)
Must have well‐defined raised annual
growth line at least 10 mm from the
hinge of the shell. Exception: well‐
defined raised annual growth line located
less than 10 mm from the hinge of the
shell if the shell height is at least 63.5 mm
(2.5 inches).
322 CMR §6.11
Quahog ≥ 1 inch thick;
322 CMR §6.20‐2(a);
230 Nantucket
Commercial Shellfish
Regulations: §1(F)
Oyster ≥ 3.0 inches in longest diameter 322 CMR §6.20‐2(c)
Mussel ≥ 2.0 inches shell length 230 Nantucket
Commercial Shellfish
Regulations §1(D)
Soft‐shell clam 2.0 inches shell at longest diameter 322 CMR§6.20
Conch 2.75 inch shell width 322 CMR §6.21‐2
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 40
The definition of a legally harvested bay scallop has been the topic of much debate in Massachusetts
and on Nantucket over the past several decades. Current State regulations require that, “No person
shall land or possess scallops without a well‐defined growth line and that growth line shall measure at
least 10 millimeters from the hinge of the shell.” The exception to that is when, “Bay Scallops…have a
well‐defined raised annual growth line located less than 10 millimeters (mm) from the hinge of the
shell… [but have a] shell height…at least 63.5 millimeters or 2.5 inches” (322 CMR §6.11(2)). Shell
height is measured in “a straight line from the middle of the hinge to the opposing valve margin” (322
CMR §6.11(1b)). Those scallops lacking a well‐defined growth line are defined as “seed scallop” (322
CMR §6.11(1c)), and fishermen are prohibited from harvesting them because they have not yet
reproduced.
In addition to adult scallops (with a well‐defined growth ring at least 10 mm from the hinge) and seed
scallops (with no growth ring present), there is a third class of scallop known as the “nub” scallop—a
term for an adult‐size scallop with a clear growth ring under 10 mm from the hinge. The nub scallops
originate from a fall spawning and therefore it is believed that the nubs reach reproductive maturity late
during their first summer of their lives. Come harvest time, as a one‐year‐old bay scallop, the nub
scallop has no well‐defined growth ring greater than 10mm from the hinge and has an unknown history
of reproductive effort. There are two issues regarding the occurrence of nub scallops during the fall
harvest:
1. The spawning patterns of a nub are unclear. Some believe that nubs, especially those with thick
shells, spawn during their first summer and should be harvested like any adult. Others believe
that nubs only spawn in their second summer and should be allowed to live and reproduce even
if they die before they can be harvested.
2. Not all growth lines are obvious, making it sometimes difficult to distinguish nubs from large
seed (young of the year).
If it is determined that a nub does spawn during its first summer, then it would seem logical to allow
these animals to be harvested with normal adult scallops. However, the inability to reliably differentiate
between a nub and a seed raises potential for the accidental removal of seed which have not
reproduced. A study is currently underway, led by Ms. Valerie Hall, to address the issue of whether nub
scallops do reproduce during their first summer and also will measure their survival behavior over the
course of their life cycle.
Previously, scallopers were prohibited from harvesting nubs because of the 10 mm requirement. Just
prior to the 2008–2009 season however, estimates suggested that 85% of the harvestable scallops were
nubs and it was projected that enforcing the 10 mm rule would lead to a disastrous season. The Town
of Nantucket and Nantucket fishermen petitioned DMF to review the regulations. Ultimately, the 2.5”
shell height exception was added to the regulations as a way to exempt the 10 mm rule while still
imposing some limits on the harvesting of nubs. (The shell height exception allowed the harvest of an
estimated 43% of the nubs, protecting 57% from being harvested (Town and County of Nantucket,
2009).) Nantucket proposed a 1” shell thickness (shell inflation) rule as a better exception measure than
the 2.5” shell height measure but DMF was unwilling to change its decision based on research limited to
Nantucket (Town and County of Nantucket, 2009). See Appendix I for more information on this change
to harvesting criteria.
One additional concern from fishermen favoring the shell‐thickness rule is that the current 10mm rule
and the 2.5” shell height measurement prevent the catch of those adult scallops who are believed to
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 41
have spawned, but do not meet either of the criteria for harvesting (Dutra, Personal communication,
2012).
Catch Limits
Overharvesting is a common problem in wild harvest fisheries, leaving too few reproductive individuals
to sustain the population. One strategy to reduce the risk of overharvesting is to limit the amount of
animals that can be harvested in any season. Catch limits are a common management strategy that has
proven to be an effective means to control the level of harvest and protect spawning biomass.
Rather than employ true catch limits, Nantucket’s shellfisheries manage the catches of each fishermen.
The current regulations for catch limits on Nantucket are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: A summary of the catch limits for shellfish harvested in the waters of Nantucket. Where
State and Town limits both exist, shellfishermen are held to Town limits while fishing in Town
waters.
Species Fishery Catch Limit per License Source
Bay Scallop
Commercial 5 Town‐approved boxes/day 230 Town Commercial
Shellfish Regulations
§1(E)
10 bushels/day 130 MGL §72
Recreational One bushel/week 230 Town Recreational
Shellfish Regulations
§5(D)
Quahog
Commercial Up to 10 Town‐approved boxes/day 230 Town Commercial
Shellfish Regulations
§1(F)
Recreational Up to one ten‐quart bucket/day; up to one‐
half (.5) bushel/week
230 Town Recreational
Shellfish Regulations
§5(F)
Oyster
Recreational One‐half (0.5) bushel/week 230 Town Recreational
Shellfish Regulations
§5(E)
Mussel
Commercial Up to 10 Town‐approved boxes/day 230 Town Commercial
Shellfish Regulations
§1(G)
Recreational One bushel/week 230 Town Recreational
Shellfish Regulations
§5(F)
Soft‐shell
Clam
Recreational One ten‐quart bucket only to be taken on
Sundays
230 Town Recreational
Shellfish Regulations
§5(H)
Conch Commercial 200 pots at any given time (no limit on lbs.) 322 CMR §6.15(2)(b)
Up until the late 1880s, shellfishermen were free to take as many shellfish as they could physically load
in their vessel. However, in the late 1890s Massachusetts imposed a 25‐bushel/fisherman limit for bay
scallops (Mackenzie, 2008). In 1910, the bay scallop limit in Massachusetts was further reduced to 10
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 42
bushels per person. In 1944, a Nantucket fisherman’s association successfully petitioned the Board of
Selectmen to lower the Town’s catch limit to 4.5 bushels/person; but that was increased to 6 bushels
sometime in the late 1970s (Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission, 1980), and
then rose to about 12 bushels in the late 1980s (Fisherman interview, 2011). In the early 1990s, a 5‐
bushel limit was established on Nantucket (Kelley 1986; Patrick, 2002). That 5 bushel limit stands today,
with a maximum of two licensed fishermen per boat (i.e., 10 bushels/boat) (122 Nantucket Town Code
§12D). The most recent round of catch limit reductions were seen as a way to prevent people from
landing too many animals too early in the season, thus flooding the market with product (Mackenzie,
2008). When appropriate (for example, due to an abundance of adult scallops still in the water at the
end of the season or the loss of several fishing days due to weather conditions), the Board of Selectmen
has temporarily raised the bushel limit. For example, in 2005 they raised the limit to six bushels/license
for the last five days of the season.
In addition to the limit modifications, changes were made regarding the containers used to hold
scallops. Prior to limits, people often held their scallops in woven coal baskets. From the early 1900s up
to the mid 1900s, people used state‐issued burlap bags (Mackenzie, 2008). Current regulations require
fishermen to use boxes which they purchase from the Town (Town Shellfish Regulations §230‐1D).
Bushel limits can be used as a means to penalize or incentivize certain behaviors. For example, if a
fisherman is caught with more bushels than is allowed, he/she must take off one day for every extra
bushel in his/her possession. Along similar lines, an incentive to encourage fishermen to assist with
seed management (strandings and relocation) and research activities (e.g., deploying spat bags and
spawning cages) might include allowing the harvest of extra shellfish.
Unlike bay scallops, there is no real limit on the number of conchs that can be harvested. Instead, conch
fishermen are limited to fishing no more than 200 pots in the water at any given time, and can take as
many conchs as these pots can catch on any given day.
Information about the development of catch limits in other commercial or recreational shellfisheries in
Nantucket waters is sparse.
Harvest Documentation
Until recently, most information about commercial bay scallop harvests was obtained through the
Town’s observations of how many people fished each day, in combination with estimates of total catch
per fisherman, and inspections at landing sites. While these numbers were likely decent approximations
of harvests, they provided no official record of locations harvested. Until 2010, these numbers were
reported to the State, serving as the primary means of obtaining commercial bay scallop data from
Nantucket waters. Estimates were also developed at the Town level related to the average price per
pound of bay scallop for each season, and the resulting total amount earned from the sale of bay
scallops.
While the Town has been the primary source of data for the State for the past several decades, a
comparison of Town and State records for bay scallops shows a discrepancy for some years. The causes
for the discrepancies are unclear.1 Furthermore, no specific procedure is required in terms of how the
1 The data in Table 5 have been changed from their original form. The State’s original record of bushels from
1966–1988 was previously listed as being from 1967–1989, but was one year off of the Town’s records. This may
have been due to the difference in how the State and the Town referred to the seasons (i.e., the State may have
referred to the 1978–1979 season as the 1979 season while the Town referred to it as the 1978 season). Efforts
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 43
Town acquires its numbers; so while the current system of observation now exists, prior managers may
have had different means of obtaining their information—making it difficult to compare data for all
years.
This comparison demonstrates the need for more accurate records of bay scallop harvests.
Table 5: The Town’s data for commercial shellfish landings illustrates the general downward
trend in the number of licensed fishermen, and bushels of scallops harvested, as well as the
general increase in the average price/pound. (*Several hundreds of bushels of seed were lost
due to major storm events; ** Massive shellfish strandings occurred; ***Average yield was 5.5
pounds instead of the state average of 7.5 pounds.)
were made to clarify the discrepancy, but officials at the State and Town could not explain the apparent shift. (The
column showing the differences between Town and State records refers to the differences in the adjusted data.)
The State also noted that they have not received data from the Town since 2007, so State data since then is what
has been reported in the local newspaper. Despite the discrepancies in data, this table shows the general declining
trend in catches. The recent implementation of the Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS)
reporting mechanisms will hopefully reduce such issues going forward.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 44
Year # Licenses
Bushel
record
(from DMF)
Bushel
record
(from Town)
Difference between
State and Town
records
1966 n/a 10,330 n/a
1967 n/a 37,000 n/a n/a
1968 n/a 68,000 n/a n/a
1969 n/a 56,000 n/a n/a
1970 n/a 60,000 n/a n/a
1971 n/a 36,000 n/a n/a
1972 n/a 42,000 n/a n/a
1973 n/a 44,100 n/a n/a
1974 n/a 90,000 n/a n/a
1975 n/a 65,000 n/a n/a
1976 n/a 56,400 n/a n/a
1977 n/a 40,000 n/a n/a
1978 329 59,000 59,000 0
1979 435 96,000 96,000 0
1980 379 117,600 117,000 600
1981 331 77,975 77,900 75
1982 304 50,000 50,000 0
1983 294 48,300 48,300 0
1984 326 36,600 36,600 0
1985 300 38,000 38,000 0
1986 240 12,300 n/a n/a
1987 260 23,000 23,000 0
1988 280 25,000 25,000 0
1989 252 -- 48,000 n/a
1990* 440 44,000 44,000 0
1991* 330 27,024 27,000 24
1992 340 28,907 24,000 4,907
1993 320 12,250 13,000 (750)
1994 260 27,000 28,000 (1,000)
1995 240 1,500 13,391 (11,891)
1996 250 10,000 11,100 (1,100)
1997* 270 4,100 8,000 (3,900)
1998 239 3,333 5,800 (2,467)
1999 137 14,000 14,000 0
2000 117 12,500 15,000 (2,500)
2001 197 14,500 14,500 0
2002 195 13,900 13,900 0
2003 157 15,600 15,600 0
2004 150 32,500 32,500 0
2005 179 5,500 5,500 0
2006 147 3,800 3,800 0
2007** 161 16,800 16,800 0
2008 153 n/a 8,900 n/a
2009*** 156 18,116 13,800 4,316
2010 164 6,916 7,000 (84)
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 45
As of 2010, however, all shellfishermen working in Nantucket waters are now required to submit reports
to the State using the Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS). These reports are not
limited to bay scallops, and will provide more robust information on other commercial species not
recorded in detail at the Town level. Information includes species fished, time spent fishing, gear used,
total catch harvested, and dealers sold to for each fishing trip. Despite the new SAFIS reporting,
Nantucket will continue to collect data about bay scallop harvests through observations, and report this
information to the State. The two sources of data, analyzed together, may help paint a more accurate
picture of what is being harvested.
It should be noted that there are incentives for fishermen to over report (if an event occurs whereby
fishermen are prohibited from fishing, and they are compensated based on previous catches, their
compensation will be greater if they have over‐reported their catch) and under report (for tax
purposes).
Recreational shellfishers are not required to report their catches to anyone; however the Nantucket
Marine Department does ask people to provide information about last year’s catch (species and
quantities caught, and locations fished) when they apply to purchase a license for the following year.
Figure 12: Commercial fishermen typically bring their bay scallop harvests to shore at the
locations identified in this figure. The relatively limited landing locations allow for some
inspection of harvests. While these inspections are in part meant to ensure that the shellfish
are of legal size, the inspections also provide important information about how many bushels
are being caught. Other species are also landed at some of these locations
Area Closures:
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 46
Area closures prohibit all shellfish harvest activity within a designated area. This strategy is used for a
multitude of reasons. First and foremost, area closures are mandated in some areas, based on the risk
of shellfish harboring human pathogens, to prevent the outbreak of human illness from the
consumption of contaminated shellfish. It is DMF’s responsibility to monitor all active shellfish harvest
areas, using coliform bacteria as an indicator of potential health risk, and to assume control and closure
of areas that exceed federal standards for the presence of pathogenic bacteria areas impacted by
harmful algal blooms. The standards for these areal closures are set by the Commonwealth, following
guidelines from the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, and are jointly implemented by DMF and
the MA Department of Public Health. One area in particular which experiences seasonal closures from
time to time is the area known as “NT2.3.” This area extends the existing closure in Nantucket Harbor to
the east, and includes the part of the Harbor that is southwest of a line drawn from the lighthouse at
Brant Point to the northern end of Boston Avenue.
The bay scallop is not often subject to these water‐quality‐based closures given that the only part
generally consumed by humans is the adductor muscle, which does not typically accumulate pathogens.
Figure 13: Water quality influences where shellfish can be safely harvested, as indicated by the
closed areas identified by DMF. Additionally, there are historical seasonal closures in Madaket
Harbor every July 1–December 31 due to high fecal coliform counts. Sesachacha Pond is
undergoing testing to have it re-classified as restricted.
Local area closures can also be mandated by the Town. The Board of Selectmen or the Marine
Superintendent (in consultation with the SHAB) can close an area to harvesting if that area is
determined to be predominantly bay scallop seed (230 Town Shellfish Regulations §1G). For example,
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 47
Madaket Harbor was closed to bay scallopers most recently in the later part of the 2010–2011 season
due to the abundance of seed and almost no legally harvestable adults.
Additionally, areas may be closed to create spawning sanctuaries in which bay scallops are left,
undisturbed, to spawn. The Town has only identified spawning sanctuaries on a few occasions in First
Bend and Second Bend (most recently in 2007), but the effects of sanctuaries were not monitored, and
Town effort has been redirected to focus more on spawning cages and the release of shellfish larvae.
Other reasons for area closures may include habitat protection, protection from overfishing, or for other
management strategies.
Shellfishing Methods and Equipment
The methods used to harvest shellfish are highly varied and often species‐specific. Therefore, it is
impossible to discuss the myriad of fishing technologies that may be in use on Nantucket. The primary
fishing methods for each of the commonly fished species are included below.
Bay Scallops & Mussels
Methods for harvesting scallops have changed over time. In the late 1800s, some people commercially
harvested scallops using pushers and hand rakes while either standing on the flats or while standing in
small drifting boats. Pushers were wooden poles with rectangular iron frames and net bags attached to
the bottom (Mackenzie, 2008). They would pile their catches into rowboats or onto horse drawn
wagons which came out onto the flats for loading (Andrews, 1990) and would bring them to the shanties
for opening.
Those fishing by boat in the late 1800s fished from a wooden oar‐propelled rowboat or a flat‐bottom
boat known as a dory. A dory typically measured approximately 15–17 feet in length and was unstable
while dredging. Catboats, which were longer (typically 18–23 feet long) and more stable than the dory
due to a center‐board or keel, became popular in the late 1800s and were used to dredge for scallops
under sail up until the 1920s. Their shape allowed fishermen to tow several dredges at a time.
Fiberglass boats entered into the fishery in the 1960s (Mackenzie, 2008).
Sail‐powered vessels such as the dory and catboat were difficult to maneuver, especially while towing
dredges. The inboard gasoline engines of the early 1900s provided a new form of propulsion (albeit
small and sometimes problematic). The outboard motors of the 1930s largely replaced sail‐power for
shellfishing, and wooden boats, known as skiffs, began to replace catboats. The advent of the outboard
motor allowed boats to operate in new locations and were better suited to work in the Harbors when
there was ice.
While pushers and hand rakes were initially popular in the industry, dredges, introduced around 1874
(Patrick, 2002), are now the most common means of harvesting scallops commercially. There are
different configurations for dredges, but all include some sort of iron bridle, a bag made of twine, and a
bottom made of metal rings.
Today, bay scallops are primarily harvested by towing dredges behind a boat. Shellfishermen hand‐
hauled their dredges until the 1960s, when motor‐powered hoists, known as “donkey engines,” became
available (Mackenzie, 2008, Patrick & Benchley, 2002). Motor‐powered hoists encouraged some
fishermen to use heavier dredges, but §203‐2 of the Code of Nantucket now limits the weight of dredges
to no more than 40 pounds. Power hoisting is allowed, but is limited for use only on dredges no more
than “twenty‐eight inches wide [and] seven rings deep.” Additionally, the bag on a power‐hoisted
dredge cannot be more than eighteen mesh long.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 48
In addition to harvesting with dredges and a boat, a few divers use SCUBA equipment to gather bay
scallops by hand.
Recreational scallopers are legally allowed to harvest scallops in any manner they choose as long as it
does not involve a motor‐ or sail‐powered boat or a dredge. While some people dive for bay scallops,
many recreational fishermen use rakes to harvest their shellfish.
Commercially, mussels can also be harvested using a dredge that is very similar to the bay scallop
dredge. Recreationally, mussels are generally hand‐picked from exposed or shallow areas.
Quahogs
Quahogs were once commercially harvested with hand rakes (MacKenzie, 2008). Tongs were
introduced to access hard bottoms that rakes could not break open. By the 1920s, most people used
box rakes, described as “rectangular frames with teeth on the bottom, spaced one and one‐quarter
inches apart according to the size of the clams in the bed, and a basket of iron rods on top.” (Andrews,
1990) Bull rakes, consisting of “large semi‐circular teeth attached to a single bar” were used for deeper
water and muddy bottoms (Andrews, 1990).
Today, quahogs and other burrowing clams are routinely harvested recreationally with some form of
digging implement operated by hand. It conventionally has some form of tines that penetrate into the
sediment either to remove the quahogs that lie near the surface or to remove sediment for access to
clams, such as steamers, that can dig deeper.
Conchs
Conchs are harvested by deploying pots on the seafloor and pulling them to the surface. Typically a
square or rectangular “box,” conch pots measure 8–10 inches in height and 20–22 inches to a side on
average. Conch pots are traditionally framed in hardwood with pine lath sides of various widths (1 ½–4
inches). The bottom consists of 35–45 pounds of poured concrete which provides the weight necessary
to keep the pots on the seafloor. The top of the conch pot is open, with a wire mesh baffle overhanging
the perimeter of the top of the box to prevent the shellfish from escaping. Recently, traps have been
produced with wire instead of wood and concrete. These wire traps are weighted with bricks placed
inside the pot (Herr, 2011, Personal communication). State regulations limit conch fishermen to no
more than 200 pots at any given time (322 CMR 6.15) and limit vessel length to 90 feet or less (322 CMR
8.05).
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 49
Figure 14: Recreational Fishing Locations in Madaket Harbor. While the locations for
commercial shellfish harvesting broadly include those areas with shellfish, many recreational
fishermen harvest in shallow waters. Recreational harvesting with SCUBA gear often takes
place in deeper water (not shown on this map).
Figure 15: Recreational Fishing Locations in Nantucket Harbor. While the locations for
commercial shellfish harvesting include those areas with shellfish, many recreational fishermen
harvest in shallow waters. Recreational harvesting with SCUBA gear often takes place in
deeper water (not shown on this map).
Shucking & Selling
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 50
While there have been many changes in methods and technologies related to harvesting bay scallops,
the process of opening bay scallops has remained relatively unchanged. In the late 1800s and early
1900s, scallops were harvested and then brought to land to be opened. Up until the mid‐ 1980s,
shellfishermen used to bring their catches back to shore and open them where it was most convenient,
such as in a basement, kitchen, or living room (Patrick, 2002). Opening was sometimes conducted by
school children, fishermen, their wives, and other family members (MacKenzie, 2008).
Nantucket Health Department regulations now require that all scallops be opened in a licensed shanty.
Licensed shanties include those at fishermens’ private residences, those provided by wholesalers in
exchange for the exclusive right to buy their catch, and those (not operated by a fisherman or
wholesaler) that employ non‐fishermen to open the shellfish. Nantucket Board of Health regulations
have been developed to supplement those provisions found in federal and state law as they pertain to
the “handling, processing, and storage of potentially hazardous food” (Board of Health Regulations
37.00).
Shucking facilities must be enclosed and used solely for the purpose of opening shellfish, and guidelines
exist regarding the construction of the facilities so as to minimize contamination or human health risk
(Board of Health Regulations §37.01) and safety concerns. The Board of Health also regulates the
utensils and equipment used to open shellfish (Board of Health Regulations §37.04‐37.05) and the
specifications for storing, packing and refrigerating opened shellfish (Board of Health Regulations
§37.08‐37.10). Additional shanty standards are outlined by the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (105
CMR 533).
Estimated numbers of licensed shanties are as follows (Ray, 2010, Personal communication):
Table 6: The number of licensed shucking facilities on Nantucket has ranged from as high as 38
(1997) to as low as 12 (2007).
Year # Licensed
Facilities
1994 29
1995 26
1996 32
1997 38
1998 34
1999 22
2000 22
2001 23
2002 21
2003 19
2004 18
2005 16
2006 No data
2007 12
2008 18
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 51
2009 20
2010 20
Fishermen sell their catch to one of the local buyers such as Sayles Seafood, Glidden’s Island Seafood,
and Souza’s Seafood (which in turn sell to wholesalers or directly to restaurants off‐Island), to one of
several smaller buyers who have accounts with retail markets or restaurants off‐Island, or obtain a
license and sell the product themselves. Only about 3,000 pounds of scallops are sold on‐Island during
the season because most restaurants are closed during the fishing season.
In some cases the fisherman is selling the meats from scallops opened at a licensed shanty owned by the
fisherman or by independent openers; in other cases fishermen sell unopened scallops to an
independent shanty or to a shanty associated with the buyer. In this latter case, the buyer purchases all
of the scallops opened in the shanty. There is a chain of custody that runs from the harvester, through
the opener and wholesaler, and to the restaurant or retail market. Scallops are shipped off‐Island by
airplane or ferry in refrigerated containers.
Marketing
Nantucket bay scallops, widely appreciated for their distinct texture and flavor, often fetch a higher
price at market than do other types of scallops. For this reason, it seems that some products marketed
and sold as Nantucket bay scallops, are not harvested from Nantucket waters. Competition from falsely
marketed product can lower the price of the true Nantucket bay scallop, and can change the perception
of the resource’s quality.
As scalloping has transitioned from an income supplement to a primary source of off‐season income, a
desire has grown among fishermen (and wholesalers) to brand the Nantucket bay scallop in such a way
as to prevent the sale of other shellfish under the label of Nantucket bay scallops.
One way to brand the bay scallop is to physically modify the appearance of the shell, giving the
Nantucket bay scallop a distinguishing mark such as a specific colored line in its shell. This has been
done with some success on Martha’s Vineyard (Karney, Undated).
Another alternative is to develop a sticker or label that can be placed on all boxes of Nantucket bay
scallops. While this may be the easiest way to indicate that a product is indeed from Nantucket, it also
does little to prevent people from making counterfeit stickers to place on boxes containing something
other than Nantucket bay scallops.
Yet another option is to form a cooperative among shellfishermen, and communicate a collective
message about the factors that make the Nantucket bay scallop so unique. The marketing message
could include information ranging from descriptions of the product’s taste and texture to the fact that
this is one of the last bay scallop fisheries in the country and that it supports a long‐held tradition of
commercial shellfishing for this special island community. In addition to branding the Nantucket bay
scallop for marketing purposes, this type of information can also be used to educate people about the
importance of the Nantucket bay scallop and the economically and culturally significant industry it
supports. While past efforts to form a fishermen’s cooperative on Nantucket have not been successful,
a cooperative specifically focused on marketing and branding may have more buy‐in than those more
broad proposals of the past. See Appendix G for more information on cooperatives.
While the primary concerns for shellfish marketing pertain to the bay scallop, the aforementioned
approaches to marketing could potentially be applied to other commercial shellfish as well.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 52
Having the ability to prove that a bay scallop originated from Nantucket waters could also help prevent
the intrusion of imitation scallops into the market. The University of Massachusetts Boston is
conducting research that (1) creates a catalog of scallops from known locations in Nantucket waters, (2)
analyzes the geochemistry of the growing edge of the shell to identify chemistry of the particular
habitat, and (3) build a classification model that will help identify the geographic origin of a bay scallop
(Hannigan, January 4, 2012, Personal communication). Similar work with the scallop meat is in the initial
stages of research.
See Appendix H for examples of seafood branding and marketing initiatives.
Town Structure for Managing the Resource
Both the Commonwealth and the Town have a role in managing shellfish resources in Nantucket waters.
Under its Shellfish Project, the DMF designates “shellfish growing areas”—areas of potential shellfish
habitat. Growing areas are managed with respect to shellfish harvest for direct human consumption,
and comprise at least one or more classification areas. The classification areas are the management
units, and they range from being approved to prohibited with respect to shellfish harvest. The six
classification types are:
Approved—Open for harvest of shellfish for direct human consumption subject to local rules
and State regulations.
Conditionally Approved—During the time area is approved it is open for harvest of shellfish for
direct human consumption subject to local rules and State regulations.
Conditionally Restricted—During the time area is restricted it is only open for the harvest of
shellfish with depuration (i.e., purification in through the filtration of clean water, in a State‐run
facility) subject to local rules and State regulations.
Restricted—Open for harvest of shellfish with depuration subject to local rules and state
regulations or for the relay of shellfish.
Management Closure—Closed for harvest of shellfish. Not enough testing has been done in the
area to determine whether it is fit for shellfish harvest or not.
Prohibited ‐‐ Closed for harvest of shellfish.
In addition to managing growing areas, DMF also qualifies areas and issues licenses for aquaculture,
maintains records on various elements of the fisheries (including catch and effort information for
recreational and commercial fisheries), conducts inspections, and sets and enforces regulations such as
size and harvest limits and gear specifications.
While the State has jurisdiction to set broad limits on shellfish harvesting, The General Shellfish Act of
1880 gave town selectmen powers to regulate shellfish in their municipal waters. Boards of Selectmen
can refine the State’s regulations—as long as they don’t conflict—to fit the needs of the communities
and the resources (MacKenzie, 2008).
Management of Nantucket’s shellfish is also partly under the purview of Nantucket’s Marine and Coastal
Resources Department (MCRD). The MCRD employs up to four full‐time shellfish wardens who are
responsible for the day‐to‐day enforcement of shellfish regulations during the commercial and
recreational shellfishing seasons. In addition to the shellfish wardens, the Town also employs a shellfish
biologist. The shellfish biologist is responsible for research related to Nantucket shellfish, monitoring of
shellfish and shellfish habitat, and working with other research entities to enhance the scientific
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 53
understanding of shellfish and shellfish‐related topics. Additionally, the shellfish biologist is responsible
for coordinating all Town shellfish propagation activities.
The MCRD is also responsible for issuing commercial and recreational shellfishing permits, makes
recommendations on aquaculture leases, and works with state and federal entities to ensure proper
management of the local shellfish resources.
In addition to the MCRD, the Board of Selectmen is involved in the development and approval of plans
related to shellfish, helps define policies and goals for the efficient management of the shellfish and
related resources, and issues aquaculture licenses (with input from MCRD and SHAB). For example, at
the suggestion of the Town Biologist, the Board of Selectmen can vote to close a seed area to harvesting
(230 Nantucket Recreational Shellfish Regulations §5B).
The Board of Selectmen is advised by the Harbors and Shellfish Advisory Board (SHAB), established by
Chapter 465 of the Special Acts of 1976. The elected seven‐member board makes recommendations to
the Board of Selectmen on matters pertaining to shellfish and the waters of Nantucket, including
recommendations on appointments of the harbor master and shellfish wardens and their duties. The
Mission of SHAB is, “…to advise and make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen about the
effective and appropriately balanced management and use of Nantucket’s marine resources both now
and for the future.” (Town of Nantucket, Undated) SHAB’s guiding principles focus on ensuring
balanced use of Nantucket’s waters, minimizing human impacts to Nantucket’s waters, ensuring the
sustainability of the Island’s natural marine resources, promoting biodiversity of marine life, and
supporting the implementation of related management plans adopted by the Town.
The Health Department is also involved in managing the resource, once it is harvested, in that it issues
licenses for shellfish shucking facilities and enforces the regulations for those facilities.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 54
SECTION 7: AQUACULTURE, PROPAGATION,
AND SEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON
NANTUCKET
Aquaculture
Nantucket has had shellfish aquaculture operations in Town waters since the 1980s. As of 2011, there
were six private aquaculture licenses and municipal propagation areas encompassing a total of 46 acres
between the Head of the Harbor and Pocomo Meadows. As of October, 2012, individuals have
expressed in interest in developing aquaculture at all approved areas, with the exception of four acres
set aside by the Town. The predominant species grown is the American oyster, although growers have
expressed interest in diversifying their crops beyond the single species.
Chapter 130 §57 of Massachusetts General Laws gives cities and towns the authority to issue shellfish
aquaculture licenses authorizing licensees, “(1) to plant and grow shellfish, bottom/off bottom culture;
(2) to place shellfish in or under protective devices affixed directly to the tidal flats or land under coastal
waters, such as boxes, trays, pens, bags, or nets; (3) to harvest and take legal shellfish; (4) to plant cultch
for the purpose of catching shellfish seed; and (5) to grow shellfish by means of racks, rafts or floats.”
Those seeking to conduct aquaculture activities in Nantucket waters must first obtain permission from
the Board of Selectmen (who are advised by the MCRD and SHAB), and subsequently a license from the
Commonwealth. More specifically, the application process includes notification of the Board of
Selectmen, a public hearing followed by a preliminary approval by the Selectmen, site inspection by
DMF, approval at the federal level, lead by the US Army Corp of Engineers, and final approval by the
Selectmen. The applicant must also secure a permit to possess seed shellfish.
In 2011, the Town put together a working group to update its aquaculture licensing guidelines. Of
particular interest are:
Establishing qualification criteria for license holders,
Requiring a business plan from license applicants,
Creating guidelines for placing moratoria on new leases,
Clarifying the rules for transferring a license,
Defining an appropriate site inspection schedule, and
Creating a standardized reporting form.
A designation of bottom land for shellfish aquaculture in Nantucket is valid for three years, can be
extended for up to ten years, and must be for an area between two and ten acres in size (Nantucket
Marine and Coastal Resources Department, 2010). License holders must meet the same residency
requirements as those eligible to obtain a commercial shellfish license (i.e., they must be at least 14
years of age, live in the Town of Nantucket for at least one year, and maintain a domicile on Nantucket
(122 Code of Nantucket, §2)). The applicant must present a production plan outlining the acreage
requested, the method of shellfish cultivation, the equipment to be used, the amount of seed purchased
for cultivation (for one year), and a grow‐out density plan (Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 55
Department, 2010). In order to issue licensed areas competitively, applicants must also provide a list of
qualifications.
Per the draft document titled “Guidelines for Lease of Bottom Land for Aquaculture” (Nantucket Marine
and Coastal Resources Department, 2010), once the license is issued, the license holder must:
“…Maintain the licensed site in a neat and environmentally responsible manner
…Plainly mark the area in accordance with any stipulations set forth by the Marine & Coastal
Resources Department [and Section 61 of MGL Chapter 130]
…Make the site available to the Town, or its designee, for the purpose of determining activity at
the site and its impact on the surrounding areas
…Provide the Marine & Coastal Resources Department with quarterly reports of its activities
including the number of bushels of each type of shellfish planted, produced, and marketed along
with an estimate of the remaining number of shellfish still growing at the site…[and] accounts of
predators (species, quantity, size). These reports shall be filed within 30 days of the end of each
quarter, beginning on January 1
…Provide visual certification and verification of all seed to be grown on the site. Verification will
also be made by the State Division of Marine Fisheries
…Provide the Town with certificates of insurance against environmental damage and general
liability in the amount of One Million ($1,000,000) dollars
Licenses may be revoked if the licensed area is not “actively worked” (Nantucket Marine and Coastal
Resources Department, 2010). Consistent with 130 MGL §57, licenses may also be revoked “for failure
to comply with any terms conditions or regulations set forth by these entities” (130 MGL §57) or for
failure to pay the license fee of $25/acre (or less) within six months after the fee is due (130 MGL §64).
All money from shellfish aquaculture licenses accrues to the Town’s Shellfish Propagation Fund.
Since 1982, the State has approved seven shellfish aquaculture projects in Town waters (including a
license to the Town) (Division of Marine Fisheries, 2011, Personal communication). Six licenses, all for
oysters, were in effect in 2011. Interest in aquaculture has grown considerably in 2012, and with the
exception of four acres retained by the Town, all approved areas are either licensed or in the process of
being licensed for aquaculture activities.
Table 7: Nearly 50 acres were licensed for aquaculture projects in Nantucket waters in 2011.
Location Acres Number of
Licenses
Coskata Pond 10 1
Pocomo Meadows 6 2
Head of the Harbor 30 4
Nantucket also maintains its own aquaculture operations on 16 acres in Nantucket Harbor (Fronzuto,
2011, Personal communication). Though the Town keeps records about the amount of seed used in
aquaculture operations, it is difficult to know what the actual harvest numbers are.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 56
The ability to issue aquaculture licenses is limited, in part, by the number of acres of bottom that the
Division of Marine Fisheries deems suitable for aquaculture. The criteria used to determine whether or
not an area is suitable are: (1) the overlying waters must be classified as Approved, (2), the area does
not contain sustainable populations of naturally occurring shellfish (3), the activity does not “cause
substantial adverse effect on the shellfish or other natural resources of the city or town” (130 MGL §57).
The Town is working to have additional areas qualified for aquaculture, including areas in Polpis Harbor
(which were closed because of issues believed to be related to nearby septic systems) and Sesachacha
Pond.
Legal harvest sizes differ between wild‐caught and aquacultured shellfish. Unlike wild‐caught oysters,
which must measure at least three inches in length, oysters raised by aquaculturists only have to be 2 ½
inches in longest diameter at the time of harvest. Aquacultured quahogs must be 7/8 inches in
thickness (322 CMR §6.20(3)), as opposed to the 1‐inch wild‐caught requirement.
Propagation
In addition to the aquaculture activities carried out largely by private individuals, the Town and a small
number of other entities have engaged in propagation activities (public aquaculture) as a means to
enhance the shellfish populations of Nantucket. Propagation activities have largely centered on growing
small shellfish to a size sufficient to increase their likelihood of survival in the wild, and then releasing
them into the Harbors. Bay scallop propagation has also involved the use of spawning cages to increase
the potential for fertilization during the spawning process. Since 1992, the Town’s propagation activities
have focused on oysters, soft‐shell clams, quahogs, and bay scallops. With the exception of bay scallops,
most other seed is purchased from licensed providers off‐Island (although the Town did cultivate a small
amount of quahog seed in 2010 and 2011).
The Brant Point Boathouse has been an active propagation facility off and on for more than twenty
years. When the US Coast Guard ceased their operations at the Boathouse during the 1980s, the Town
received a lease for the land under the building. In 1993, the Coast Guard transferred ownership of the
building to the Town, along with a 20‐year lease for the land under the building. (That lease has been
extended to 2033.) In 1989, the Town, working with Nantucket Shellfish Aquafarm, built the Nantucket
Marine Laboratory at the Boathouse, and by 1990 they began to prepare the facility for propagation
activities. In 1993, the Town received a $250,000 federal appropriation to develop aquaculture on the
Island, including development at the Boathouse.
Unfortunately, after only a few years in operation, propagation activities at the Brant Point facility
slowed, in part due to a withdrawal of federal funding; and from 1997–2006 the facility was used as a
small marine research facility on a limited basis. The Town continued to operate a small propagation
program during this time.
Recognizing the importance of shellfish propagation in terms of rebuilding and maintaining shellfish
stocks, recent efforts have been made to conduct larger‐scale propagation activities at the Brant Point
facility. In 2006, the Committee to Establish the Nantucket Marine Collaborative drafted a proposal
outlining the development of the Nantucket Marine Collaborative (NMC—a 501(c)3 tax‐exempt
organization. They stated that the NMC would “increase the resources and personnel to conduct
research, monitor water quality, enhance native shellfish populations, support shellfish aquaculture, and
provide educational programs” (The Committee to Establish the Nantucket Marine Collaborative, 2006).
Though the NMC has not yet been established, the current shellfish biologist has been able to use her
vast knowledge of aquaculture to set up a limited, but productive propagation facility at the Brant Point
Boathouse.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 57
Bay Scallop Propagation
Given the boom and bust cycles of the bay scallop population and the fact that they are no longer
abundant in so many historically productive areas along the eastern United States, Nantucket has taken
steps to protect and enhance bay scallop numbers in Nantucket waters through propagation—primarily
through the use of spawning cages.
The Town has been placing spawning stock in spawning cages prior to anticipated spawning events in
order to increase the potential for fertilization. It is believed that placing scallops in close proximity
during a spawning event will increase the likelihood that fertilization will take place (Conant, 2005b).
Figure 16: Spawning cages have been placed throughout Nantucket and Madaket Harbors in
recent years, and continues to be one of the methods designed to enhance the Nantucket bay
scallop population.
Experiments have been conducted to determine appropriate stocking densities and the effects of
confinement on growth rates, mortality, and reproduction. Those experiments have concluded that 50
scallops per tray is an ideal density level for Nantucket’s spawning cages, and that captivity negatively
impacts survival rates and thus reproduction (Conant, 2005b). While the success of spawning cages has
not been scientifically measured, anecdotal reports from scallopers suggest large amounts of seed in
areas where spawning cages have been deployed (Conant, 2004b).
The use of spawning cages for propagation has also provided opportunities to conduct observations
about scallop lifecycles, including during 2004 and 2005, when spawning was observed in 2nd year
“classic” adult scallops; and live seed collected from a stranding event were shown to have high
mortality rates before they had a chance to spawn (Conant 2004b; Conant, 2005b).
Though spawning cages were the primary means of bay scallop propagation activities, the Town also
worked with certified hatcheries which spawn Nantucket bay scallops and send seed back to Nantucket.
That seed is grown out at Brant Point and is released in various locations in Nantucket Harbor
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 58
(Whillauer, 2008; Town of Nantucket Annul Report, 2008 & 2009). Protocols are in place to prevent the
transport of diseases, and efforts are made to ensure the genetic integrity of seed (i.e., no less than 75
animals are spawned at one time, and the egg and sperm are pooled before fertilization) (Riley, 2012,
Personal communication).
Figure 17: Larvae from the Brant Point Boathouse facility are dispersed throughout Nantucket
and Madaket Harbors. In addition to those sites shown on this map, releases also took place in
Madaket Harbor off of Warren’s Landing and in the middle of Madaket Harbor in 2011.
Bay scallop larvae are also raised in the Town Shellfish Hatchery at Brant Point through the larval stage
until they have become competent to metamorphose. At that point, the larvae (in the millions) are
released in areas where it is anticipated they will quickly set and establish a propagated year class in the
area. Preliminary results suggest that this is a viable strategy for bay scallop propagation and work is
continuing to test its effectiveness (Riley & Boyce, 2011, Personal Communication).
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 59
Table 8: Much of Nantucket’s propagation activities center around the bay scallop. *Spat bags
are used primarily to understand the timing of spawning events. **The seed sanctuary (2007)
was a very controversial endeavor. *** Unlike the other releases, the release in 2010 was of
competent larvae, and not seed.
Year Grow‐Out # Spat Bags* Seed Collected Dispersal Location
1983 90 40,000 Various locations in Nantucket Harbor and off of Tuckernuck
1985 1,541,200 Various locations in Nantucket Harbor
1994 1,055,270
Polpis Harbor, Folgers, Horseshed, Hussey's Shoal, Brant
Point, the Jetties, Madaket Harbor
1985 1,062,400 Horseshed, Folgers, various locations in Nantucket Harbor
1996 655,210
1st and 2nd Bend, Pimney's Point to UMass Boston Nantucket
Field Station
2000 50 1,600 West side of Pocomo
2000 unknown 16 diverse locations in Madaket and Nantucket Harbors
2001 120 500,000 4 lines‐spring collection
2001 100,000 Fall set(released June‐02)
2001 60,000 Floating trays in Coskata
2002 75spring/25
fall Pocomo West
2002 unknown Various locations in Nantucket and Madaket Harbors
2003 100,000
2nd Bend, 3rd Bend, 4th Bend, 5th Bend, Hussey Shoal,
Monomoy, Abram's Point, Middle Ground, UMass Boston
Field Station, Quaise Point
2004 100 spring/
100 fall
1 spring/2312
fall Brant Point Boathouse
2005 100spring/25
fall 1,000/16,250
2006 100 spring/ 20
fall 142/1,000
2007 60,000
2007 1,000,000
Seed received from state certified hatchery to create
sanctuary at 2nd Bend**
2008 1,500,000 Seed received from Milford Lab and released at 1st Bend
2009 1,000,000
Seed received from state certified hatchery and dispersed at
1st Bend
2010 5,000,000*** Quaise Point
Quahog Propagation
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 60
Still harvested recreationally and commercially, the Town is focusing its quahog propagation activities
on sustaining the recreational quahog fishery (Conant, 2000c).
Similar to the grow‐out procedures used with oysters, quahogs are typically purchased as small (1–2.5
mm on average) seed from an off‐Island supplier and are grown out to larger sizes (typically ranging
from 3–20 mm) at the Boathouse before being released into Nantucket Harbor in the fall.
Quahogs have historically been purchased and grown out in large numbers (up to one million animals in
2004 and again in 2005) because the smaller animals are less expensive and quahogs grow slowly,
requiring less room in the Boathouse upwellers (an upweller is a system used to bring food and oxygen
to shellfish in a tank via the pumping of water into and out of the tank).
Table 9: The Town has conducted quahog propagation activities of various sizes over the
course of the last decade.
Year
# Quahog
purchased Size Dispersal Location
2000 10,000 2.5cm Unknown
2001 60,000 ‐Ordered but not received‐QPX
2002 150,000 8‐10 mm Monomoy and Coskata Pond
2003 250,000 1.5mm Horseshed
2004 1,000,000 1.5mm Horseshed, Quaise, Monomoy, Coskata
2005 1,000,000 1.0mm Horseshed, Monomoy, Brant Pt.
2006 350,000 4‐6mm Monomoy and Horse Shed, Brant Pt.
2007 500,000 4‐6mm Monomoy and Horse Shed, Brant Pt.
Oyster Propagation
The Town has taken steps to enhance the natural stock of oysters both to increase oyster harvests and
to improve water quality through the filtering behavior of the oyster.
Since the early 2000s, the Town has purchased small oysters (approximately 1–2 mm) from an off‐Island
hatchery, and has grown them out at the Boathouse during the summer months. In the fall, prior to the
annual winterization of the Boathouse, the oysters are released into Nantucket Harbor (size range varies
but is approximately between 19–30 mm). The timing of this release coincides with the dropping water
temperatures responsible for starting the period of relative inactivity for shellfish (Conant, 2006c).
Though most of the oysters are released each fall, a small number are held in grow‐out cages for the
winter and are released the following fall with the new oysters. Oysters typically change sex from male
to female after growing and maturing, so releasing animals of different ages at the same time increases
the likelihood of having both males and females present for successful fertilization.
In addition to growing out the oysters at the Boathouse, the Town has also filled spat bags with shells
and then introduced oyster spat into those bags and placed them in Madaket Harbor. This “remote
setting” of oysters allows the animals to grow in the bag, where they are protected from many
predators. The bag of shells also prevents the animals from settling into softer sediments where they
might suffocate.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 61
Oyster propagation is ongoing—in 2011 the Town purchased 50,000 seed (1.5 mm range) for grow‐out
experiments—and the 2006 Biologist’s Report noted that natural sets had been observed in Madaket
Harbor and Sesachacha Pond.
Soft‐Shell Clam Propagation
Once a very important commercial species, the Town is working to ensure a healthy recreational
shellfishery for soft‐shell clams.
In the spring of 2000, the Nantucket Marine Department conducted an experiment to obtain
information about the prospects of soft‐shell clam propagation using netted enclosures and soft‐shell
clams from Nantucket Harbor. Soft‐shell clams were harvested from Nantucket Harbor and were placed
in cages where they spawned. The number of soft‐shell clams per cage was counted to try to determine
the reproductive levels and mortality in the different cages. While the results of the study were not
definitive, the experience provided a great deal of information about equipment needed and potential
areas suitable for soft‐shell clam propagation (Conant, 2000b). Though the 2000 experiment had some
success, subsequent soft‐shell clam propagation activities have not used netted enclosures.
In 2002 and 2003, the Town ordered a total of 160,000 small (approximately 20 mm) soft‐shell clams
and grew them out until the fall of each year. Seed were (1) physically planted in the harbor by using a
finger to make an indentation in the mudflat, and placing the clam in the hole, (2) “scratched in” by
raking a mudflat at low tide to remove debris and soften the ground, then broadcasting the shellfish into
the area, and (3) scratched in and covered with a net to keep predators out (Conant, 2003). The Town
Biologist’s Reports from 2005 and 2006 both noted that abundant supplies of healthy soft‐shell clams
were present on most mudflats, and that the lower harbor was acting as a spawning sanctuary given
that it was closed to harvesting because of high fecal coliform counts (Conant 2005b, Conant 2006c). No
additional propagation of soft‐shell clams has been conducted, and more research is needed to
understand the health of the current soft‐shell clam population.
Table 10: The Town conducted soft-shell clam propagation activities for three years.
Year
# Soft shell
clams
purchased
Animals
Collected Size collected Dispersal Location
2000 96 3‐4" Various experimental stations
2000 250,000 2 mm Raked into west side of Pocomo
2002 150,000
grown to
2.0cm
Raked into Pocomo, Coskata, and
Cotue
2003 10,000 20mm
Planted and raked into lower and mid
harbor, Salt pond Creek
Seed Management
In addition to aquaculture and propagation activities, the Town works with fishermen to relocate seed
within the Harbors for both preservation and enhancement reasons.
Significant storm events can wash seed ashore where, stranded, they cannot survive for long periods of
time. Anecdotal reports suggest that the conditions of each stranding (how long the shellfish are out of
water, the age of the shellfish stranded, the air temperature, whether or not they are buried, etc.) affect
whether or not the shellfish will survive and whether or not they will reproduce and/or be harvested
after a stranding event. Historical records of seed relocation due to strandings are not complete; but
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 62
the biologist’s reports from the 1980s show that several thousand bushels were returned to the water
after stranding events. From the records that have been kept, it appears that most post‐stranding
relocation efforts focus on the bay scallop; however, in 1953, oysters were stranded around Sesachacha
Pond after the Pond opened, and efforts were made to put many of those oysters back in the water.
Table 11: Seed Stranding Relocations -- While measures are taken to relocate shellfish prior to
a potentially harmful event (e.g., a storm or dredging project), steps are also taken to return
stranded shellfish to Nantucket waters.
Year
Amount
(Bushels) Species From To Reason
1953 Unknown Oyster Sesachacha Pond Various locations
Pond opening stranded
seed
1980 1,500 Scallop Wauwinet Unknown Storm stranding
1980 6 Scallop Wauwinet Horseshed Storm stranding
1980 75 Scallop Wauwinet Town Pier, Brant Point Storm stranding
1981 500 Scallop
East Pocomo Point,
Waiuwinet
Town Pier, Hussey Shoal, West Pocomo,
Pimney's Point Storm stranding
1982 300 Scallop
East Pocomo Point,
Pocomo Point Horseshed, West Pocomo Point Storm stranding
1983 2,280* Scallop
East Pocomo,
Wauwinet, West
Pocomo, Polpis Inlet
Horseshed, Wyer's Point, Hulburt Ave.,
Hussy Shoal, 1st Point, Bass Point, East
Polpis, West Polpis, Abram's Point,
Pimney's Point Storm stranding
2003 300 Scallop Wauwinet 1st Bend, 2nd Bend Storm stranding
2007 Unknown Scallop
Madaket, Nantucket
Harbors 1st Bend, 2nd Bend
Nor' easter Noel (many
adults)
2010 5,500 Scallop Quaise, Wauwinet Hussey Shoal, Pocomo, Folgers Storm stranding
*Biologist's report suggests this number might have been as high as 5,000, but records only show 2,280 bushels
While most relocations due to storm events are done after shellfish have been stranded, a handful of
relocations have been conducted when a storm is coming and shellfish are in locations that make them
susceptible to stranding. For example, in 2007, in anticipation of Nor’easter Noel, many bushels of
scallop seed were moved throughout Nantucket Harbor to prevent massive strandings.
In addition to moving seed to prevent strandings, seed is also moved in order to improve seed
development and spawning success. This seed “relay” is often done at the end of the fishing season,
and typically involves engaging fishermen to move seed from thickly seeded beds to other suitable areas
in the Harbors. Ideal relocation sites are those with appropriate circulation (for larval retention), water
temperatures, and dissolved oxygen levels in approximately 8–10 feet of water with eelgrass coverage
of 25% or greater (Conant, 2005b).
The first known seed relays were conducted in May and June of 1981. Eighty bushels of scallops were
moved from Bass Point and the Horseshed to West Pocomo Point, Hulburt Ave., and the north side of
Tuckernuck Island. While the exact results of the relay are unknown, the thinning of beds at the
Horseshed did not seem to have a negative impact. Reports indicate that the harvest at the Horseshed
were good the following season (Kelley, 1981).
A protocol has been developed to protect the young seed as it is moved from one location to another—
specifically with regard to making sure the shellfish are not crushed, that the shellfish are not exposed to
cold temperatures for long periods of time, and that the shellfish are not buried in sediment that might
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 63
interfere with their gill structure. The protocol describes measures to be taken under ideal conditions;
but it is generally understood that conditions may not always be right to meet all of the following:
1. “Collection should be limited to one tow per relay.
2. Short tows should be made to avoid packing the dredges and collecting sand.
3. Scallops should be loosely packed in boxes or left on culling board, no more than 12” in height.
4. Scallops should be relayed to a designated area shortly after being collected.
5. Scallops should be released while under way, to allow dispersal of grass and, to avoid piling on
bottom.
6. Number of bushels and area of collection and dispersal should be designated on map, and
returned to Marine Dept.”
(Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources Department, 2007).
Table 12: Shellfish are moved in order to thin densities for optimal growth and increase the
likelihood of spawning success in multiple areas.
Year
Amount
(Bushels) Species From To Reason
1976
Un‐
known Scallop
Unknown Nantucket
Harbor location(s) Madaket Harbor
Tidal surge swept scallops
away
1981 80 Scallop Bass Point, Horseshed
West Pocomo Point, Hulburt Avenue,
north side of Tuckernuck Island
To reduce mortality and
increase spawning
1982 50 Scallop 4th Bend
Hulburt Avenue, north shore of
Tuckernuck
To reduce mortality and
increase spawning
1983 195 Scallop
2nd Bend, 3rd Bend,
4th Bend, Hither Creek
West Pocomo Point, 4th Point, 1st Bend,
2nd Point, Abram's Point, Pimney's Point,
Hulburt Avenue, East Jetty, north shore of
Tuckernuck, Esther's Island
To reduce mortality and
increase spawning
1984 700 Scallop Hither Creek
Warren’s Landing, Madaket Harbor flats,
past Jackson Point, Eel Point Channel, and
Esther’s Island Dredging
1999 700 Scallop Jackson's Point Deeper water (exact location unknown) Unknown
2003 20 Scallop Head of the Harbor Mid‐Harbor
To reduce mortality and
increase spawning
2003 20 Scallop Wyer's Point 4th Bend, 3rd Bend, Quaise Point
To reduce mortality and
increase spawning
2004 200 Scallop 2nd Bend
Middle ground from 1st Bend to
McGoslin's
To reduce mortality and
increase spawning
2005
1000
(adult) Scallop 4th Bend Various locations in Nantucket Harbor
To reduce mortality and
increase spawning
2010 1,000 Scallop Folgers Various locations in Nantucket Harbor
To reduce mortality and
increase spawning
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 64
In addition to moving seed for its protection, seed‐laden areas have also been closed to harvesting in
order to protect the shellfish and to allow them to mature and reproduce (Town of Nantucket Annual
Report, 2000). The impacts of these “seed sanctuaries” are unknown.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 65
SECTION 8: OTHER MARINE RESOURCE USES
While shellfishing is an important activity in Nantucket waters, it is, by no means, the sole use of the
marine environment. The following section describes other activities that take direct advantage of
Nantucket’s marine resources. Some of these other uses may be fully compatible shellfishing activities
and the resources required for sustainable shellfisheries. Some of these other marine uses, however,
may conflict to some degree with shellfishing, either by negatively affecting the resource itself or by
creating issues related to the action of shellfishing.
Boat Slips, Docks and Piers
Slip rentals in Nantucket Harbor are available at the Town Pier and the Nantucket Boat Basin. Slips are
also available to members of the Nantucket Yacht Club and Great Harbor Yacht Club. In Madaket
Harbor, slip rentals are available at Madaket Marine.
The Boat Basin has 240 slips. To dock at this marina during the summer, a vessel must be at least 30
feet in length; and may be as long as 230 feet. In the off‐season, the Boat Basin offers reduced winter
rates, which attract a number of scallop boats. The Boat Basin also offers fuel sales and vessel pumpout.
The Town Pier has 20 slips for boats up to 40 feet long, 55 slips for boats up to 30 feet long, and 25
additional slips that can accommodate boats of various sizes between 13–30 feet. Slips at the Town Pier
are allocated based on a lottery system tied to a boat’s registration number. Recreational slips at the
Town Pier are only allocated for one‐year terms. In order to provide some stability for businesses,
commercial slip permits at the Town Pier are issued on a one‐year, three‐year, or five‐year basis. When
the term of their permits are up, commercial enterprises must once again enter the lottery.
The Nantucket Yacht Club provides launch services to members’ boats moored in the inner Harbor and
offers a limited number of boat slips at its waterfront. The club has a fleet of sailboats for racing and
recreational use by its members. The Great Harbor Yacht Club has 36 slips at its docks and piers.
Chapter 139‐22 of the Nantucket Zoning Bylaw contains a prohibition on all new private docks and piers
or expansions of existing private docks except certain public or commercial water‐dependent docks and
piers within the Harbor Overlay District. The prohibition of private docks was developed in part out of
concern that the construction of these docks would interfere with and negatively affect commercial and
residential shellfishing activities. A proliferation of private docks would make it difficult for
shellfisherman to fish in and around these structures, and activities from the construction, footprint,
and use of these structures has potential to affect the natural habitat and water quality in the area.
Through State approval of the 2009 Nantucket and Madaket Harbors Action Plan, this same prohibition
on private docks outside the Harbor Overlay District is now also part of Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) Chapter 91 licensing criteria. Expansion of existing commercial docks
and piers and those for governmental and public entity use are allowed within the Harbor Overlay
District by both the local bylaw and Chapter 91.
Three public boat ramps are located within Nantucket and Madaket Harbors, and ensure that public
boating access is available throughout the Harbor areas. In Madaket Harbor, boaters can launch from
Walter S. Barrett Pier or Jackson’s Point; and in Nantucket Harbor, boaters can launch from the ramp at
Children’s Beach.
Mooring areas
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 66
Moorings are the traditional vessel berthing arrangement on Nantucket. All moorings must be
registered by the MCRD (Section 137‐4.B of the Nantucket Town Code). In 2011, approximately 1800
mooring permits were issued within the Town’s designated mooring areas, and approximately 220
moorings were off of private waterfront residences. The MCRD has capped the number of mooring
permits issued each year at 2200. This policy helps address potential impacts to water quality and to
eelgrass, minimizes the potential for new user conflicts, and is compatible with the service and
infrastructure capacities of the waterfront. In 2010, during the July and August peak season, there was
an average of 2,900 boats in Nantucket waters (Nantucket Annual Report, 2010).
Moorings are located within eleven mooring fields: Hulbert Avenue; Children’s Beach; Easy Street;
Swain’s Wharf; south of Town Pier; Monomoy; between the Piers; the General Anchorage Mooring
Field; Polpis Harbor; Hither Creek; and Warren’s Landing. Boats of 23 feet or less make up the vast
majority of moored boats (approximately 1,360 boats, or more than 80%) and are accommodated in all
of the mooring fields except the General Anchorage mooring area which is reserved for vessels of 27
feet or more.
The Town bylaws allow waterfront homeowners to be issued permits for up to two private moorings
located offshore of their residence. These private moorings are located primarily in Shimmo, Quaise,
Wauwinet, off of Hulburt Avenue, and on both sides of the channel in Hither Creek.
All private moorings are required to be removed from any shellfish areas prior to October 15. If the
mooring is a Helix type mooring, it must be outfitted with an approved cap to avoid snagging scallop
dredges.
Personal Water Craft (PWC)
Chapter 137(D), (E), and (F) of the Town’s bylaws establishes areas where PWCs can and cannot operate.
Prohibited areas include the waters of Nantucket Harbor northerly to the end of the east and west
jetties and in the established navigation lane between said jetties easterly to the Head of the Harbor, in
Polpis Harbor and along any portion of the shoreline of Nantucket Harbor.
Personal watercraft may be launched from the Children's Beach boat ramp and navigate through
Nantucket Harbor along the most direct route as marked by buoys, to Nantucket Sound.
PWC cannot operate in the waters bounded by a line drawn from "The Rock" off the "Fortieth Pole" and
marked by a hazard buoy, northwesterly to the R‐2 lighted bell buoy, northwesterly to the westernmost
point of Muskeget Island, southeasterly to the westernmost tip of Smith's Point including the entire
shorelines of Muskeget, Tuckernuck and New Smith's Point (Esther Island). PWCs may be launched from
the Walter S. Barrett and Jackson Point public access boat ramps and shall navigate at hull speed
through Hither Creek along the most direct route as marked by buoys, to the westernmost tip of Eel
Point, and then north to Nantucket Sound or south to the Atlantic Ocean.
The 2009 Harbors Plan included the recommendation to exclude personal water craft rentals from the
allowable uses in the Harbor Overlay District as part of a strategy to preserve, protect and reduce
conflicts with the Island’s traditional water‐dependent commercial uses located within the district. This
prohibition was adopted into Section 137‐21 of the Town’s bylaws and will be respected in Chapter 91
licensing decisions by DEP.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 67
Figure 18: Personal Watercraft use is prohibited throughout most of Nantucket and Madaket
Harbors (Image from Urban Harbors Institute, 2009).
Waterskiing
Town Code prohibits waterskiing (which includes motor‐propelled surf boards, water bikes, and the
towing of any surfboard (or similar device) behind a motor boat) on all waterways of the Town, except
outside of navigation channels and swimming and mooring areas on Nantucket Sound, Polpis Harbor
and Madaket Harbor. In addition to the above restrictions, waterskiing is prohibited within 400 feet of
bathers, divers, piers, wharves, floats, other boats, or of any shore (§ 137‐12).
Kiteboarding
In Nantucket Harbor kiteboarding is most popular in the open water of the Head of the Harbor. To
minimize potential safety problems with beach goers, kiteboarding is restricted at all life‐guarded
beaches. At Pocomo Point, an unguarded beach and one of the most popular launching sites,
kiteboarding rules allow launching and landing at the end of the point, but two buoys set off of the
beach delineate a line shoreward of which kiteboarders are not allowed to ride.
Kiteboarders also ride in Madaket Harbor, launching from Smith’s Point.
Kiteboarding is restricted in posted state and federally listed species habitat areas and prohibited within
200 meters of nesting or territorial adult or unfledged juvenile endangered/threatened species (i.e.,
piping plovers) between April 1 and August 31.
Section 137‐23 of the Town of Nantucket Bylaws requires that anyone wishing to rent out kiteboards as
part of his/her business must first receive a permit from the Board of Selectmen. No permits have been
issued under this section.
No Discharge Zone
The coastal waters of Nantucket from Muskeget Island to Great Point, including Nantucket and Madaket
Harbors have been federally‐designated a No Discharge Zone (NDZ) under the Clean Water Act since
August 1992. The designation prohibits discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 68
not, into the waters of the NDZ. The MCRD has been operating a pump‐out boat since 1992; and since
the NDZ, has coordinated with the Boat Basin to pump more than 100,000 gallons of sewage annually
from vessels in Nantucket waters.
Table 13: Nantucket’s Pump-out boat has pumped nearly 80,000 gallons of waste from boats
since 2007.
Year Gallons of Waste Pumped
2007–2008 10,369
2008–2009 20,452
2009–2010 24,376
2010–2011 24,029
No Discharge Areas protect water quality and aquatic life from pathogens, nutrients and chemical
products contained in discharged sewage and also reduce the risk of human illness, making it safer to
swim, boat, fish and eat shellfish from protected waters. NDZs can also help reduce the growth of
harmful algae that occurs due to high nutrient levels in sewage and protect commercial and recreational
shellfish areas.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 69
SECTION 9: OTHER PROGRAMS RELATED TO
SHELLFISH MANAGEMENT ON NANTUCKET
In past years and continuing into the present, there have been a number of ongoing activities on
Nantucket that increase the understanding of shellfish management and protection of shellfish habitat.
The following provides a brief description of some of these activities.
Eelgrass Restoration
Eelgrass beds are highly productive communities, and are ecologically important because they act as a
nursery, habitat, and feeding ground for many fish, waterfowl, and shellfish.
The Massachusetts DEP has been mapping eelgrass areas and charting changes for decades. The most
recent paper on the topic (Costello, 2011) locates eelgrass in Madaket Harbor and reports less than 2%
change between 1994–96 and 2000–2002. Changes were not provided for Nantucket Harbor.
The UMass Boston Nantucket Field station has done some underwater verification of density and
presence of eelgrass in Nantucket Harbor but does not, as yet, have extensive data over time. The
Maria Mitchell Association has conducted surveys every year since 2006 to document blade length,
coverage, and fouling.
Both the UMass Boston Field Station and the Maria Mitchell Association monitor eelgrass for epiphyte
load and invasive species.
In addition to the eelgrass mapping and verification efforts, there have been two recent experiments in
eelgrass restoration in Nantucket Harbor. Both utilized funding from the Great Harbor Yacht Club
through the Nantucket Land Council.
The first of these attempted to transplant approximately 10,000 square feet of eelgrass from relatively
densely populated donor sites to areas devoid of plants. The transplanted grasses have been in place
for only a year so, as of this writing, it is too soon to judge whether this will be a viable option. Both the
donor and transplanted areas are being monitored. Transplanting is labor‐intensive and attempts in
other areas have had mixed results. It remains to be seen whether Nantucket Harbor is a more feasible
spot for broad‐scale transplants.
The second experiment involves reducing impacts from moorings. Typical moorings in New England
waters involve some sort of weight resting on or sunk into the bottom and attached to a boat with a
“bottom chain” and rope line. The chain portion sits on the bottom, effectively shortening the overall
connection between the boat and the bottom weight. This shortening allows a greater number of
moorings to be located in limited areas and provides a “shock absorber” effect in heavy winds and
waters. Unfortunately, the chain also drags around the bottom weight as the boat sets with the wind,
producing a circular scoured area typically devoid of vegetation. A more recent design for the bottom
component consists of a helical screw set into the bottom with no need for a bottom chain. Oftentimes
a rubber snubber is included in the line to provide a shock absorbing effect obviating the need for chain
that would drag on the bottom. Approximately 30 such moorings have been put in place in Nantucket
Harbor replacing traditional moorings. The areas around these moorings will be monitored for
regrowth/expansion of eelgrass.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 70
The Maria Mitchell Association is also conducting an informal study to attempt to grow eelgrass in a
small plot near the Boat House using seed harvested in Nantucket Harbor.
Harbor Circulation and Flushing
A critical aspect related to water quality in both Nantucket and Madaket Harbors is the circulation of
waters (both where the water goes and how fast it moves to get there) and flushing or exchange
between Harbor waters and open waters.
The morphology of Nantucket Harbor has remained generally stable over time. Historically, the most
significant change was a breach at Haulover beach at the upper end of the Harbor in the early part of
the 20th century. At that point waters could enter and leave the Harbor at both ends. The breach closed
naturally over the years leaving the Harbor in its current form (there have, however, been suggestions
to reopen the breach to improve flushing). Over the years, Nantucket Harbor has developed shoals and
required dredging to deepen places where it has become shallow.
There have been historic studies that generally define movements of water within Nantucket Harbor. In
recent years the Maria Mitchell Association has conducted preliminary surveys to better track surface
water movements. These have consisted of the deployment of tracking buoys over periods of up to two
days in various locations within Nantucket Harbor.
During the investigations leading to the publication of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) Report
on Nantucket Harbor in 2006 (Howes et al., 2006), researchers utilized the RMA‐2 model, developed by
Resource Management Associates. This is generally described in the Project Report as a “state‐of‐the‐
art computer model to evaluate tidal circulation and flushing.” More specifically it is a “two‐
dimensional, depth‐averaged finite element model, capable of simulating transient hydrodynamics.”
The use of this model provided estimates for flushing rates/residence times for waters within the
Harbor.
When compared to Nantucket Harbor, the configuration of Madaket Harbor has changed dramatically
and suddenly several times in recent decades—often as the result of storms. Generally these changes
have been related to the opening or closing of breaches in the barrier beach east of Esther’s Island.
When there is a sizable opening, flushing—and water quality—is improved. When it closes, water
quality declines. Because of the instability of the system, it has been difficult to provide long‐term
estimates of flushing rates between the Harbor and adjacent open waters.
Two areas of important contribution of nutrients and other possible anthropogenic contaminants to the
Harbor are Hither Creek and, via Madaket Ditch, Long Pond. In 2000, DMF produced a study of the
hydrography and flushing of Hither Creek and its interactions with Madaket Harbor and waters beyond
(Casey and Churchill, 2000).
The Massachusetts Estuaries Program Project Report on Madaket Harbor (Howes et al., 2010) describes
the Harbor itself as functioning “as an open marine basin.” As with the above‐mentioned MEP
investigation of Nantucket Harbor, the researchers utilized the RMA‐2 hydrographic model to provide
information on flushing and residence times. This investigation also extended to the Hither
Creek/Madaket Ditch/Long Pond estuarine system.
Water Quality
Given that Nantucket is an island and much of its economy and lifestyle are related to its waters, there
have been many efforts over the years to better understand the current conditions and trends in water
quality. However, due to budgetary and staffing limitations, as well as changes in focus on issues related
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 71
to water quality, most of these efforts tended to be short‐term (or “snap‐shot”) samplings. Since these
investigations were done by various groups and individuals; differed in techniques, equipment, and
parameters measured; and were done for different purposes, many of the data sets cannot be
effectively reconciled with others to provide long‐term trends. Through the date of this report (Spring,
2012) many of the data have not been reviewed for compatibility or entered into a comprehensive
system. The Town has established a Water Quality Initiative Team which plans to hire someone to
computerize existing data, review them and assess whether there is sufficient information available
from these data to develop trends. Timing for the completion of this process is presently unclear.
One long‐term data set provides information on water temperatures within Nantucket Harbor. Since
1998, water temperatures at Brant Point (Coast Guard Dock) have been taken weekly by volunteer Dan
Kellher, a retired Nantucket High School science teacher. Additional temperature data sets include the
NOAA temperature station at steamship dock. Six HOBO temperature loggers operated by the Maria
Mitchell Association, taking hourly measurements, have been deployed at locations inside and outside
of the Harbor and there has been continuous hourly coverage at Pocomo since 2006.
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Temp (degrees F)Water Temperature at Nantucket Harbor Entrance
(Temperatures measured by Dan Kelliher)
Figure 19: Water temperature data from the entrance to Nantucket Harbor show clear seasonal
cycles with lowest temperatures usually recorded in January or February and warmest
temperatures recorded generally in July and August.
The MEP investigations of Nantucket and Madaket Harbors have provided data on nutrient levels and
offer an extensive bibliography related to nutrient‐related research within the water bodies and the
drainage areas leading to them.
The Town also conducts water sampling. In addition to the fecal coliform tests conducted during Figawi
and the Opera House Cup, the MCRD samples areas of Nantucket Harbor, Sesachacha Pond, Hummock
Pond, Madaket Harbor, Long Pond, and eight streams around Polpis Harbor multiple times throughout
the year. Data are gathered at the time of sampling pertaining to total depth, water clarity (secchi
depth), dissolved oxygen, salinity, conductivity, temperature, pond and estuary state (e.g., wave height),
general weather, wind speed and wind direction. The samples are sent to a laboratory for analysis of
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 72
salinity, nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, dissolved organic nitrogen, total phosphorus (fresh water only),
particulate organic carbon and nitrogen, specific conductivity (fresh water only), pheophytin a,
chlorophyll a and orthophosphate (Riley, 2011).
The University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station (Field Station) also conducts water
quality research. In 2008 and 2009, they deployed a datalogger to measure water quality parameters
including temperature and sunlight (PAR). In 2009 and 2010, they conducted intensive tidally linked,
seasonal water quality surveys of the water column for 9—11 different sites located in the boat basin
and lower Nantucket Harbor (from Monomoy westward). The survey involved tracking fluctuations in
nitrate and phosphate and dissolved oxygen and temperature and salinity parameters every 12 hours
over a three‐ to five‐day period during the summer months when boat traffic was highest in Nantucket
Harbor. These results show definite inputs from boaters in Nantucket Harbor and neighboring local
watershed impacts with substantial and distinct changes in nitrate and phosphate concentrations in the
water column on incoming and outgoing tides.
In addition, the Field Station has conducted water quality sampling in various locations in Nantucket
Harbor in 2009, 2010, and 2011 including spots at the Head of the Harbor and near Polpis Harbor. This
information will be shared with the MCRD and the Maria Mitchell Association, and work will continue in
2012.
In 2012, in collaboration with Sustainable Nantucket, the Field Station surveyed the marsh and near
shore closest to Holly Farm where an experimental program in sheep and chicken agrarian care was
conducted in 2011.
The Field Station is planning research for 2012 pertaining to understanding fertilizer and pesticide inputs
in Nantucket Harbor.
The Maria Mitchell Association has contributed to the water quality monitoring efforts on Nantucket.
Between 2006–2008 they took water quality measurements for the US EPA at approximately 50 sites in
Nantucket Harbor in July and September, measuring for
Depth
Water clarity (secchi depth)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) at the bottom and the surface
Water temperature
pH
Salinity
The Maria Mitchell Association has continues to gather these data during September, though no longer
under contract with the US EPA.
Harmful Algal Blooms
In recent decades, two forms of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) have been identified in Nantucket Harbor
and adjacent waters. These have been referred to as “red tide” (produced by the dinoflagellate
Alexandrium sp.) and “rust tide” (produced by the dinoflagellate Cochlodium sp.). Rust tide was initially
identified in Nantucket waters during the first week of August 2009. That bloom lasted one week and
may have been limited to inside Nantucket Harbor. Starting in August 2010, and continuing into the first
week of September, another rust tide occurred within Nantucket Harbor, but it was also observed
outside the jetties and near Coatue. A considerably milder bloom was observed in 2011.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 73
Samples of water containing these organisms were taken by the Nantucket Marine and Coastal
Resources Department on September 9th and 14th of 2010. The samples were used to obtain species and
density information (~40,000 cells/liter and ~ 20,000 cells/liter, respectively). It is unclear as to whether
or not rust tide has affected Madaket Harbor, but sampling will be conducted there in 2012.
Figure 20: Rust Tide (Cochlodium) in Nantucket Harbor in 2010. Photo: Tara Riley
Massachusetts Estuary Program Investigations in Nantucket and Madaket Harbors
As mentioned previously, the Massachusetts Estuaries Program, administered by the School of Marine
Science and Technology located at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, has undertaken
investigations of both Nantucket Harbor and the Madaket Harbor/Hither Creek/Long Pond complex.
The MEP is designed to provide water quality, nutrient loading, and hydrodynamic information for a
series of estuaries in Southeastern Massachusetts—including those on Nantucket.
The Nantucket Harbor report was issued in 2006 (Howes et al., 2006) and the report for Madaket
Harbor/Long Pond was released in 2010 (Howes et al, 2010). These two reports were designed “to
assist the Town with upcoming nitrogen management decisions associated with the Town’s current and
future wastewater planning efforts, as well as wetland restoration, anadromous fish runs, shell fishery,
open‐space, and harbor maintenance programs.” They provide a wealth of information on water quality
and shellfish habitat. Copies of the report may be found at the MEP web site at
http://www.oceanscience.net/estuaries/.
Shellfish Biology
There is a considerable body of scientific research into the biology of the bay scallop throughout its
range on the northeast coast of the US. In addition, there have been several efforts in recent years
specific to Nantucket. Some of these include:
Research into the ecological significance of fall spawning in the Nantucket Bay Scallop by Valerie
Hall (Hall, 2010). This effort is part of the requirements for a PhD through the School for Marine
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 74
Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Publication of the
Thesis is expected sometime in 2012–2013.
Research into the genetics of various populations of Nantucket scallops by Stephen L.
Estabrooks of the Nantucket Marine Laboratory. It is unclear when the results of this research
will be published.
Spat bags have been hung in various locations within the Harbors and in waters along the north
face of the Island by the Maria Mitchell Association and the MCRD. These are designed to
sample timing and densities of scallop spawning. (See Figure 21 below.)
The Maria Mitchell Association is currently undertaking research on the suitability of artificial
substrates.
From 2009‐2011, the Field Station‐affiliated researcher from UMass Boston, Bryanna
Broadaway, collected juvenile and adult scallops and water column and sediment samples for
analysis for rare earth elemental and trace metal signatures in order to establish site traits and
area‐specific concentrations of these elements. In addition, researchers from the UMass Boston
Earth and Environmental Research lab conducted elemental mapping to determine if taurine,
glycine and sulfur indicate changes in shell construction as a result of ocean acidification. They
further identified potential volatile organic carbon compounds including those produced by
combustion engines. Using data on abundance of bay scallops at particular sites, these efforts
will help identify key habitat characteristics (e.g., salinity and pH) that can be used to help
identify areas that might support future propagation and relay activities. (Publications
forthcoming: “Elemental fingerprints used to identify essential habitats: Nantucket Bay Scallop
(Argopecten irradians);” “Taurine and Glycine as indicators of ocean acidification induced stress
in Argopecten irradians;” and “Ocean acidification impact on net calcification in adult and
juvenile Argopecten irradians.”)
Efforts are also underway to better understand the biology of conchs. Shelley Edmundson, currently
studying at the University of New Hampshire, is in the initial stages of two related projects. The first
is designed to understand the growth rate and movement of the channeled whelk in Nantucket
Sound. Working closely with fishermen from Martha’s Vineyard, Ms. Edmundson has tagged whelk,
and is gathering location information from fishermen who catch her tagged conchs. This project
also involves obtaining data on the general size and quantity of potted conchs, documenting the
number of channeled and knobbed whelk in order to gather baseline data that may help identify
whether or not knobbed whelk are becoming more prevalent than channeled whelk. The second
project is designed to understand hatching rates and possible triggers for hatching (e.g.,
temperature, etc.). These research projects will help fill important gaps in the understanding of
conch biology.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 75
Figure 21: The Maria Mitchell Association uses spat bags to help identify the timing of bay
scallop spawning events. In addition to those placed around Nantucket Harbor, the Maria
Mitchell Association also placed a spat bag near Esther Island in 2011.
Harbor Plan Implementation Committee
In May of 2009 the Town of Nantucket produced a Harbor Management Plan (ultimately approved by
the State in December of 2009). This plan produced more than 150 recommendations for actions to
help the Town better manage Nantucket and Madaket Harbors, including the shellfish resources
contained therein.
To ensure that this Plan was put into action, the Town appointed the Harbor Plan Implementation
Committee (HPIC), whose mission is “to prioritize the Nantucket and Madaket Harbors Plan
implementation items in the form of recommendations to the Board of Selectmen, to provide regular
updates to the Board as to implementation of the Plan, and to recommend changes to the Plan as
needed.” Members of the HPIC include three representatives of Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
(SHAB) appointed by that Board and five at‐large members appointed by the Board of Selectmen. The
Committee is scheduled to meet twice a month. This ensures an ongoing effort to relate harbor
management efforts to shellfish management. As of December 2011, 63% of the Harbors Plan has been
implemented (Oktay, Personal Communication, 2012).
Nantucket Shellfish Association
The Nantucket Shellfish Association, Inc.’s (NSA) mission is to ensure the continued viability of
Nantucket’s shellfisheries through education and research, with the goal of using the knowledge gained
from its sponsored research to enhance the community’s shellfish management capabilities. To that
end, over the years the Association has supported various research and education efforts, as well as the
Town’s re‐invigorated shellfish propagation program. These activities help underscore the shellfisheries’
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 76
importance as a sustainable natural resource, their cultural importance in the island’s history and their
continuing, significant contribution to the Island’s economy.
More specifically, NSA encourages research and education for the conservation and enhancement of the
populations of bay scallops, mussels, soft‐shell clams, quahogs, oysters, whelk and conch (referred to
collectively as “shellfish”) in the waters of Nantucket Island and to assure prudent commercial and
recreational harvesting of shellfish in support of a diversified economic base for the Nantucket
community. The Association promotes that objective through activities including, but not limited to, the
following:
Encouraging research on shellfish and associated organisms, with emphasis on species of
economic importance;
Encouraging shellfish propagation;
Gathering and disseminating scientific and technical information on shellfish;
Promoting and advancing shellfisheries research and the application of results to the shellfish
industry;
Promoting—through education—broader understanding and appreciation of the historical
heritage of Nantucket derived from the shellfish industry;
Holding meetings for presentation, exchange, and discussion of information on scientific and
professional aspects of shellfish research and management;
Supporting efforts to ensure understanding of the shellfish industry and its role as a
fundamental contributor to the strength of Nantucket’s economy; and
Educating its members and others involved in shell fishing and promoting professionalism.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 77
SECTION 10: RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section presents recommendations to promote sustainable shellfisheries in Nantucket
waters in accordance with the Plan’s goals. These recommendations include planning‐, research‐,
budgetary‐, and management‐related actions determined to be appropriate for the current state of the
fisheries. Several additional recommendations received attention from the Shellfish Management Plan
Committee, but were not included in this Plan for various reasons. While those recommendations were
not appropriate for this version of the Plan, they are described in Appendix E, with insight into benefits
that might be of value as adaptations are made to this Plan. Also, some of the recommendations list the
Nantucket Research Collaborative as an implementing entity. The Nantucket Research Collaborative is
described in the “Collaborative Research” section of the Research Plan.
Habitat Management
Although the extent to which various aspects of water quality, eelgrass coverage, predators, and other
habitat features affect the health and status of Nantucket shellfish is not entirely clear, there is
abundant research to indicate that certain habitat features are significant and in need of
protection/restoration. Additional research is needed (see Research Plan) to better understand the
specific impacts of habitat degradation and/or alteration on the survival of shellfish. Though some
recommendations are made in the absence of perfect science, the belief is that these recommendations
are proactive and will not cause new harm. Additionally, it is critical that management and regulations
will adapt as new information becomes available.
Goal I: Maintain and improve the habitat associated with sustainable commercial and recreational
shellfish fisheries
Objective I: Manage water quality to maintain or improve the habitat associated with sustainable
shellfish fisheries
Issues
Sustainable commercial and recreational shellfishing depend on suitable water quality. Direct linkages
between water quality, land use, nutrient input, and habitat health have been well established in the
scientific literature for areas associated with Cape Cod, the Massachusetts coast, and the Northeast
Atlantic Seaboard. Water quality in Nantucket and Madaket Harbors is affected by multiple input
pathways (groundwater, atmosphere, sheetflow/overland runoff, direct dumping) and via various
sources including stormwater runoff, transport of groundwater containing excess nutrients from
fertilizers and septic systems, pollutant plumes from underground storage tanks, contaminated soils
near downtown, changes in land use which may accelerate stormwater runoff, etc. To complicate
matters, climate change, anthropogenic stressors from the inadvertent encouragement of waterfowl,
increased runoff from heavy rainfall, and warmer summer temperatures all create additional stress on
harbor and salt marsh systems.
Stormwater and wastewater on the Island can greatly affect water quality by contributing contaminants
and nutrients to the Harbors; and their management is critical to maintaining suitable habitat for
shellfish. The main water quality concern for many areas on Cape Cod and the Islands is excessive
concentrations of nutrients which can lead to eutrophication with resulting algal blooms, reduction in
photic depth, excess growth of invasive aquatic algal plant species such as Codium sp. and Lyngbya sp.,
and a subsequent reduction in eelgrass coverage. Despite extensive efforts to slow the eutrophication
process, “water quality results, specifically in Nantucket Harbor, indicate that nutrients are increasing;
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 78
and being recycled at the Head of the Harbor and Quaise Basin” (Conant, 2006). In addition, certain
areas such as “the Creeks,” Folger’s Marsh, Medouie Marsh, Hither Creek, Polpis Harbor, and Coskata
Pond are especially susceptible to environmental impacts due to their hydrodynamic characteristics,
presence of natural resources, and fragility.
The most recent recommendation from the “Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment of the
Nantucket Island‐Wide Estuaries and Salt Ponds 2010” (Howes et al., 2010) clearly indicates that
constant and long‐term monitoring of both Nantucket and Madaket Harbors is important, and will help
identify the results of critical nutrient reduction activities.
In the Executive Summary of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project report, it was noted that to maintain
or preserve eelgrass bed health, a nitrogen threshold of 0.350 mg N L‐1 should not be exceeded.
Nitrogen levels in East Polpis Harbor were determined at the time to be 0.361 mg N L‐1 and had recently
lost most of its eelgrass, suggesting that this threshold is both accurate and critical. Results from the
most recent (2010) Harbor monitoring project show that total nitrogen (TN) values have increased over
the past few years in Nantucket Harbor. The Town has used the School for Marine Science and
Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (SMAST) to run computer models for various
scenarios to reduce nitrogen levels in Nantucket Harbor—centering around options relating to sewering
and/or raising the jetties. Results suggest that sewering and raising the jetties together will help reduce
nitrogen to appropriate levels (Fronzuto, Personal Communication, 2012).
In addition to water quality, water circulation has an impact on shellfish. Some areas of Nantucket
Harbor (e.g., the Head of the Harbor) have low flushing rates, exacerbating the impacts of nutrients and
contributing to poor shellfish habitat. Additionally, some areas of Nantucket Harbor experience high
rates of flushing, and observations suggest that some amount of spat is flushed out of Nantucket Harbor
on outgoing tides.
Recommendations
1) Conduct and/or support research to better understand the hydrodynamics within Nantucket and
Madaket Harbors and the impacts of water circulation on shellfish habitat and population
dynamics. This research should include a study to determine the effects of raising the jetties.
With better information on water circulation and its impacts, options for improving circulation
could be considered and implemented as appropriate.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources or the Town
Outside experts as appropriate
Harbor Plan Implementation Committee
2) Support research activities, regulatory management changes, public education initiatives, capital
improvements, and related fund‐raising activities aimed at reducing nutrient inputs from
anthropogenic sources, both in Nantucket waters and in Nantucket Sound.
Nantucket is currently addressing nutrient reduction from anthropogenic sources through a
variety of activities, including reviewing the Massachusetts Estuaries Report project and
implementing the Best Management Practices guide developed by the Article 68 Work Group.
Additionally, the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee, in conjunction with the Town, is
currently developing an educational initiative called the “Nantucket Blue Pages” that was
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 79
recommended as part of the Harbor Plan. Nantucket is supporting a water quality testing effort
to assess the effectiveness of activities to reduce nutrient input into local waters. Researchers
are looking into the possibility of using barriers of natural materials (e.g., woodchips) to remove
nitrogen from groundwater. A federal No Discharge Area for Nantucket Sound is under
development. Stakeholders should support these types of activities by lending their expertise,
raising awareness of important information, events and developments, such as meetings or the
dissemination of publications; and helping to secure financial resources.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Board of Selectmen
Board of Health
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Conservation Commission
Harbor Plan Implementation Committee
Maria Mitchell Association
University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Nantucket Shellfish Association
Outside experts as appropriate
3) Conduct and/or support research to better understand the links between shellfish habitats,
population dynamics, and anthropogenic activities that introduce chemicals into Nantucket
waters. Examples of activities of interest include: the application of fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides on upland areas (including details about the chemicals being used, the quantities
being applied, and the associated impacts); the use of septic systems; the discharge of grey
water from vessels (and the related No Discharge Area designation); the discharge of petroleum
hydrocarbon; and boat maintenance activities such as boat washing and bottom painting.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Board of Selectmen
Board of Health
Mosquito Working Group
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Conservation Commission
Nantucket Land Council
Maria Mitchell Association
University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 80
Boat yards and marinas
Outside experts as appropriate
4) Develop a better understanding of the sources and impacts of HABs on shellfish and their
habitat. Support or conduct research to address identifying and tracking potentially harmful
blooms in local waters.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
The Marine and Coastal Resources Department
Nantucket Land Council
Nantucket Biodiversity Initiative
Maria Mitchell Association
University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station
Outside experts as appropriate
5) Conduct and/or support studies to investigate the role that environmental changes may have in
altering shellfish populations on Nantucket, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and
climate change. As part of this, continue, and where appropriate, enhance efforts to record
water temperature, changes in pH, and details about when the Harbors freeze over.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Maria Mitchell Association
Outside experts as appropriate
6) Explore options to reduce the financial cost and temporal delay currently associated with
obtaining water quality results. Include a review of on‐Island options for “in house” local
analysis.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
The Marine and Coastal Resources Department*
Nantucket Research Collaborative
Nantucket Waste Water Management group
Maria Mitchell Association
University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station
Objective II: Maintain and, where possible, improve the condition and extent of eelgrass beds in
Nantucket waters
Issues
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 81
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a critical habitat for shellfish, especially scallops. When disease ravaged
eelgrass beds in the 1930s, scallop populations also crashed and it took 20–30 years for stocks to
rebound. Zostera health can be affected by a variety of factors, including disease and human activities.
Principal among the human activities at the present time are point and non‐point nutrient discharges,
contaminants from herbicides/pesticides and road runoff, and sedimentation—all of which are directly
related to increased landside development. Other detrimental impacts can result from boat moorings,
dredging, and changes in currents and flushing rates.
Restoration of existing areas or creation of new eelgrass beds may be possible with careful planning,
although historically results have been mixed. Appropriate substrate, light levels, water depth, water
motion (currents and flushing), salinity, and nutrient levels are all critical to the success of restoration
efforts.
Recommendations
1) Beginning with historical data compiled and maintained by the Massachusetts DEP, encourage
continued monitoring of the extent and health of eelgrass in Nantucket waters, and explore the
relationships between eelgrass beds and other aquatic vegetation such as epiphytic growth,
which can influence eelgrass health. To the extent possible, connect with regional eelgrass
mapping exercises.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Massachusetts DEP
US EPA
Outside experts as appropriate
2) Undertake a review of practices that may directly damage eelgrass beds (e.g., moorings, scallop
dredges, propeller damage, excess nutrient inputs from upland sources) to determine the short‐
and long‐term nature and significance of the impacts and explore methods to minimize those
impacts.
As part of this, look at options to modify dredging activity throughout the season (e.g., starting
with a 40‐pound limit at the beginning of the season, and reducing weight as the season
progressed; changing the design of the dredge to reduce impacts to eelgrass; etc.). Specifically
evaluate the progress of modifying moorings in Nantucket Harbor to minimize damage to
surrounding eelgrass beds. Evaluate the effects of alternative technologies, such as placing floats
on mooring chains, replacing chains with flexible bungee‐style rope, or placing multiple boats on
one chain anchored between two mushroom moorings. Once the effects and capabilities of
these technologies are understood, work to implement appropriate mooring strategies to reduce
impacts on eelgrass.
Additionally, explore the option of charging an extra fee for people who do not upgrade to more
environmentally sensitive mooring technologies and for dedicating those funds to mitigation of
damaged resources.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 82
Nantucket Land Council
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Great Harbor Yacht Club
Nantucket Land Council
Conservation Commission
SHAB
3) Develop and implement a cost‐effective strategy to protect/restore eelgrass in locations of
significance to shellfish resources—both within and outside Nantucket and Madaket Harbors.
This strategy should take into consideration options such as propagating eelgrass, re‐seeding
areas, and removing stressors (e.g., moorings, excess nutrients) to existing and potential
eelgrass habitats.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Nantucket Land Council
Maria Mitchell Association
SHAB
4) Until a new strategy to protect eelgrass is in place, enforce existing mooring regulations and
ensure that moorings are not located in productive shellfish beds. This will require a substantial
reduction in the number of permits.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
SHAB
5) Support research to better understand the relationship between eelgrass health and density and
shading from various algal blooms, physical effects on eelgrass growth from overlying
macroalgae (for example, observations suggest that Gracilaria sp. is covering eelgrass and
causing it to lay flat during the spring, but it may also serve as a settlement substrate for bay
scallops), and effects to eelgrass from nuisance epiphytes growing directly on eelgrass.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Massachusetts DEP
Outside experts as appropriate
Nantucket Land Council
6) Conduct research to better understand changes in sediment within the Harbors since the most
recent data were gathered.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 83
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Maria Mitchell Association
UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station
Outside experts as appropriate
Objective III: Improve opportunities for shellfish recruitment into the fishery
Issues
Successful recruitment of shellfish is dependent on larval supply, appropriate settlement substrate, and
post‐settlement survival of the spat. It is generally conceded that larval supply is an important factor in
bivalve recruitment and recent work by the Maria Mitchell Association suggests that tidal flushing in
Nantucket Harbor may result in exportation of larvae from the Harbor. Improved knowledge of water
circulation patterns along with recognizing locations of potential bivalve larval sources can be combined
to predict where larval recruitment sinks may occur under varying environmental conditions, and where
spat collection efforts would be most appropriate.
Successful larval settlement is contingent on the presence of appropriate settlement substrate. Current
knowledge suggests that specific substrate types (e.g., eelgrass for bay scallops and shell cultch for
oysters) will enhance settlement and post‐settlement survival of newly‐recruited bivalve juveniles.
Efforts to preserve and enhance appropriate substrate and habitat types to promote bivalve larval
settlement and post‐settlement survival are critical to the sustained production of shellfish in Nantucket
waters.
Shellfish recruitment into the fishery also entails post‐metamorphic survival. A host of predators
influence post‐settlement populations in Nantucket waters. Again, the role of habitat is critical to this
stage, as appropriate habitats allow for the natural predator avoidance behaviors of various shellfish
species to help protect the population from excessive predation pressure. Therefore, maintenance of
suitable habitat in shellfish areas is paramount to protecting a sustainable population.
Recommendations
1) Catalog, map, and ground‐truth information about the dominant habitat types (relative to
shellfish survival) throughout Nantucket waters. If adequate funding for these activities cannot
be secured, explore alternative, less‐costly options for obtaining habitat information. Use this
information as baseline data and as a basis for prioritizing and protecting shellfish habitat and
promoting an awareness of the need for managing habitat as an important element in
managing the shellfishery.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
SHAB
UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station
Maria Mitchell Association
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 84
2) Work with the Nantucket Department of Public Works to institute a shell recycling program
where most, if not all, shells are returned to the Harbors for pH buffering and settlement
substrate purposes (potentially with assistance from fishermen). Ensure that the deposition of
shells does not harm existing habitat features (such as eelgrass beds) or create new habitat
dominated by predators. Adhere to DMF’s Shellfish Planting Guidelines for placing shells in the
water: “Oyster, quahog and softshell clam shell used as cultch shall be aged on land for a
minimum of one year. Shell from other species of bivalves such as surf clam, ocean quahog,
scallops and mussels may be used without limitations. All issues regarding approved shell cultch
must be addressed by Marine Fisheries prior to placement into coastal waters.” (Hickey et al.,
2012). Conduct research to identify the most appropriate locations for returning the shells and
monitor the deposition sites to better understand the impacts of such activities.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Department of Public Works
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Nantucket Shellfish Association
3) Continue to monitor dissolved oxygen in benthic areas of the Harbors, and expand monitoring to
include monitoring of sediment acidity.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Maria Mitchell Association*
The Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Conservation Commission
4) Continue monitoring spat settlement throughout the waters of Nantucket by way of spat
collection and enumeration.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Maria Mitchell Association
5) Conduct collaborative annual surveys of juvenile shellfish stocks to assess the areas of spatfall to
aid in management decision‐making.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
The Marine and Coastal Resources Department*
Maria Mitchell Association
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Nantucket Shellfish Association
UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 85
Objective IV: Understand the impacts of harvesting‐related activities on the habitat and the resources
Issues
Shellfish harvest often entails the application of disruptive forces to the environment. There is
conflicting opinion and evidence as to the overall impact of shellfish harvest on the habitats and their
ability to sustain shellfish populations. Undoubtedly, the overall impact of shellfish harvesting will
depend not only on the method of harvest but also the intensity of the harvest in any given area.
Therefore, it is contingent on shellfish managers to monitor and maintain harvest pressure at levels that
allow for continued functioning of the habitat to support new shellfish growth. Due to the dearth of
good scientific information on overall harvest impacts, historical observations may provide the basis for
these management decisions while striving to generate new information on the effects that shellfish
harvesting plays on shellfish production and overall environmental quality.
Recommendations
1) Conduct and/or support studies to determine the impacts of recreational and commercial
shellfish harvesting (including the impacts of by‐catch) on the sustainability of the resource and
the habitat.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Nantucket Shellfish Association
Commercial fishermen
SHAB
Outside experts as appropriate
2) Monitor and assess the overall intensity of shellfish harvest practices (including impacts
stemming from by‐catch) and manage activities within specific harvest areas to minimize the risk
of detrimental impacts from excessive harvest practices.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
The Marine and Coastal Resources Department
Nantucket Shellfish Association
SHAB
Shellfish Resources
On Nantucket, commercial and recreational harvested shellfish include bay scallops, oysters, soft‐shell
clams, conch, quahogs, and mussels. While these species differ in terms of life cycles and fishing
pressure, they all benefit from some level of management. Management can take the form of limits to
accessibility, limits to fishing intensity, and/or strategies to enhance shellfish populations in the field. A
mix of these three tools will increase the probability of having sustainable shellfish resources for the
citizens of and visitors to Nantucket.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 86
Goal I: Maintain and enhance the populations of scallops, quahogs, soft shell clams, mussels, conch,
oysters, and other shellfish of commercial and/or recreational importance in Nantucket waters
Objective I: Enhance shellfish resources through propagation activities
Issues
Shellfish propagation entails the manipulation of shellfish resources to augment naturally occurring
populations. Propagation can occur through relays of adult shellfish from restricted areas to approved
or conditionally approved areas—followed by an appropriate interval of time to allow for depuration.
Another propagation strategy utilizes shellfish juveniles or larvae produced in a shellfish hatchery and
reared under controlled conditions until released into the wild. Both strategies allow for the addition of
new individuals into existing populations resulting in either a “put‐and‐take” fishery or propagated
individuals that are allowed to grow and reproduce thus seeding natural areas within Nantucket waters.
Although the latter type of propagation activities are currently conducted for Nantucket’s bay scallops,
quahogs, oysters, and soft‐shell clams, propagation has historically fluctuated due to inconsistent
funding, man‐power, and other resources. Overall, the Island needs to continue to support these
activities, as they have been proven to be effective strategies in augmenting “natural” shellfish
resources.
Recommendations
1) Develop and implement a strategy to track the effectiveness of propagation activities in terms of
supplementing the commercial and recreational harvests. As part of this, identify locations best
suited for larval release (e.g., areas with larval retention), examine the timing of larval release in
terms of survival, and conduct post‐set release and associated monitoring for survivability.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Nantucket Shellfish Association
Commercial fishermen
UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station
Outside experts as appropriate
2) Continue current propagation efforts such as the larval release program and, based on the
results of the study of propagation effectiveness, consider pursuing opportunities to expand
propagation activities, including expansion to different species (i.e., oysters).
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Nantucket Shellfish Association
Commercial Fishermen
Objective II: Enhance shellfish resources through seed management activities
Issues
Often times, wild shellfish seed can be manipulated to enhance the survival and productivity of existing
populations. Seed management activities include returning seed to the water if stranded on the shore,
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 87
moving seed from one location to another to improve the likelihood of spawning and/or survival, and
closing off areas to harvesting so that they may serve as seed sanctuaries. Though seed management on
Nantucket has some guidelines, there is no formalized seed management plan.
Recommendations
1) Develop seed management protocols for transplanting seed. Outline criteria for establishing
seed sanctuaries and for determining compensation to volunteers who assist with seed
management. Review the effects of the protocols and adapt as appropriate.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
2) Develop and/or support studies to evaluate the efficacy of seed management activities. Adjust
seed programs to improve effectiveness.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
3) Better understand impacts of wind‐driven strandings on the bay scallop population. Topics of
interest include survivability of seed returned to the water and the effects on the seed population
(i.e., what percent of seed is stranded).
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Maria Mitchell Association
Outside experts as appropriate
Objective III: Enhance shellfish resources through spawning management
Issues
When shellfish populations decline in the wild, critical densities are required to ensure optimal
fertilization success. To ensure that effective fertilization has occurred, threshold densities need to be
maintained. If those densities cannot be sustained naturally, then broodstock can be intentionally held
at optimal densities through artificial means, e.g., relaying to specific areas or enhancing through
propagation.
Nantucket has performed various bay scallop spawning management activities and, while the projects
did yield some helpful “lessons learned,” research to understand the impacts of these efforts has not
been conducted. Future spawning management efforts can benefit from the past work on Nantucket, as
well as advances made off‐Island however, it is important to closely monitor the impacts of any new
spawning management efforts in Nantucket waters.
Recommendations
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 88
1) Continue to develop spawning sanctuaries, through the use of spawning cages, to increase larval
supply, and monitor impacts of sanctuaries. Particular focus should be on utilizing areas with
high larval retention and evaluating the manipulation of water flow for larval retention.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station
2) Institute new steps—and continue existing efforts—to identify spawning events and monitor
spat levels in the Harbors such as by the strategic placement of spat bags strategically around
the Harbors.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
The Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Maria Mitchell Association
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
3) Continue larval release at various locations throughout Nantucket waters and evaluate its
effectiveness in terms of localized recruitment of spat. Investigate whether or not the timing of
the releases affects their effectiveness at enhancing local populations.
The Marine and Coastal Resources Department*
Nantucket Shellfish Association
Goal II: Conduct predator management activities
Objective I: Better understand the impacts of shellfish predators on the fishery and manage accordingly
Issue
Predation on shellfish resources affects all life stages of the bivalves, from planktonic larvae being
consumed by comb jellyfish to adults being attacked by predatory gastropods. Many argue that
predation is the primary factor controlling the overall population dynamics of shellfish in the wild.
Therefore, any outside means of reducing or excluding predators from consuming shellfish may have a
significant positive effect on shellfish resources.
Recommendations
1) Measure and monitor predator abundance in Nantucket waters (in part through a survey of by‐
catch) and measure impacts on shellfish resources during the various life stages for each species.
Understand the impacts of native versus non‐native predators and implement a predator
management protocol as appropriate, perhaps based on the identification of an “over‐
abundance” (which would need to be defined) of predators in the ecosystem. As part of the
protocol, conduct research to understand the impacts of predator removal—both on the
harvested resources and on the biological communities in the Harbors. Specifically look at the
impacts of the mud blister worm (Polydora).
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 89
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Shellfishermen
Outside experts as appropriate
Goal III: Manage shellfish based on scientifically sound understanding of the shellfishes’ lifecycles,
population dynamics, and other biological traits.
Objective I: Develop a better scientific understanding of Nantucket shellfish
Issues
Life history characteristics of shellfish resources and their interactions with their environment are
generally understood but site‐specific differences need to be identified. This is particularly true with
respect to the uncertainty about when shellfish spawn and, specifically, whether or not a nub scallop
will spawn twice. Additionally, it is unclear as to how shellfish move around the Harbors, including those
transported during wind‐driven events. This uncertainty creates differences in opinion on how to
manage shellfish resources; therefore it is important to encourage and support research and use the
resultant findings to make science‐based decisions regarding shellfish management.
Recommendations
1) Conduct and/or support current and future research to better understand the spawning cycle of
scallops, and specifically the spawning cycle of nub scallops.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Maria Mitchell Association
University of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Massachusetts bay scallop fishing communities
Outside experts as appropriate
2) Better understand and define the biological traits of and stressors to bay scallops, quahogs,
conch, oysters, soft‐shelled clams, and other harvested shellfish. Use that knowledge to make
informed management decisions. Specific topics of interest include (1) the relationship between
spat recruitment and post‐set spat survival as it relates to the overall abundance of shellfish, and
(2) the genetic variability among harvested shellfish.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Maria Mitchell Association
Outside experts as appropriate
Regulations
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 90
The principal approach to shellfish management has historically been through regulations—standards
based in law with enforcement and penalties for violations. In the legal structure, the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, through DMF, establishes standards for implementation by either State or local
officials. The Town of Nantucket has the authority to implement stricter standards than those of the
State but does not have the authority to change, or “weaken,” State standards. The Town may,
however, work with DMF to modify State standards to better meet local conditions.
While a great deal of research is still needed on shellfish, their habitats, and the factors that affect
shellfish, several regulations should be explored to improve local management.
Goal I: Structure commercial and recreational harvesting effort to protect shellfish resources.
Objective 1: Ensure that commercial and recreational harvesting efforts provide for the sustainable
maintenance of the shellfish resources
Issues
There are many regulatory management strategies available to ensure the sustainable harvest of
shellfish resources. Based on an understanding of the standing stock available for harvest and
recruitment into the fishery, regulations can be established for practices such as the technology applied
to fishing effort and overall commercial and recreational effort. Additionally, controls can be
established based on the biological characteristics of the shellfish, e.g., minimum size thresholds. These
control measures should be based on strong scientific data characterizing the resources wherever
possible.
Recommendations
1) Monitor the population characteristics of important shellfish resources across the Island,
assessing recruitment into the fishery and the standing stock available for harvest, in order to
provide information for management decisions. This monitoring could possibly lead to the
development of a predictive population model for Nantucket shellfish. Additionally, this
monitoring could be done in a collaborative manner by working with local fishermen.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Maria Mitchell Association
2) Continue to limit the size and mechanics (power hoisting) of dredges and enforce existing
restrictions such as the current 40‐pound limit on the weight of the dredge.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Board of Selectmen*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 91
3) Work with other Massachusetts‐based shellfishing communities and DMF to identify and
conduct research designed to evaluate the definition of a legally harvestable bay scallop. As part
of this, consider research to inform the potential use of a thickness gauge to measure
harvestable bay scallops.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Board of Selectmen
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
4) Increase oversight of recreational shellfishermen and enforcement of recreational regulations
more widely. This includes expanding enforcement efforts during the summer, obtaining data on
recreational catches throughout the shellfishing seasons, and enforcing the regulation requiring
people to wear the pins which prove they have purchased licenses.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Goal II: Ensure adaptive management of shellfish resources
Objective I: Regulations need to be adaptive and responsive as new information and management
strategies arise
Issues
Regulatory programs cannot be static. Management methods and emphasis must change in response to
new environmental conditions, improved understanding of environmental and harvesting impacts, legal
and/or budgetary constraints, and other aspects related to management capabilities.
Establishing the capacity for timely changes in regulatory systems allows for a smooth transition in
management techniques when conditions or scientific and legal understanding changes. A section of
this report has been developed to outline the process by which adaptive management should be
conducted. That section should be read in conjunction with these adaptive management
recommendations.
Recommendations
1) Implement the steps needed to institute the adaptive management section of this Plan. As a first
step, the Town should establish a Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee. This
Committee should be responsible for developing specific rules about adaptation, including the
timing of meetings, whether or not a “traffic light” approach to management is logical/feasible
(see Appendix F), etc.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Board of Selectmen*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 92
NSA
Goal III: Ensure sufficient resources to carry out the recommendations of this plan and management
responsibilities under State and municipal laws and regulations
Objective I: To increase the revenue generated for shellfish management
Issues
Managing shellfish habitat and resources to achieve the goals of this Plan requires adequate and
consistent funding for staff and facilities. If enforcement is, or is even perceived to be less than fair,
equitable and consistent, compliance and acceptance of new management strategies will be more
difficult. Additionally, structured propagation and research activities are vital to achieving sustainably
managed fisheries. These activities fall largely to the MCRD, which is stretched thin with many diverse
responsibilities.
Propagation, research, and water quality monitoring may benefit from being the responsibility of a
separate fiscal entity, rather than part of the MCRD. In addition to more fiscal security as an
independent entity, separation of these activities from the MCRD might quell any distrust of research
conducted by a department also engaged in enforcement.
Funds generated through the sale of shellfish permits are utilized for the Town’s shellfish propagation
efforts. Annual fees for shellfishing licenses are as follows:
Table 14: Shellfishing licenses have different fees depending on what you are harvesting,
whether or not you’re a Nantucket resident, and whether or not you are fishing commercially or
recreationally.
Category Shellfish Species Fee
Commercial Scallop $250
Commercial Other than scallop $150 per species
Recreational; Nantucket Resident Any species $25
Recreational; Non‐Resident
(annual)
Any species $100
Recreational; Non‐Resident
(weekly)
Any species $50
Currently annual income from sales of licenses is approximately $60,000. Of this, roughly half is from
commercial license sales and half is from recreational sales. Three‐quarters of this income is used to
support the shellfish propagation fund while the rest goes into the Town’s General Fund.
Additional revenue could be provided for propagation efforts—while potentially stimulating other
sectors of Nantucket’s economy—by exploring options for new recreational and commercial fee
structures and permit opportunities or by adjusting the percentage of the total license sales that goes to
support propagation efforts.
Recommendations
1) Develop alternative commercial and recreational permit fee structures to generate more revenue
for Nantucket. Investigate opportunities for changes to permit fees from time to time. Any
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 93
direct revenues should be put toward propagation activities. Follow‐up studies should be
conducted to determine the economic impacts of any new fees.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Board of Selectmen
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Management Implementation
Goal I: Administer and enforce the municipal Shellfish Management Plan in an efficient, consistent,
equitable, and cost‐effective manner
Objective I: Establish a stable independent budget for the Town’s shellfish management activities
Issues
Presently, shellfish management (including propagation efforts, enforcement, and research) does not
have a stable and predictable source of funding. Some funding comes from the annual budget approved
at Town Meeting, while the rest comes from the sale of shellfish licenses. The former is subject to the
constraints and competition for financial resources within the overall Town budget. More certainty for
consistent funding levels will allow for better allocation of resources and better planning for future
propagation and research efforts.
Recommendations
1) Ensure stable funding for sufficient staffing of all management activities including research,
water quality testing and analysis, propagation, enforcement and the use of interns and
seasonal employees (estimated to cost at least $150,000). Funding sources should include
money for salaries and equipment out of the general fund, money for propagation from fines,
and additional income from grants, gifts, and the sale of licenses. One hundred percent of
license fees must be used for propagation efforts. Consider various budget scenarios for
expanded propagation activities, and the hiring of a second biologist.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Board of Selectmen
Objective II: Continue to build on collaborative management and research, coordinating the activities
and interests of the relevant Town of Nantucket boards and departments, commercial and recreational
fishermen and associations, the Division of Marine Fisheries, and nonprofit organizations
Issues
The shellfish fisheries on Nantucket are “managed” by multiple entities, including the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, the Town Board of Selectmen, the Harbors and Shellfish Advisory Board,
the Town Board of Health, and the Marine and Coastal Resources Department.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 94
DMF has overall authority in designating and classifying shellfish growing areas, identifying locations
suitable for aquaculture, issuing aquaculture leases, and setting the definition of a legally harvestable
shellfish. DMF also keeps records of total catches, numbers of licenses sold, and other statistics.
While DMF has general authority over shellfish, the Town of Nantucket can fine‐tune the shellfish
regulations (in municipal waters) as long as their regulations are not in conflict with those of the State.
Accordingly, the Board of Selectmen, advised by the Harbors and Shellfish Advisory Board, acts to define
policies and goals for the shellfishery. The Marine and Coastal Resources Department is responsible for
carrying out many of those goals and policies, including the issuance of shellfish licenses and
aquaculture leases, ensuring that fishermen comply with regulations, conducting shellfish transplants
and relays, as well as propagation and research activities. The Board of Health is also involved through
the licensing of shanties where shellfish are shucked.
In addition to the State and Municipal entities tasked with managing the shellfisheries, fishermen are
also involved in management, acting through SHAB, the Nantucket Shellfish Association, and Town
Meeting to articulate concerns and issues that arise. The fishermen are also responsible for
understanding and adhering to the regulations while fishing.
The number of groups presently involved in shellfish management on Nantucket necessitates some level
of communication in order to function. While the current approach to communication seems to work to
a large extent, additional steps can be taken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of that
communication. For example, training and education opportunities can promote a consistent
understanding of the regulations among fishermen and those responsible for enforcement, thus
improving enforcement efforts.
Similar to the way that multiple entities are involved in managing the fisheries, several groups, including
the Marine and Coastal Resources Department, the Maria Mitchell Association, the UMass Boston
Nantucket Field Station, and the Nantucket Land Council, are conducting research on shellfish‐related
topics. While some collaboration already exists, efforts should be made to reduce redundancies, adopt
common data collection methods, apply for joint funding, and take other steps to advance the state of
knowledge of Nantucket’s shellfish and habitats.
Recommendations
1) All personnel involved in management of shellfish resources and enforcement of shellfish
regulations should attend periodic joint‐training sessions (facilitated by fishermen and managers
together) to ensure consistency of enforcement. These sessions should be open to commercial
and recreational shellfishermen in the interest of improving compliance and communication
between managers and the regulated community. Continue to include attendance in a training
session as part of the penalty for harvesting seed scallops.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Board of Selectmen
NSA
Commercial fishermen
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 95
2) Work with other fishing communities in Massachusetts to identify and make recommendations
to DMF in areas where changes might benefit Nantucket shellfisheries, such as with the size of a
legally harvestable bay scallop. Prepare and make widely available clear guidance on identifying
harvestable scallops.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Board of Selectmen
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Fishermen
Other fishing communities in Massachusetts
Outside experts as appropriate
3) Work with the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee to develop the data clearinghouse for
Harbors‐related topics, including information pertaining to shellfish. Include the resources listed
in this Management Plan, and ensure the availability of information pertaining to previous
research on Nantucket shellfish.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Board of Selectmen
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Maria Mitchell Association
UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station
4) Nantucket’s research entities, along with the Town and fishermen, should work together to
further develop and implement the coordinated Research Plan associated with this Shellfish
Management Plan, identifying priority research sites, data needs, and a standardized method for
data collection, recording and reporting. This research coordination should be overseen by a
group of local and outside experts with knowledge of research issues contained in the Research
Plan. For purposes of this Plan, that group is referred to as the “Nantucket Research
Collaborative.”
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Maria Mitchell Association
University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 96
Department of Health
School for Marine Science and Technology
Massachusetts DEP
Other experts as needed
Objective III: Increase opportunities for successful commercial shellfish aquaculture in Town waters
Issues
Shellfish aquaculture has proven to be a low‐impact method of producing marketable shellfish, and is
growing in both the acres farmed and the level of production in the northeast at a very high rate
(approximately 10% per year, e.g. see the Rhode Island Annual Aquaculture reports between 1999‐2011,
at http://www.crmc.ri.gov/aquaculture.html)). In addition to providing economic benefit to watermen,
shellfish aquaculture also provides a variety of ecosystem services that aid in moderating impacts such
as nutrient eutrophication in our coastal waters (an oyster can filter about 15 gallons of water a day
(Rhode Island Sea Grant, undated)); therefore, shellfish aquaculture should be encouraged more widely
in Nantucket waters. Existing shellfish aquaculture in Town waters represents only a fraction of what
can be accommodated sustainably and compatibly with other uses. As such, more should be done to
encourage and support shellfish aquaculture.
Recommendations
1) Continue to develop and implement an action plan to increase available space and use of space
for aquaculture in Town waters. The action plan should address qualifications of bidders; a
requirement for a business plan, and; management standards. The action plan should also
ensure that shellfishing activities are not impaired as a result of aquaculture, and stress the
participation of fishermen in hearings pertaining to aquaculture decisions.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Board of Selectmen
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
2) Continue to work with DMF to identify and consider (1) potential aquaculture locations outside
of the agency’s usual physical siting requirements and (2) approval of a block of sites in advance
of the DMF’s issuance of a license to an individual.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Board of Selectmen
MA Division of Marine Fisheries
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 97
Objective IV: Manage areas of the Harbors for harvest based on assessments of the resource, habitat
conditions, and social demand
Issues
Accessibility to Nantucket shellfish resources should be managed to address the needs of the
stakeholders (recreational and commercial) and the sustainability of the resource. Management
decisions based on apportioning areas for harvest will be dependent on the social demand modulated
by the availability and sustainability of the resource, as assessed by resource monitoring.
Recommendations
1) Identify and make publically available areas for recreational fishing.
Recreational fishing already dominates those shallow areas of the Harbors most easily accessible
to recreational fishermen. Information about those areas should be made available to
recreational fishermen, though commercial fishing should not be excluded from those areas.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Board of Selectmen
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Education
Goal I: Increase public education/outreach efforts to the general public as well as recreational and
commercial fishermen to create a better understanding of how human activities affect important
shellfish resources
Objective I: Educate the general public about the significance of shellfishing to the Island’s economy,
culture, and history
Issues
Harvesting shellfish commercially and recreationally has long been important to both the economy and
culture of Nantucket. However, many full‐time and summer residents do not appreciate the full
significance of shellfishing and, all too often, are not aware that their actions on the land and on the
water can affect the fisheries. Furthermore, they often fail to appreciate the importance of ensuring a
healthy shellfish population. Improving the general public’s understanding of shellfish‐related issues,
including the economic and cultural significance of shellfishing, will allow for more informed decisions
on activities ranging from Town budgets and by‐laws to the use of private property and public waters.
Efforts such as the development of the Blue Pages are already underway to help promote awareness of
the Island’s marine resources; however, additional efforts are also needed to increase public awareness.
Recommendations
1) Design and implement a study to assess the economic impact of recreational and commercial
shellfishing to Nantucket. This study should address topics such as employment rates (including
jobs both directly and indirectly impacted by shellfishing), wages, impacts to other sectors of the
economy, cash‐flow through the Island economy, and economic trends related to shellfishing.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 98
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Outside experts as needed
Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission
2) Develop and implement a public outreach strategy to highlight the significance of shellfishing
both from a cultural and an economic perspective. This may include components such as a series
of articles in local newspapers and magazines; a mail campaign; outreach activities at fairs and
festivals; recruitment of recreational shellfishers for the NSA; a “meet the fishermen” event; the
development and distribution of the Blue Pages book; and an informational display that can be
moved from venue to venue (appearing in such places as the library, Town Hall, ferry terminals,
the airport, etc). This strategy should be developed in a way that fosters collaboration with
other existing outreach plans so as to not duplicate efforts or send mixed messages to audiences.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
3) Develop an oral history of commercial and recreational shellfishermen and those associated with
the industry as part of the historical records of the Island.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Historical Society*
NSA
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Objective II: Educate the general public about the ways in which their actions affect the shellfishing
industry
Issues
Chemicals such as fertilizers, pesticides, boat cleaners, and nutrients from septic systems can result in
significant negative impacts on shellfish and their habitat. Activities such as anchoring boats with
mushroom moorings and bottom chains can disrupt various features of shellfish habitat and harvesting
shellfish without a license and proper training may affect shellfish populations. Providing the public with
information about how their activities can affect shellfish, and ways to avoid these impacts through best
management practices, will help minimize or alleviate some of the problems. More education may lead
to greater voluntary compliance and lessen the need for costly enforcement efforts.
Recommendations
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 99
1) Develop and implement an outreach strategy to educate the public about how land and water‐
based activities can affect shellfish habitat. The outreach strategy should consider opportunities
to coordinate with existing education efforts such as those identified in the Harbors Plan.
This outreach strategy should make every effort to reach landowners, boaters, yacht clubs and
their members, students, Maritime Festival audiences, and others, as appropriate. Additionally,
electronic communication methods, including social network tools, should be explored.
Examples of possible topics include fertilizer applications and their impact on shellfish habitat,
and the dangers of dropping anchor in a shellfish bed.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Harbor Plan Implementation Committee
Marine Science Teacher(s)
Egan Maritime Institute
reMain Nantucket
Nantucket Health Department
Nantucket Department of Public Works
Others as appropriate
2) Support the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee’s work to develop and circulate a Blue Book
modeled after those found in many communities on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. Assist
with content development and distribution.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee *
Harbor Plan Implementation Committee
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Objective III: Provide education/outreach to recreational fishermen both as to how to improve their catch
(within the limits of the management program) and to minimize impacts on habitat
Issues
Because recreational fishermen spend less time on or in the water harvesting shellfish, and because a
failure of the crop does not affect them as greatly as commercial shellfishermen, the recreational
community may not clearly recognize changes in the numbers and health of the shellfish. Further, they
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 100
may not clearly recognize the impacts that they have on the overall populations and habitat. And in
some cases, they may not know how to maximize their catch while minimizing their effort.
Educational/outreach materials, tailored to the recreational fishermen, can help improve their harvest
(and enjoyment and understanding of shellfishing) while helping to minimize adverse impacts on
habitat. An education/outreach program linked to licensing procedures has the possibility to
disseminate significant amounts of information with minimal effort and associated costs.
At the same time, numbers of recreational shellfishermen can provide meaningful feedback to Town and
State managers on various aspects of shellfish health and populations as well as aspects of their
habitat—if provided with some level of understanding of life cycles, habitat interactions, etc.
Recommendations
1) Provide information on “best fishing practices” for recreational fishermen, including tips on how
to identify legally harvestable scallops, where to access the water, how to be safe while
harvesting, and how to minimize impacts on the habitat. Improve outreach to let people know
that recreational permits are required to harvest shellfish. Use the outreach opportunity as a
way to improve community awareness of the issues facing the shellfisheries. Include information
about how the money raised by license sales helps the fishery and the Island’s economy.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
NSA
Maria Mitchell Association and Aquarium
DMF
2) Improve access for recreational fishermen when feasible. Ensure that these new access points do
not lead to illegal parking, blocking of traffic, culling on private property, and other similar
issues.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Planning Office
3) Gather contact information from people when they purchase their recreational shellfish permits.
Use that information to communicate with recreational fishermen about upcoming events;
management changes; opportunities to provide input on shellfish management; opportunities to
participate in surveys about recreational shellfishing; and other important issues/opportunities.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
NSA
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 101
Objective IV: Provide opportunities to the commercial fishing fleet to participate in research projects
and stock assessments, both as a means to gather high‐quality information and to inform the fishing
fleet as to on‐going research efforts.
Issues
Fishery research projects and stock assessments are often limited in scope due to a lack of qualified
personnel and/or adequate “boat‐time” to gather the information required. A new approach to gaining
fishery‐related information is through the development of a “Cooperative Research” effort, where
commercial fishermen are provided an incentive to join with scientists and managers to perform studies
required to aid management decisions. Incentives range from recognition of their assistance to
compensation for their time through extra fishing days/limits. Cooperative research programs not only
facilitate an expanded research opportunity but also allow for improved communication between
scientists, managers, and fishermen.
Recommendations
1) Investigate other Fishery Cooperative Research Programs in the region with the intention of
developing and implementing a program on Nantucket that will allow local fishermen to be
involved in research and stock assessment efforts.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
NSA*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
BOS
2) Identify a select group of fishermen to assist with research by documenting bycatch details such
as the percentage of seed and the types and abundance of predators.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Board of Selectmen
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Nantucket Shellfish Association
Commercial fishermen
Harvest Documentation
Goal I: Manage based on accurate and complete data on the amount and location of shellfish
harvested
Objective I: Improve methods of recording commercial and recreational shellfish landings to ensure a
complete and accurate accounting of the harvest
Issues
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 102
Accurate and comprehensive catch and effort data are critical to effective fisheries management. Daily
catch data for bay scallops are gathered by shellfish wardens who check every catch every day—either
on the water, at the docks, or at the shanties. This method of tracking catch has not been consistently
used since commercial bay scalloping began, thus catch statistics cannot be reliably compared between
years. The recently adopted SAFIS (Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System) trip‐level
reporting—which requires fishermen to report trip‐specific catch and effort information to DMF—has
improved the accuracy and reporting of landings data and includes information on where shellfish are
being harvested, though incentives for under‐ and over‐reporting catch and effort exist, presenting
potential bias in the data.
While some processes are in place to capture data about the commercial harvest of shellfish,
recreational shellfish catches are much more difficult to estimate due to the less visible and less
predictable harvesting conducted by recreational fishermen.
Improved mechanisms to collect and/or verify commercial and recreational catch information, including
details specific to different areas of the Harbors, will help to create a better record of the fisheries and
will contribute to an improved understanding of legally harvestable species abundance and habitat
issues.
Recommendations
1) Continue to utilize records from shanties to help monitor and verify commercial landings.
Additionally, continue to utilize records from shanties for enforcement of limits.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
MA DMF
2) Implement a means to track the general locations where shellfish were harvested—both
recreationally and commercially. The new trip‐level reporting to DMF includes records of the
growing areas fished and captures information about effort. Recreational fishing records should
be designed to collect information similar to that reported for commercial harvests. While
methods to track recreational fishing are imperfect, they could be augmented to also obtain
information about where recreational fishermen fish. These commercial and recreational data
should be analyzed jointly to understand where the fishing is greatest from year to year, and
what significance that might have for management.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Commercial fishermen
DMF
Support of the commercial shellfishery
Goal I: Support the economic and physical structures of a viable shellfishery for both economic and
traditional purposes
Objective I: Improve strategies to optimize the dollar value of harvested shellfish
Issues
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 103
The price of shellfish fluctuates throughout the season relative to product abundance, quality, and
demand. Some of Nantucket’s wholesalers describe a very competitive and secretive atmosphere—
among both wholesalers and fishermen—with no one fully aware of who moves what quantity of
shellfish to which buyers for what price. Still, there seems to be a collective interest in better
understanding of how to enhance the value of shellfish coming from Nantucket waters. Of particular
interest is finding a way to market the highly‐prized Nantucket bay scallop in such a way that buyers can
be sure their product truly came from Nantucket waters. Anecdotal reports tell of menus offering “fresh
Nantucket Scallops” in October, before the commercial season has even opened, as well as incidents of
scallops being flown to Nantucket and the shipped out, reportedly “from Nantucket.” This outside
competition drives down the price of the real Nantucket bay scallop and can jeopardize the reputation
of the shellfish’s quality. Having the ability to prove that a bay scallop originated from Nantucket waters
could help prevent the intrusion of imitation Nantucket bay scallops. UMass Boston is conducting
research that might help address the problem of imitation Nantucket bay scallops. The research project
involves (1) creating a catalog of scallops from known locations in Nantucket Harbor, (2) analyzing the
geochemistry of the growing edge of the shell to identify chemistry of that particular habitat, and (3)
building a classification model that will help identify the geographic origin of a bay scallop. Similar work
with the meat of the scallops is in the beginning stages of development.
Another consideration with regard to the economics of the Nantucket bay scallop fishery is the
fluctuation in price throughout the week and the season. Friday catches do not go to market until
Monday, and because they are not as fresh as the scallops bought during the rest of the week, they
typically bring in a lower price. Additionally, the price seems to drop off at the end of the season when
consumers feel that the quality of the harvested shellfish is deteriorating. Lastly, prices seem to fall
around Thanksgiving and Christmas.
In order to realize the maximum economic value of Nantucket bay scallops, there is potential to
collectively control when the product hits the market, and how much goes to market. Additionally,
branding the Nantucket bay scallop, sharing costs of harvesting and shucking the product, and
identifying markets for shellfish by‐products could improve the bottom line for those involved in the
shellfisheries. While some strategies have already been discussed by fishermen and are identified in the
following recommendations, a detailed economic analysis of the industry and the market(s) can help to
identify additional strategies.
Recommendations
1) Develop marketing strategies, such as branding the Nantucket bay scallop and/or controlling the
rate at which scallops reach the market, to optimize the price of the Nantucket bay scallop. As
part of this, continue to develop the concept of using a sticker to identify boxes of scallops as
coming from Nantucket. Also consider developing quality standards (such as a freshness
standard) that would be universally agreed upon and promoted by all who handle Nantucket bay
scallops. Work with USDA to see if their marketing programs are applicable to the Nantucket
bay scallop fishery. Link with ecotourism opportunities on Nantucket.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
NSA*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Commercial fishermen
Wholesalers
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 104
Outside experts as appropriate
2) Consider establishing a co‐op for marketing purposes. As part of the development of this co‐op,
consider making participation optional, and look to other co‐ops for examples of good strategies.
Appendix H provides some guidelines and resources for developing this cooperative.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
NSA*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Commercial fishermen
3) Develop marketing strategies to enhance the value of Nantucket shellfish by‐products (e.g.,
shells as a buffering source for restoration projects, viscera as a protein source, guts as bait or
food, gonads as food).
List of implementing agencies/groups:
NSA*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Fishermen
Wholesalers
Shuckers
Outside experts as appropriate
4) Review options for timed fishing closures to ensure the quality and consistency of product
reaching the market.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
NSA*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Board of Selectmen
Fishermen
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
5) Explore the apparent correlation between the price of scallops and number of buyers. Determine
whether or not the number of buyers affects the price they are willing to pay.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Outside experts as appropriate
Objective II: Improve shoreside access for commercial fishermen
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 105
Issues
The 2006 Nantucket and Madaket Harbors Action Plan identified the need to maintain and enhance
opportunities to access the Harbors for, among other uses, recreational and commercial shellfishing.
Recommendations include using easements, Chapter 91 licenses, land purchases, and recovery of
historical points of access as potential tools for acquiring public access points—including affordable dock
and mooring space for commercial fishermen. Additionally, the Harbors Plan identifies Chapter 91, local
zoning, and public and private investments as mechanisms for improving existing access‐related
infrastructure.
Recommendations
1) In conjunction with the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee, consider opportunities to
improve shore‐side access and facilities through the expansion of existing access points and/or
the creation of new access points. Establish mechanisms to ensure that these new access points
do not result in the unreported taking of additional shellfish.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town*
Nantucket Land Bank
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Planning and Economic Development Commission
Conservation Commission
Roads and Right of Way Committee
Objective III: Improve training needed to maintain a viable shellfishery.
Issues
Records indicate that the number of people obtaining commercial fishing licenses has been on a general
decline since the early 1990s. Many scallopers describe how, as young children, they would help their
parents shuck scallops and would catch their own limits before going to school in the morning. By
contrast, very few young people are currently entering the shellfisheries for various reasons, including
the overall downward trend in bay scallop population. Until very recently, most fishermen who entered
a Nantucket shellfishery did so without any formal training or apprenticeship period. Recognizing this
training void for new fishermen, SHAB now offers a mentoring program to new fishermen. This 40‐day
apprenticeship provides education on topics such as regulations, safety, and best practices. The
program is still in its early years, and has the potential to reach many fishermen at a crucial time in their
careers.
Recommendations
1) Continue to enhance and implement a mentoring program to assist new entries into the fishery.
As part of the enhancement, develop a check‐list of topics for the teaching captain to cover with
the apprentice. The checklist would include topics such as how to identify a legal bay scallop (to
be taught by a Warden or shellfish biologist), how to cull a catch, a review of the regulations,
and general etiquette at sea. Continue to allow the reduction of the 40‐day limit to allow for
shorter apprenticeships if fishermen demonstrate the appropriate knowledge and skills needed
to operate safely. These shorter apprenticeships would require the approval of SHAB.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 106
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board*
Adaptation of plan
Goal I: The Shellfish Management Plan should respond to changing conditions in order to ensure that
shellfish resources are not depleted below sustainable levels, thus ending the shellfish industry on
Nantucket
Objective I: Shellfish management should be adaptive (i.e., can change from year to year or even during
the season based on key pieces of information).
Issues
The one consistent aspect of shellfish and shellfishing on Nantucket has been its inconsistency. Shellfish
populations rise and fall dramatically with changes in habitat, environment, and for reasons no one has
yet determined. Numbers of commercial fishermen vary depending on economic conditions, shellfish
populations, cost of fuel, and other variables. Funding for management efforts at both the Town and
State levels change with economic conditions; and science continues to provide new information and
raise new questions pertaining to shellfish and their habitats. Please refer to Section 11, Adaptationof
this Plan for more specific information about how the Plan can be adapted.
Recommendations
1) Bring together a group of people (a “Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee”)
responsible for overseeing the implementation and adaptation of this Plan. This group should
meet regularly and should include representatives from multiple stakeholder groups including
recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, SHAB, the Department of Natural Resources,
scientists, and managers. Off‐Island expertise should be included as appropriate. Three‐year
term limits should be established for this Committee. The group should work closely with not‐
for‐profit entities to help raise funds for management plan research and implementation
activities, identify common data reporting/gathering techniques, prioritize research projects, and
address other research‐related issues.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Board of Selectmen*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Nantucket Land Council
UMass Boston Nantucket Filed Station
Maria Mitchell Association
Conservation Commission
2) Establish a system whereby a review of coordinated threshold criteria (e.g., number of weather‐
related fishing days lost, seed density, stock assessments, etc.) or a valid concern raised by a
citizen would initiate a public process to address the issue(s)—including possible management
actions.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 107
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Nantucket Research Collaborative*
Harbor Plan Implementation Committee
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Outside experts as appropriate
3) Review and revise the Shellfish Management Plan every three years.
List of implementing agencies/groups:
Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee*
Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
NSA
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 108
SECTION 11: ADAPTATION OF THE SHELLFISH
MANAGEMENT PLAN
This Plan is not designed to remain static over time. It is, rather, a reasoned attempt to manage a
changing resource at a given time based on currently available knowledge. Because the Plan is designed
to change over time, a Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee should be appointed by
the Board of Selectmen to ensure not only that priority recommendations are implemented, but also to
ensure that the entity which takes over adaptation when the Shellfish Management Plan
Implementation Committee is dissolved, is given the resources needed to conduct a thorough review of
the Shellfish Management Plan on a regular three‐year schedule (See “Adaptation of Plan” section under
Recommendations for more information about the Shellfish Management Plan Implementation
Committee). The activities associated with this review will vary depending on the nature of the
resources and the fisheries at the time of review; but, at a minimum, a public hearing should be held to
address proposed modifications. This three‐year review should be initiated by the Shellfish
Management Plan Implementation Committee or the appropriate entity, but should also include
participation from SHAB, the NSA, the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, DMF, and any
other entities involved in the catching, selling, and management of shellfish.
While the three‐year review will be important, an additional mechanism must be established to address
more urgent adaptations on an ongoing basis. Several possible reasons for adapting this Plan outside of
the scheduled three‐year review exist, including:
The availability of new information: Scientific understanding related to shellfish management
has grown and evolved but is still incomplete. New information, based on either scientific
research or water‐based observations, may become available which would warrant a change in
a related management strategy.
The occurrence of a critical event: Strandings, oil spills, harmful algal blooms, significant habitat
alteration from a storm event or heavy fishing activity, and other similar events are largely
unpredictable and may have devastating impacts on shellfish and/or their habitats. To the
extent possible, management should adapt quickly to both address and minimize damage to the
shellfish and their supporting habitats as well as react to the damage that does occur.
A shift in the legal and political framework: The legal and political framework that creates the
laws, regulations, and policies varies over time, and may necessitate the update of Plan
elements.
A change in the economy of shellfishing: As prices fluctuate, managers may consider options to
modify the work‐week, bushel amount, or other aspects of a fishery to adjust for the current
economic circumstances.
A change in funding for shellfish management: Funding for shellfish management may change
from year to year depending on licenses sales, grant funding, budget cuts/increases, and other
similar factors. As a result, management efforts may require adjustments to ensure that the
level of management can be supported by the budget for any given year.
In instances of critical events, adaptation may be urgent. In these cases, a request by any concerned
person may be made to the Chair of the Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee (while
it is still intact) to hold a special meeting and public hearing. In consultation with the other members of
the Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee, the Chair must decide if the issue warrants
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 109
a special meeting. If the Committee decides that the issue is both valid and urgent, a meeting should be
announced and the Chair should work with appropriate entities (e.g., SHAB, NSA, the Department of
Marine and Coastal Resources) to publicize the meeting. If the Shellfish Management Implementation
Committee has been dissolved, the request for a special meeting and hearing should be made to SHAB
or the appropriate entity.
The meeting should allow for debate of the issue, include multiple perspectives (those of managers,
scientists, fishermen, and others), and result in a decision—as determined by a majority of the
Committee—about what (if any) action is needed. These actions would then be brought before the
Board of Selectmen as appropriate. Factors to keep in mind are:
What are the legal parameters within which decisions can be made, (i.e., existing statutes,
regulations, and policies limit management options to things that are currently “legal”), and who
has the authority to make a specific decision?
How will the impacts of the decision be monitored in order to determine if it the decision has
had the intended effects or is in need of modifications?
What information is missing in order to make a decision with complete confidence, and can that
information be obtained in a timely manner? If not, is the Committee willing to make a decision
based on the best available information?
Non‐urgent modifications to the Shellfish Management Plan—such as a change related to the availability
of new funding and information—should follow a similar process in that a decision should be made by a
majority of the Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee (or appropriate entity), should
include debate of the issue(s), and should include multiple perspectives during the debate. The
difference between the reviews of urgent and non‐urgent issues should be the timing of the meetings.
Whereas an urgent issue should warrant a special meeting to address that issue, a non‐urgent issue
should be addressed at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Shellfish Management Plan
Implementation Committee or other appropriate entity, if the Committee is dissolved.
All modifications to this Shellfish Management Plan should be added as amendments, rather than
making changes directly to an earlier version of the Plan.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 110
SECTION 12: RESEARCH PLAN
Implementing the recommendations contained in this Shellfish Management Plan is the first step in
improving management of Nantucket's shellfish resources. As mentioned throughout the document,
however, there are significant knowledge gaps related to key topics such as the life cycle of the bay
scallop, the impacts of propagation activities, the best approaches to restoring habitat, and the
economic significance of shellfishing to Nantucket's economy. As the planning process illuminated these
data gaps, recommendations were developed to address them.
The research‐based recommendations (found in the Recommendations section of this Plan) have been
reorganized in this Research Plan section to convey their significance to shellfish management on
Nantucket. Some of these research needs are defined in very generic terms while others are very
specific as to the nature and type of information needed, and all are based on a review of current
information along with input from stakeholders. It should be noted here that many of the research
needs are specific to the bay scallop, a commercially and culturally significant shellfish that has long held
a special place in Nantucket’s natural resource identity.
The vision is that this Research Plan will guide efforts to help organize research efforts and results; fill
important knowledge requirements in the understanding of Nantucket's shellfish resources and their
related habitats; and use new information to further promote sustainable shellfisheries management.
The following does not address ongoing monitoring activities but efforts should be made to continue
monitoring activities, analyze monitoring data and use the information gleaned from the monitoring to
develop new research and management activities as appropriate. As with the rest of the Shellfish
Management Plan, this Section is also intended to be something which is updated as new research
needs and opportunities arise, and existing research needs are satisfied.
Shellfish Resources
A key requirement in the management of any biological resources is to have a thorough knowledge of
the life history characteristics of the managed species and to understand the interactions between the
managed species and the ecosystems within which they exist. This level of knowledge allows for the
development of an ecosystem‐based approach to resource management whereby all aspects of the
ecosystem in question are considered, including the role of humans in altering the system, when
developing management policies. While there is a long record of research knowledge on many of the
species currently important to Nantucket, much of it is scattered among various locations and
documents. In addition, there are still specific knowledge gaps that, if answered, could greatly assist
shellfish management on the Island.
Goal: Manage shellfish based on a scientifically sound understanding of the animals’ lifecycles,
population dynamics, and other biological traits.
Compile previous research focused on Nantucket shellfish resources.
Specific research projects include:
o Collect previous Nantucket shellfish research documents, data sets, metadata, and any
other research deemed important to furthering the understanding of shellfish resources
on the Island. This information should be available electronically, and a hard‐copy
should be maintained in the Town Archives.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 111
Management Implications: This management planning effort identified several
important sources of information pertaining to the management of shellfish. These
documents provide important scientific and historical insight, and may prove useful as
new management issues arise.
Define the biological traits and life history characteristics of bay scallops, quahogs, conch, oysters,
soft shelled clams, and other harvested shellfish.
Specific research projects include:
o Describe the spawning cycle of bay scallops on Nantucket and how environmental
conditions may affect overall spawning effort.
o Explain the spawning cycle and contribution of nub scallops to the overall population of
bay scallops.
o Understand the growth rates and movement patterns of conch.
o Conduct investigations into biology of other species as need arises.
Management Implications: The details of the bay scallops’ spawning cycle, including the impact
of environmental conditions on spawning effort will provide insight into causes for population
fluctuations, and may help better predict the quality of the season before it begins. Having
some insight as to what an upcoming season may look like can inform early planning in terms of
the management strategies that would be most appropriate (e.g., extending or shortening the
season). Additionally, if conclusions can be drawn to support a thickness gauge for identifying
legally harvestable bay scallops, management might be changed to reflect a thickness rule
rather than a growth ring and shell height rule.
Understanding the nub scallop’s spawning cycle and its contribution to the population would
help to clarify whether or not there is value in leaving nubs in the water and is critical to bay
scallop management.
Assess the populations of harvested shellfish resources.
o Monitor the population characteristics of shellfish resources across the Island, assessing
recruitment into the fishery and the standing stock, with a goal of defining the resource
available for harvest. This could be done in a collaborative manner by working with
local fishermen to assist in stock assessments.
o Investigate the interrelationship between spat recruitment and post‐set spat survival as
it relates to the overall abundance of harvestable bay scallop stock.
o Develop a population model with predictive capacity for bay scallop populations in
Nantucket waters. Ground truth with data from the stock assessment suggested above.
o Investigate the genetic variability among harvested shellfish.
o Determine how enhancement activities have affected the bay scallop population in
different areas of the Harbors.
o Investigate the impacts of propagation activities.
Management Implications: Better understanding of population characteristics, including the
impacts of spat survival on population abundance may help better predict the quality of the
season before it begins. Having some insight as to what an upcoming season may look like can
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 112
inform early planning in terms of the management strategies that would be most appropriate
(e.g., extending or shortening the season).
Recognize the role that various environmental stressors may play in altering the ecosystem to an
extent that affects shellfish resources, including the bay scallop.
Specific stressors of concern include:
o Excess nutrient run‐off from all potential sources,
o Local application of pesticides, fungicides and other toxins used in upland management
activities, and
o Marine‐based toxicants, such as antifouling paints and chemicals used for maintenance
of boats.
Management Implications: Understanding the impacts of chemicals and nutrients from upland
and water‐based sources will help target efforts to reduce those chemicals with significant
impacts on Nantucket’s shellfish and their supporting habitats.
Goal: Maintain and enhance the populations of scallops, quahogs, soft shell clams, mussels, conch,
oysters, and other shellfish of commercial and/or recreational importance in Nantucket waters.
Improve shellfish resources through enhanced spawning management
Specific research projects include:
o Continue to utilize and evaluate spawning sanctuaries to increase larval supply and
monitor their impacts.
Identify areas with high hydrodynamic larval retention
Evaluate manipulating water flow for increased larval retention
o Identify annual shellfish spawning events
Monitor abundance of shellfish larvae in the local waters to assess spawning
periods, intensity, distribution and survival.
Consider partnering with the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe, which is
currently monitoring bay scallop larvae abundances in Menemsha Pond
on Martha’s Vineyard.
Monitor spat recruitment patterns in the Harbors using technologies such as
spat bags or other spat settlement media.
o Continue the larval release strategy at various locations throughout Nantucket waters
and evaluate the effectiveness of the program in terms of localized recruitment of spat.
Identify locations best suited for larval release activities.
Investigate whether or not the timing of the larval releases impact their
effectiveness at enhancing local populations.
Identify where seed accumulate relative to a specific release site and correlate
with known annual/seasonal water circulation patterns
Improve shellfish resources through post‐set release of bay scallops
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 113
Specific research projects include:
o Understand the impacts of post‐set release, including predation, survivability, and
effectiveness of various substrate‐types.
Management Implications: Spawning management is a significant part of Nantucket’s strategy
to maintain sustainable shellfish populations. Understanding the impacts of existing spawning
management efforts, and finding ways to improve those efforts will help to direct future
spawning management activities so that they are most cost‐effective.
Improve opportunities for shellfish recruitment into the fishery
Specific research projects include:
o Catalog, map, and ground‐truth information about the dominant habitat types (relative
to shellfish survival) throughout Nantucket waters.
Explore alternative, less‐costly options for obtaining habitat information.
o Research the potential for using natural or artificial substrates in the Head of the Harbor
and explore other locations if more appropriate.
o Conduct collaborative annual surveys of juvenile shellfish stocks to assess the areas of
spatfall.
Management Implications: By developing baseline data about the traits, trends, and locations of
habitats significant to shellfish, efforts can be made to monitor the condition and extent of
those habitats over time. This information will help identify where habitat protection strategies
are needed and where artificial habitat might be appropriate. Additionally, information about
habitat changes could provide insight into the quality of future seasons, and could influence pre‐
season management activities.
Evaluate new methods for shellfish propagation in local waters
Specific research projects include:
o Evaluate the current propagation activities involving the shellfish hatchery post‐set seed
production and larval release
o Identify locations and times best suited for specific propagation‐related
technologies/activities, such as competent larval release, based on water quality,
habitat value, larval distribution/retention, and growth/survival.
Management Implications: Propagation is a significant part of Nantucket’s strategy to maintain
sustainable shellfish populations. By identifying ways to increase the effectiveness of
propagation activities (e.g., best technologies, significance of water quality conditions, etc.),
future propagation activities can be more cost effective.
Enhance shellfish resources through seed management activities
Specific research projects include:
o Develop and test handling protocols for transplanting seed, including stranded seed
from a weather event as well as seed relayed from areas of exceedingly high densities.
o Evaluate and establish criteria for siting seed sanctuaries based on water quality, habitat
value, and seed survival/growth.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 114
o Investigate the role that fishing practices may play in relocating seed during harvest
culling activities.
Management Implications: Many of Nantucket’s current bay scallop seed management activities
are conducted based upon the general expectation that efforts to relay and transplant seed and
to create seed sanctuaries will benefit the overall bay scallop population. However, developing
a scientifically‐based understanding of how best to manage seed (e.g., through transplants,
culling activities, and seed sanctuaries) will ensure that protocols for such seed management
activities are successful.
Goal: Conduct predator management activities
Evaluate the impacts of predators on shellfish resources during the various life stages for harvested
species.
Specific research projects include:
o Measure and monitor pest/nuisance and predator abundance in local waters.
Survey shellfish harvest by‐catch as a means to describe pest/predator
abundance and distribution.
Survey for the presence of Polydora sp. (i.e., mud blister worm) impacts on
shellfish resources with the intention of seeking preventative practices for the
presence of the pest.
o Assess predator impacts.
Describe impacts of native versus non‐native predators.
Study the impacts of predator removal—both on the harvested resources and
on the biological communities in the Harbors.
o Implement a predator management protocol as appropriate, perhaps based on the
identification of an “over‐abundance” (which would need to be defined) of predators in
the ecosystem.
Management Implications: An improved understand of predators and their impacts on
Nantucket’s shellfish resources can inform a predator management strategy to relieve that
particular stressor to shellfish populations.
Habitat Management
While it is necessary to understand the life history of the resource for proper management, its existence
is inexorably linked to its habitat. Therefore, knowledge of the quality and quantity of habitat specific
for each shellfish resource is an important component to the knowledge base required for proper
management. While we are rapidly gaining a better understanding of biological traits of a resource,
there are large gaps still occurring in our knowledge of the habitat requirements for that same resource.
Therefore, large questions of the role of habitat in managing a resource exist.
Goal: Maintain and improve the habitat associated with sustainable commercial and recreational
shellfish fisheries
Investigate the role of water circulation patterns on shellfish distribution, recruitment, growth, and
survival
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 115
Specific research projects include:
o Better understand the overall hydrodynamics within Nantucket and Madaket Harbors
Interpret the impacts of water circulation on shellfish habitat and population
dynamics, including a review of impacts on various different life stages.
Test options for improving circulation in local waters to benefit shellfish habitat
and larval dispersal. For example, consider the impacts of raising the jetties at
the entrance to Nantucket Harbor, and review the results of the SMAST
modeling for N load reductions.
o Investigate the role of freshwater intrusion/inputs on scallop population dynamics
Management Implications: Understanding the role of water circulation patterns on shellfish
populations will help identify specific management activities to best reduce related stressors to
shellfish.
Better understand the links between water quality, shellfish population dynamics, and
anthropogenic activities that influence Nantucket waters.
Specific examples of activities of interest include:
o Understanding the impacts of applying fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on upland
areas. This would entail:
gathering details about the chemicals being used, the quantities being applied,
and the associated impacts
obtaining information about the condition of septic systems
o Researching the impacts of discharging grey water from vessels (and the related No
Discharge Area designation)
o Evaluate methods for reducing nutrient inputs to local waters from anthropogenic
sources. Use the SMAST modeling results as a guide.
o Understanding the impacts of boat maintenance activities such as boat washing and
bottom painting as well as the overall impacts of boat activity in local waters, including
petroleum hydrocarbon discharges and effects of propeller shear stress on larval
survival.
Management Implications: Understanding the impacts of chemicals and nutrients from upland
and water‐based sources will help target efforts to reduce those chemicals with significant
impacts on Nantucket’s shellfish and their supporting habitats.
Develop a better understanding of the sources and impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) on
shellfish and their habitat.
Specific research projects include:
o Identify sources of and track potentially harmful blooms in local waters.
o Investigate toxicities of new HAB occurrences to all shellfish resources.
Management Implications: Understanding the causes of HABs can help direct efforts to reduce
those causes, and thus the occurrence of HABs. Tracking the impacts of HABs that do take place
can suggest important information about the potential quality of the following shellfish season
and can inform early planning in terms of the management strategies that would be most
appropriate (e.g., extending or shortening the season).
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 116
Maintain and, where possible, improve the condition and extent of eelgrass beds in Nantucket
waters
Specific research projects include:
o Beginning with historical data compiled and maintained by the Massachusetts DEP,
continue monitoring and evaluating the extent and health of eelgrass in Nantucket
waters.
o Better understand the relationship between eelgrass health and the following;
density and shading from algal blooms or physical structures over the water
surface
physical effects on eelgrass growth from overlying macroalgae (for example,
observations suggest that Gracilaria sp. is covering eelgrass and causing it to lay
flat during the spring)
effects to eelgrass from nuisance epiphytes growing directly on eelgrass such as,
but not limited to the Lyngbya species
o Undertake a review of practices that may directly damage eelgrass beds to determine
the short‐ and long‐term nature and significance of the impacts
Physical damage (e.g., moorings, scallop dredges, propeller damage, etc.)
Other impacts (e.g., excess nutrient inputs from upland sources)
Explore methods to minimize those impacts.
o Evaluate the progress of modifying moorings in Nantucket Harbor to minimize damage
to surrounding eelgrass beds.
Evaluate the effects of alternative mooring technologies, such as:
placing floats on mooring chains,
using helix or screw‐in moorings, with an appropriate cap,
replacing chains with flexible bungee‐style rope, or
placing multiple boats on one chain anchored between two moorings.
o Evaluate cost‐effective strategies to protect/restore eelgrass in locations of significance
to shellfish resources—both within and outside Nantucket and Madaket Harbors.
Current options include:
propagating eelgrass,
re‐seeding areas,
removing stressors (e.g., moorings, excess nutrients) to existing and
potential eelgrass habitats.
o Survey sediment within the Harbors to update and/or verify data sets (the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Massachusetts Estuaries Project, and the Maria
Mitchell Association all have data sets), with a focus on sediment types where eelgrass
has been lost.
Management Implications: Understanding the condition and extent of eelgrass and the stressors
to eelgrass condition and extent can inform eelgrass restoration and protection activities.
Additionally, monitoring can show trends in eelgrass habitat condition and extent, which may
indicate the quality of the following shellfish season and lead to early planning in terms of the
management strategies that would be most appropriate (e.g., altering gear used).
Understand the impacts of harvesting‐related activities on the habitat and the resources
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 117
Specific research projects include:
o Determine the impacts of recreational and commercial shellfish harvesting practices on
the sustainability of the resource and the habitat.
Evaluate the impact of weights of dredges during seasonal changes of bottom,
e.g., relative to eelgrass seasonal status.
Evaluate the impacts of harvesting strategies that would alter the genetic
composition of the bay scallop population to give preference to bay scallops
predisposed to late spawning. Consider the long‐term implications to scallop
size as well.
o Develop and/or promote more “habitat‐friendly” shellfish harvest tools and methods,
which would include the development of a “best practices” for commercial shellfish
harvesting to incorporate into the apprenticeship program and promote among the
fleet.
Management Implications: Understanding the impacts of shellfish harvesting may lead to
changes in management strategies including such harvesting practices as gear restrictions and
fishing locations.
Climate Change
The prevailing evidence indicates that the globe is undergoing a change in environmental conditions
derived from anthropogenic impacts on our atmosphere. The buildup of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases has far‐reaching consequences in terms of altering the marine environment, from
small but significant temperatures changes, to sea level rise, to increases in the acidity of the waters. As
the marine environment changes, it will directly influence the occurrence and behavior of many marine
resources, including the shellfish resources around Nantucket. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize
the potential changes that may occur as a result of climate change and to adapt management to
accommodate those changes.
Goal: To ensure that the management of shellfish resources on Nantucket are prepared to adapt as our
knowledge of the potential impacts of climate change develop.
Develop a better scientific understanding of the impact that global climate change and associated
changes in the environment will have on shellfish resources and how to adapt to those projected
changes.
Specific research projects include:
o Enhance efforts to record water temperature, changes in pH, and/or other details, such
as when the harbors freeze over
o Determine the role of freshwater inputs on scallop population dynamics
o Investigate the role that environmental change may have in altering shellfish
populations on Nantucket, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and climate
change.
o Evaluate the impacts of returning shell to the Harbors in terms of the ability to buffer pH
levels.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 118
Management Implications: Understanding the impacts of climate change on shellfish
populations will provide important information about the future of the fishery, and may
influence the importance of management actions such as propagation activities and pH
buffering.
Support of the Commercial/Recreational Shellfishery
Nantucket’s shellfish industry plays a number of important roles in the fabric of the Island. Shellfish
harvesting is a marine‐related business that provides an economic return to the Island through the sales
of shellfish products on‐ and off‐Island. Secondarily, shellfishing enhances economic activity on the
Island through the support of a wide variety of ancillary businesses, from shucking houses to boat and
motor sales to hotels and equipment purveyors. Equally as important is the cultural significance of
commercial and recreational fishing to the Island, particularly that of the bay scallop fishery. Bay
scallops are sought far and wide as the premier seafood product coming from Nantucket, and they have
become an icon for the uncompromised environment and way of life that is Nantucket. Research in
support of protecting this cultural and economic engine is a high priority for the Management Plan.
Goal: Support structure of a viable shellfishery for both economic and traditional purposes.
Understand the role of shellfish harvests to the economy and culture of Nantucket.
Specific research projects include:
o Assess the economic impact of recreational and commercial shellfisheries to Nantucket,
including:
employment rates (including jobs both directly and indirectly affected by
shellfishing) and wages,
impact to other sectors of the economy,
cash‐flow through the Island economy,
economic trends related to shellfishing.
Management Implications: A better understanding of the economic significance of shellfishing
can help elevate its significance among researchers, funders, and the general public. Such
increased attention may lead to the acquisition of new knowledge, the increased general will to
protect the natural resources related to shellfishing, and the influx of financial resources to
study and manage the shellfisheries.
Goal: Enhance the economic return derived from harvest of shellfish on Nantucket.
Improve strategies to optimize the dollar value of harvested shellfish
Specific research projects include:
o Research the potential of marketing strategies, such as branding the Nantucket bay
scallop and/or controlling the rate at which scallops reach the market, to optimize the
price of the Nantucket bay scallop.
o Research the effectiveness of using a sticker to identify all containers of scallops as
coming from Nantucket.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 119
o Research the potential for and effectiveness of establishing quality standards (such as a
freshness standard) that would be universally agreed upon and promoted by all who
handle Nantucket bay scallops.
o Research opportunities to link recreational shellfish harvesting to other aspects of
ecotourism when promoting Nantucket as a destination.
o Review options for timed fishing closures to ensure the quality and consistency of
product reaching the market, and the impact on price due to change in supply.
o Evaluate establishing a co‐op for marketing purposes.
As part of the development of this co‐op, consider making participation
optional, and look to other co‐ops for examples of good strategies.
6) Investigate the use and commercial value of by‐products from the Nantucket
shellfishery. For example:
Shells to augment sediment as a buffer for restoration projects or as cultch for
oyster enhancement,
Viscera as a protein source in animal food or used as bait,
Develop “roe‐on” products
Management Implications: Understanding how to optimize the dollar value of harvestable
shellfish will lead to such management actions as branding the Nantucket bay scallop, using
timed closures to increase the price of shellfish, developing a co‐operative of fishermen, and
developing/refining guidelines for the use of shellfish by‐products.
Education
The significance of Nantucket’s commercial and recreational shellfishing activities is best understood by
those whose livelihoods and/or traditions are directly connected to shellfishing—wholesalers,
fishermen, marine suppliers, etc. While many of those with an obvious stake in the health of
Nantucket’s shellfisheries have some level of appreciation for the significance of shellfishing, many
residents and visitors lack a true understanding of the ways in which shellfishing shapes the Island’s
economy and culture. This lack of understanding likely contributes to unintentional negative impacts on
the shellfisheries, such as the over‐application of fertilizers, the use of traditional moorings, etc. An
education campaign designed to convey both the significance of shellfishing as well as the ways in which
human actions jeopardize the health of shellfish stocks, can help inspire changes in behavior and may
contribute to increased support (including financial support) for steps to manage stressors to shellfish
and their habitat.
Goal: Increase public education/outreach efforts to create a better understanding of how human
activities affect important shellfish resources
Investigate ways to effectively educate the general public about the significance of shellfishing to
the Island’s economy, culture, and history
Educational projects of specific interest include:
o An oral history of commercial and recreational shellfishermen and those associated with
the industry as part of the historical records of the Island.
o Collaboration to build off of other educational efforts on Nantucket (past and present).
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 120
o A research project designed to determine the direct and induced economic significance
of commercial and recreational shellfishing in Nantucket waters.
o Alternative yard maintenance options.
o A review of the capabilities of conservation moorings
o A program about the relationship between spawning biomass, larval supply, and post‐
set recruitment.
o A mobile display conveying the significance of shellfishing on Nantucket.
Management Implications: An improved understanding of how best to reach out to the general
public (e.g., how to work with existing education efforts, how to make shellfishing significant to
the general public, and how to inspire environmentally responsible behavior with regard to
impacts on shellfish) may lead to efforts to minimize anthropogenic impacts such as septic
maintenance, impervious surface reduction, and yard care practices.
Collaborative Research
The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, the Maria Mitchell Association, the Nantucket Field
Station, the Nantucket Land Council, the Nantucket Shellfishermen’s Association, and the Massachusetts
DEP are responsible for most of the current research and monitoring projects related to Nantucket’s
shellfish and habitats. Communication among these research entities is sufficient in terms of creating a
shared understanding of ongoing projects; and despite their own specific objectives and individual
strengths, there is an apparent willingness to work together when appropriate and feasible.
While the existing approach to research has generated a great deal of knowledge about Nantucket’s
shellfish and habitats, this Plan takes an important step beyond the status quo by clearly identifying
research topics that will inform and advance shellfish management. The next step is to capitalize upon
the existing relationships and capabilities of the various research entities (on and off‐Island) in a way
that will result in a logical approach to addressing these research needs—giving priority to those
projects that (1) are most urgent, (2) have the greatest potential to significantly improve management
strategies, and/or (3) are necessary building blocks for additional research activities.
Given the specific need to improve scientific understanding in a way that will inform management
strategies, a collaborative (the Nantucket Research Collaborative) should be developed to facilitate
conversations dedicated to the research needs and opportunities identified in this Plan and those that
arise as a result of new information and/or the passage of time.
Specific objectives of the Research Collaborative might include:
Coordinate research proposals and programs so that all relevant partners are involved.
Share data, methods, experiences, etc., to improve the planning and execution of research.
Ensure that new projects build upon past projects and integrate with ongoing projects. For
example, a habitat restoration proposal by one partner should take advantage of long‐term
monitoring by another.
Collectively update and re‐prioritize research needs on an on‐going basis, giving specific
attention to how research projects address management issues.
Grow the total pool of research funds by demonstrating diverse partnerships and accessing
unique sources.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 121
Provide a vehicle for introducing off‐island experiences, expertise and collaborations into local
research and management.
Engage fishermen in specific, approved research programs that directly address information
needs identified by the Research Collaborative. Incentives for fishermen’s participation could be
economic, either by allowing extra fishing days or bag limits or directly compensating the
fishermen for their efforts. (This strategy has proven to be highly successful for the off‐shore
scallop fishery where new innovations in gear technology have been developed through
collaborative efforts among fishermen, scientists and engineers that are supported in part by
enhanced fishing opportunities parlayed to participating fishermen.)
The most limiting resource for the local research community is and will continue to be funding. In
contrast, the greatest strength of the local research community is the breadth of its institutional
foundation, expertise, and certainly commitment to the resource and community. The diversity of
groups engaged in research on Nantucket allows access to a variety of outside funding opportunities.
For example, the MCRD has access to local tax and license fee revenue, and can apply for state and
federal bonds as a municipal agency. NSA and its members can apply for grants available only to
commercial fishing organizations, and perhaps small business owners as well. UMass Boston has access
to traditional academic funding sources, as well as resources of the larger University of Massachusetts
system. The Maria Mitchell Association and the Nantucket Land Council can apply for foundation and
provide donor funds typically available only to non‐profits.
Although most research is currently conducted by State, municipal, and NGO entities, many fishermen
have intimate knowledge of Nantucket’s marine resources and conditions, and could be assets to a
variety of research projects. Likewise, researchers located off‐Island are looking at many issues relevant
to Nantucket (e.g., eelgrass restoration strategies, waste water as it relates to harmful algal blooms and
effects of propagation activities). Fishermen and scientists (and others engaged in economics and
education) should be encouraged to apply their expertise to some of the research questions on
Nantucket. Often times, it is difficult and/or expensive to collect data that addresses a specific research
need through having a research scientist continually on site and responsible for the day to day data
collection. A well‐planned research project may be successfully undertaken through the combined
efforts of a mentoring scientist and collaborating fishermen, who are more familiar with the local
environment, on the water and involved with the fishery daily, and have the motivation and interest to
carefully collect required data.
There are a number of variations on the theme of collaboration in the area of applied research (i.e.,
research designed to assist in a specific management issue). Along this continuum are instances where:
The research question is defined and the research is funded by (or funding is found by) local
interests. Then a research entity (or “consultant”) is hired to perform the work. The results are
provided to the local entity for implementation. An example of this would be when a
“consultant” is employed to shed light on the impacts of a specific development project or to
assess water quality, sources of contamination, and impacts.
Similar to the above, but relatively consistent funding is provided through a governmental,
academic, or foundation program (perhaps requiring a local match). Examples of this model
include the various state Sea Grant Programs including the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Sea Grant Program (www.whoi.edu/seagrant/page.do?pid=34015) which does
applied research and includes a public outreach/education component. The Centre for Shellfish
Research at Vancouver Island University (www.viu.ca/csr/index.asp) supports faculty and
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 122
student research projects and works closely with the aquaculture community to identify
research needs. The Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory at Rutgers University
(hsrl.rutgers.edu/index.html) offers similar features.
Similar to the above, but the local entity provides an on‐site facility, logistical support, and an
existing data base for use by researchers. This is the model employed by the National Estuarine
Research Reserves and, to some extent, by the UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station.
As above, but the research effort includes data collection and support by local fishermen. In
some instances, researchers accompany local fishermen and collect data during normal fishing
activities. In others, boats and their crews are hired as adjunct researchers either working on
their own after training and/or instruction by researchers or under the direct supervision of
researchers. A local example is the work done by the School for Marine Science and Technology
(SMAST) at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (www.smast.umassd.edu/) which used
commercial fishing vessels and their crews in collecting data related to stock assessment of
Yellowtail Flounder in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area.
Further investigations into other existing collaboratives will help to identify the ideal composition of the
potential Nantucket Research Collaborative, and should provide insight into the specific functions and
required resources of the Collaborative. A highly functional low/no cost research collaborative might
include representatives from existing on‐Island research entities and the fishing community, augmented
by an Advisory Board of off‐Island experts. This group could meet quarterly (either in private or public
meetings) to review research results and opportunities (e.g., new funding sources, new data sources,
and opportunities to write letters of support), coordinate research efforts, re‐visit research priorities,
and present research findings from on and off‐Island.
At a minimum, it is anticipated that this Research Collaborative will discuss information needs, data
collection methods, data recording/reporting protocols; funding opportunities; research priorities; and
means to engage outside experts.
Develop a system for collaborative management and research, coordinating the activities and
interests of the relevant Town of Nantucket boards and departments, commercial and recreational
fishermen and associations, DMF, and nonprofit organizations.
Specific objectives could be:
o Nantucket’s research entities, along with the Town and fishermen, should work together to
further develop and implement the Research Plan associated with this Shellfish
Management Plan, identifying priority research sites, data needs, and a standardized
method for data collection, recording and reporting.
o Investigate other Fishery Cooperative Research Programs in the region with the intention of
developing and implementing a program on Nantucket that will allow local fishermen to be
involved in and compensated for research and stock assessment efforts. In particular, look
to other examples for insight on functions, required resources, and lessons learned.
Management Implications: The inclusion of fishermen in research activities will necessitate the
development of compensation guidelines for their involvement. Additionally, a coordinated
approach to research will lead to the development of data collection guidelines and data
repositories, and will potentially affect shellfishing by setting aside research areas in the
Harbors, allowing for the experimentation with new gear types, etc.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 123
The Brant Point Boathouse is an important facility for the Town to continue to utilize and support
for sustaining shellfish resources on the Island.
Specific objectives could be:
o Develop a budgetary mechanism to continue to support the activities and facilities at the
Boathouse.
a. At its current level of utilization
b. Consider various budget scenarios for expanded use of the facility and investigate
means to support those expanded activities.
Management Implications: Research into ways to finance activities at the Boathouse could lead
to changes in the Town budget, the use and amount of fines, permit fees, etc.
Application of Information to Shellfish Management
As new information is generated and routine information is better appreciated, the conversion of
information to management techniques requires interpretation and application of the information.
Assuming that (1) shellfish research specific to Nantucket shellfish will increase, and (2) that catch
reporting information will become more reliable and more accessible with the continued use of SAFIS,
one possibility is to develop a “traffic‐light index” approach to management modifications.
The data‐limited nature of the Nantucket shellfishery does not allow application of traditional stock
assessment models that estimate biological reference points and stock status relative to those reference
points. Even if the fishery was more data‐rich, the life history and ecology of local shellfish, such as the
bay scallop, are likely not amenable to traditional stock assessment methods. However, the potential
for any species, even bay scallops, to reach dangerously low levels that threaten economic, ecological or
even outright biological extinction calls for some means of gauging the health and trends of the stock
and, therefore, consideration of approaches other than traditional stock assessment models.
One tool that could be useful in summarizing and visualizing a variety of variables related to shellfish
stock health and tracking trends is the checklist or “traffic light” method (Caddy, 1999). The traffic light
approach applies scores and then sums or averages a variety of relevant indicators, typically using a
three‐level system, e.g., positive/neutral/negative, +1/0/‐1, or green/yellow/red. A given traffic light
system might weight certain indicators more heavily than others in the final scoring based on knowledge
of their significance to the status of the stock. The scores might be used to assess the need for
modifications in management practices.
Examples of the traffic light approaches used for Atlantic Canadian shrimp and Pacific Northwest salmon
are provided in Appendix I. The shrimp example uses primarily population and fishery data, with some
broader ecosystem indicators included as well (water temperature and predation pressure). In contrast,
the salmon example uses primarily ecosystem indicators with some survey‐based population data (Coho
and Chinook salmon abundance in trawl surveys) and no fishery data. This is because the salmon tool
aims to predict returns of fish to the river (where the fishery will take place) from the ocean
environment where environmental factors are significant drivers and before fishing has taken place.
A traffic light index for Nantucket bay scallops would probably use a combination of fishery‐dependent
data, fishery‐independent population data, and environmental indicators (described in Table 15) due to
both the availability of each type of data and its relevance to stock dynamics.
Table 15: There are several possible variables for use in a traffic light index. This table provides
examples of some of those variables.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 124
Data type Description Possible data source(s)
Fishery‐dependent data
Total harvest Bushels harvested by the commercial (and
recreational?) fleet over the previous 1–3 years
Town data and/or SAFIS reports
Coarse effort Total licenses purchased and/or fished Town data and/or SAFIS reports
Precise effort Total days fished by the fleet, including changes
over the fishing season
Will likely require a subset of fishermen
volunteering or being compensated (by
dollars or extra catch allowances) to
collect the additional data
Coarse Catch Per
Unit Effort
Average bushels‐per‐license over the whole
fishing season
Town data and/or SAFIS reports
Precise CPUE Catch‐per‐tow, catch‐per‐hour, or catch‐per‐
day; precise CPUE data might include seed
and/or nub catch separately from classic catch
Will likely require a subset of fishermen
volunteering or being compensated (by
dollars or extra catch allowances) to
collect the additional data
Fishery‐independent data
Scallop abundance MMA/MCRD surveys
Spat collections Abundance and location (i.e., within or outside
Harbor)
MMA program
Scallop life history Growth, mortality and reproductive data MMA/MCRD surveys
Stranding events Monitoring of “return” area MCRD/Fishermen reports
Environmental variables
Water temperature UMB Field Station/MCRD water
quality/MMA monitoring
Salinity UMB Field Station/MCRD water quality
monitoring
Algal blooms Simple presence or some measure of intensity
(abundance, duration, etc.)
UMB Field Station/MCRD water quality
monitoring
Eelgrass status Total areal coverage, perimeter: area ratio,
mean shoot density, mean shoot height
MMA/MCRD surveys
Invasives affecting
eelgrass
Fouling organisms (e.g., slime molds, tunicates)
or competitors (e.g., Codium)
MMA/MCRD surveys
Predation pressure Abundance of native and non‐natives, especially
crustaceans and drills
MMA/MCRD surveys
Management Implications: The use of a traffic light model would help to identify key pieces of
information to be collected, and would provide a useful structure for monitoring trends—perhaps even
identifying important thresholds for which management actions might be required. See Appendix F for
more information on traffic light models.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 125
APPENDIX A: MATRIX OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
The matrix of recommendations is a summary of the recommendations contained in the body of this
plan. Addressing any of the recommendations outlined in this matrix will improve the understanding
and management of Nantucket’s shellfish fisheries. However, in the face of limited resources available
to address these recommendations, the Shellfish Management Plan Committee sought to identify a
smaller subset of the most important recommendations that collectively will result in the greatest
progress toward improved fisheries. These recommendations, representing approximately 25% of the
full set of recommendations, are ranked “high.” Opportunities or interest in addressing any of these
recommendations will benefit Nantucket’s shellfish fisheries. The ranking of some recommendations as
“high” does not mean that, if the opportunity arises, other recommendations (ranked either “medium”
or “low”) should not be pursued.
The capacity to address more recommendations and to do so more effectively will be enhanced by
creation of the Nantucket Research Collaborative, which will facilitate pooling resources, integrating
projects, and increasing the range of outputs.
The Shellfish Management Plan Committee also felt that evaluation criteria (to be developed by the
Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee) may be useful in helping to determine some
metrics to assess whether or not each recommendation has successfully been implemented ‐ and to
what effect. Accordingly, the matrix includes a place‐holder column for evaluation criteria.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 126 Objective Recommendation # Recommendation Implementing Agencies/Groups Priority Evaluation Criteria Habitat Management Goal 1 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Conduct and/or support research to better understand the hydrodynamics within Nantucket and Madaket Harbors and the impacts of water circulation on shellfish habitat and population dynamics. This research should include a study to determine the effects of raising the jetties. With better information on water circulation and its impacts, options for improving circulation could be considered and implemented as appropriate. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Department of Marine and Coastal Resources or the Town • Outside experts as appropriate • Harbor Plan Implementation Committee Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 127 Recommendation 2 Support research activities, regulatory management changes, public education initiatives, capital improvements, and related fund‐raising activities aimed at reducing nutrient inputs from anthropogenic sources, both in Nantucket waters and in Nantucket Sound. Nantucket is currently addressing nutrient reduction from anthropogenic sources through a variety of activities, including reviewing the Massachusetts Estuaries Report project and implementing the Best Management Practices guide developed by the Article 68 Work Group. Additionally, the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee, in conjunction with the Town, is currently developing an educational initiative called the “Nantucket Blue Pages” that was recommended as part of the Harbor Plan. Nantucket is supporting a water quality testing effort to assess the effectiveness of activities to reduce nutrient input into local waters. Researchers are looking into the possibility of using barriers of natural materials (e.g., woodchips) to remove nitrogen from groundwater. A federal No Discharge Area for Nantucket Sound is under development. Stakeholders should support these types of activities by lending their expertise, raising awareness of important information, events and developments, such as meetings or the dissemination of publications; and helping to secure financial resources. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Board of Selectmen • Board of Health • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Conservation Commission • Harbor Plan Implementation Committee • Maria Mitchell Association • University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • Nantucket Shellfish Association• Outside experts as appropriate High
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 128 Recommendation 3 Conduct and/or support research to better understand the links between shellfish habitats, population dynamics, and anthropogenic activities that introduce chemicals into Nantucket waters. Examples of activities of interest include: the application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on upland areas (including details about the chemicals being used, the quantities being applied, and the associated impacts); the use of septic systems; the discharge of grey water from vessels (and the related No Discharge Area designation); the discharge of petroleum hydrocarbon; and boat maintenance activities such as boat washing and bottom painting. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Board of Selectmen • Board of Health • Mosquito Working Group • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Conservation Commission • Nantucket Land Council • Maria Mitchell Association • University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station • Boat yards and marinas • Outside experts as appropriate High
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 129 Recommendation 4 Develop a better understanding of the sources and impacts of HABs on shellfish and their habitat. Support or conduct research to address identifying and tracking potentially harmful blooms in local waters. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • The Marine and Coastal Resources Department • Nantucket Land Council • Nantucket Biodiversity Initiative • Maria Mitchell Association • University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station • Outside experts as appropriate High Recommendation 5 Conduct and/or support studies to investigate the role that environmental changes may have in altering shellfish populations on Nantucket, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and climate change. As part of this, continue, and where appropriate, enhance efforts to record water temperature, changes in pH, and details about when the Harbors freeze over. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Maria Mitchell Association • Outside experts as appropriate Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 130 Recommendation 6 Explore options to reduce the financial cost and temporal delay currently associated with obtaining water quality results. Include a review of on‐Island options for “in house” local analysis. • The Marine and Coastal Resources Department* • Nantucket Research Collaborative • Nantucket Waste Water Management group • Maria Mitchell Association • University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station High Objective 2 Recommendation 1 Beginning with historical data compiled and maintained by the Massachusetts DEP, encourage continued monitoring of the extent and health of eelgrass in Nantucket waters, and explore the relationships between eelgrass beds and other aquatic vegetation such as epiphytic growth, which can influence eelgrass health. To the extent possible, connect with regional eelgrass mapping exercises. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Massachusetts DEP • US EPA • Outside experts as appropriate Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 131 Recommendation 2 Undertake a review of practices that may directly damage eelgrass beds (e.g., moorings, scallop dredges, propeller damage, excess nutrient inputs from upland sources) to determine the short‐and long‐term nature and significance of the impacts and explore methods to minimize those impacts. As part of this, look at options to modify dredging activity throughout the season (e.g., starting with a 40‐pound limit at the beginning of the season, and reducing weight as the season progressed; changing the design of the dredge to reduce impacts to eelgrass; etc.). Specifically evaluate the progress of modifying moorings in Nantucket Harbor to minimize damage to surrounding eelgrass beds. Evaluate the effects of alternative technologies, such as placing floats on mooring chains, replacing chains with flexible bungee‐style rope, or placing multiple boats on one chain anchored between two mushroom moorings. Once the effects and capabilities of these technologies are understood, work to implement appropriate mooring strategies to reduce impacts on eelgrass. Additionally, explore the option of charging an extra fee for people who do not upgrade to more environmentally sensitive mooring technologies and for dedicating those funds to mitigation of damaged resources. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Nantucket Land Council • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Great Harbor Yacht Club • Nantucket Land Council • Conservation Commission • SHAB High Recommendation 3 Develop and implement a cost‐effective strategy to protect/restore eelgrass in locations of significance to shellfish resources—both within and outside Nantucket and Madaket Harbors. This strategy should take into consideration options such as propagating eelgrass, re‐seeding areas, and removing stressors (e.g., moorings, excess nutrients) to existing and potential eelgrass habitats. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Nantucket Land Council • Maria Mitchell Association • SHAB Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 132 Recommendation 4 Until a new strategy to protect eelgrass is in place, enforce existing mooring regulations and ensure that moorings are not located in productive shellfish beds. This will require a substantial reduction in the number of permits. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • SHAB Med Recommendation 5 Support research to better understand the relationship between eelgrass health and density and shading from various algal blooms, physical effects on eelgrass growth from overlying macroalgae (for example, observations suggest that Gracilaria sp. is covering eelgrass and causing it to lay flat during the spring, but it may also serve as a settlement substrate for bay scallops), and effects to eelgrass from nuisance epiphytes growing directly on eelgrass. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Massachusetts DEP • Outside experts as appropriate • Nantucket Land Council Low Recommendation 6 Conduct research to better understand changes in sediment within the Harbors since the most recent data were gathered. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Maria Mitchell Association • UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station • Outside experts as appropriate Low
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 133 Objective 3 Recommendation 1 Catalog, map, and ground‐truth information about the dominant habitat types (relative to shellfish survival) throughout Nantucket waters. If adequate funding for these activities cannot be secured, explore alternative, less‐costly options for obtaining habitat information. Use this information as baseline data and as a basis for prioritizing and protecting shellfish habitat and promoting an awareness of the need for managing habitat as an important element in managing the shellfishery. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • SHAB • UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station • Maria Mitchell Association Med Recommendation 2 Work with the Nantucket Department of Public Works to institute a shell recycling program where most, if not all, shells are returned to the Harbors for pH buffering and settlement substrate purposes (potentially with assistance from fishermen). Ensure that the deposition of shells does not harm existing habitat features (such as eelgrass beds) or create new habitat dominated by predators. Adhere to DMF’s Shellfish Planting Guidelines for placing shells in the water: “Oyster, quahog and softshell clam shell used as cultch shall be aged on land for a minimum of one year. Shell from other species of bivalves such as surf clam, ocean quahog, scallops and mussels may be used without limitations. All issues regarding approved shell cultch must be addressed by Marine Fisheries prior to placement into coastal waters.” (Hickey et al., 2012). Conduct research to identify the most appropriate locations for returning the shells and monitor the deposition sites to better understand the impacts of such activities. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Department of Public Works • Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries • Nantucket Shellfish Association High
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 134 Recommendation 3 Continue to monitor dissolved oxygen in benthic areas of the Harbors, and expand monitoring to include monitoring of sediment acidity. • Maria Mitchell Association* • The Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Conservation Commission Med Recommendation 4 Continue monitoring spat settlement throughout the waters of Nantucket by way of spat collection and enumeration. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Maria Mitchell Association Med Recommendation 5 Conduct collaborative annual surveys of juvenile shellfish stocks to assess the areas of spatfall to aid in management decision‐making. • The Marine and Coastal Resources Department* • Maria Mitchell Association • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • Nantucket Shellfish Association• UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station High
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 135 Objective 4 Recommendation 1 Conduct and/or support studies to determine the impacts of recreational and commercial shellfish harvesting (including the impacts of by‐catch) on the sustainability of the resource and the habitat. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Nantucket Shellfish Association • Commercial fishermen • SHAB • Outside experts as appropriate Low Recommendation 2 Monitor and assess the overall intensity of shellfish harvest practices (including impacts stemming from by‐catch) and manage activities within specific harvest areas to minimize the risk of detrimental impacts from excessive harvest practices. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • The Marine and Coastal Resources Department • Nantucket Shellfish Association• SHAB Med Shellfish Resources Goal 1 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Develop and implement a strategy to track the effectiveness of propagation activities in terms of supplementing the commercial and recreational harvests. As part of this, identify locations best suited for larval release (e.g., areas with larval retention), examine the timing of larval release in terms of survival, and conduct post‐set release and associated monitoring for survivability. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Nantucket Shellfish Association• Commercial fishermen • UMass Boston Nantucket Field High
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 136 Station • Outside experts as appropriate Recommendation 2 Continue current propagation efforts such as the larval release program and, based on the results of the study of propagation effectiveness, consider pursuing opportunities to expand propagation activities, including expansion to different species (i.e., oysters). • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Nantucket Shellfish Association• Commercial Fishermen High Objective 2 Recommendation 1 Develop seed management protocols for transplanting seed. Outline criteria for establishing seed sanctuaries and for determining compensation to volunteers who assist with seed management. Review the effects of the protocols and adapt as appropriate. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board High Recommendation 2 Develop and/or support studies to evaluate the efficacy of seed management activities. Adjust seed programs to improve effectiveness. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 137 Recommendation 3 Better understand impacts of wind‐driven strandings on the bay scallop population. Topics of interest include survivability of seed returned to the water and the effects on the seed population (i.e., what percent of seed is stranded). • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Maria Mitchell Association • Outside experts as appropriate Med Objective 3 Recommendation 1 Continue to develop spawning sanctuaries, through the use of spawning cages, to increase larval supply, and monitor impacts of sanctuaries. Particular focus should be on utilizing areas with high larval retention and evaluating the manipulation of water flow for larval retention. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station High Recommendation 2 Institute new steps—and continue existing efforts—to identify spawning events and monitor spat levels in the Harbors such as by the strategic placement of spat bags strategically around the Harbors. • The Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Maria Mitchell Association • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 138 Recommendation 3 Continue larval release at various locations throughout Nantucket waters and evaluate its effectiveness in terms of localized recruitment of spat. Investigate whether or not the timing of the releases affects their effectiveness at enhancing local populations. • The Marine and Coastal Resources Department* • Nantucket Shellfish Association High Goal 2 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Measure and monitor predator abundance in Nantucket waters (in part through a survey of by‐catch) and measure impacts on shellfish resources during the various life stages for each species. Understand the impacts of native versus non‐native predators and implement a predator management protocol as appropriate, perhaps based on the identification of an “over‐abundance” (which would need to be defined) of predators in the ecosystem. As part of the protocol, conduct research to understand the impacts of predator removal—both on the harvested resources and on the biological communities in the Harbors. Specifically look at the impacts of the mud blister worm (Polydora). • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Shellfishermen • Outside experts as appropriate Low Goal 3 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Conduct and/or support current and future research to better understand the spawning cycle of scallops, and specifically the spawning cycle of nub scallops. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Maria Mitchell Association • University of Massachusetts • Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 139 • Massachusetts bay scallop fishing communities • Outside experts as appropriate Recommendation 2 Better understand and define the biological traits of and stressors to bay scallops, quahogs, conch, oysters, soft‐shelled clams, and other harvested shellfish. Use that knowledge to make informed management decisions. Specific topics of interest include (1) the relationship between spat recruitment and post‐set spat survival as it relates to the overall abundance of shellfish, and (2) the genetic variability among harvested shellfish. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Maria Mitchell Association • Outside experts as appropriate Med Regulations Goal 1 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Monitor the population characteristics of important shellfish resources across the Island, assessing recruitment into the fishery and the standing stock available for harvest, in order to provide information for management decisions. This monitoring could possibly lead to the development of a predictive population model for Nantucket shellfish. Additionally, this monitoring could be done in a collaborative manner by working with local fishermen. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA • Maria Mitchell Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 140 Association Recommendation 2 Continue to limit the size and mechanics (power hoisting) of dredges and enforce existing restrictions such as the current 40‐pound limit on the weight of the dredge. • Board of Selectmen* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med Recommendation 3 Work with other Massachusetts‐based shellfishing communities and DMF to identify and conduct research designed to evaluate the definition of a legally harvestable bay scallop. As part of this, consider research to inform the potential use of a thickness gauge to measure harvestable bay scallops. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Board of Selectmen • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 141 Recommendation 4 Increase oversight of recreational shellfishermen and enforcement of recreational regulations more widely. This includes expanding enforcement efforts during the summer, obtaining data on recreational catches throughout the shellfishing seasons, and enforcing the regulation requiring people to wear the pins which prove they have purchased licenses. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* Med Goal 2 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Implement the steps needed to institute the adaptive management section of this Plan. As a first step, the Town should establish a Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee. This Committee should be responsible for developing specific rules about adaptation, including the timing of meetings, whether or not a “traffic light” approach to management is logical/feasible (see Appendix F), etc. • Board of Selectmen* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA High Goal 3 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Develop alternative commercial and recreational permit fee structures to generate more revenue for Nantucket. Investigate opportunities for changes to permit fees from time to time. Any direct revenues should be put toward propagation activities. Follow‐up studies should be conducted to determine the economic impacts of any new fees. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Board of Selectmen • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Low
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 142 Management Implementation Goal 1 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Ensure stable funding for sufficient staffing of all management activities including research, water quality testing and analysis, propagation, enforcement and the use of interns and seasonal employees (estimated to cost at least $150,000). Funding sources should include money for salaries and equipment out of the general fund, money for propagation from fines, and additional income from grants, gifts, and the sale of licenses. One hundred percent of license fees must be used for propagation efforts. Consider various budget scenarios for expanded propagation activities, and the hiring of a second biologist. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Board of Selectmen High Objective 2 Recommendation 1 All personnel involved in management of shellfish resources and enforcement of shellfish regulations should attend periodic joint‐training sessions (facilitated by fishermen and managers together) to ensure consistency of enforcement. These sessions should be open to commercial and recreational shellfishermen in the interest of improving compliance and communication between managers and the regulated community. Continue to include attendance in a training session as part of the penalty for harvesting seed scallops. • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Board of Selectmen • NSA • Commercial fishermen High Recommendation 2 Work with other fishing communities in Massachusetts to identify and make recommendations to DMF in areas where changes might benefit Nantucket shellfisheries, such as with the size of a legally harvestable bay scallop. Prepare and make widely available clear guidance on identifying harvestable scallops. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Board of Selectmen • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 143 • Fishermen • Other fishing communities in Massachusetts • Outside experts as appropriate Recommendation 3 Work with the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee to develop the data clearinghouse for Harbors‐related topics, including information pertaining to shellfish. Include the resources listed in this Management Plan, and ensure the availability of information pertaining to previous research on Nantucket shellfish. • Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Board of Selectmen • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA • Maria Mitchell Association • UMass Boston Nantucket Field Station Low
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 144 Recommendation 4 Nantucket’s research entities, along with the Town and fishermen, should work together to further develop and implement the coordinated Research Plan associated with this Shellfish Management Plan, identifying priority research sites, data needs, and a standardized method for data collection, recording and reporting. This research coordination should be overseen by a group of local and outside experts with knowledge of research issues contained in the Research Plan. For purposes of this Plan, that group is referred to as the “Nantucket Research Collaborative.” • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Maria Mitchell Association • University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station • Department of Health • School for Marine Science and Technology • Massachusetts DEP • Other experts as needed Med Objective 3 Recommendation 1 Continue to develop and implement an action plan to increase available space and use of space for aquaculture in Town waters. The action plan should address qualifications of bidders; a requirement for a business plan, and; management standards. The action plan should also ensure that shellfishing activities are not impaired as a result of aquaculture, and stress the participation of fishermen in hearings pertaining to aquaculture decisions. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Board of Selectmen • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 145 Recommendation 2 Continue to work with DMF to identify and consider (1) potential aquaculture locations outside of the agency’s usual physical siting requirements and (2) approval of a block of sites in advance of the DMF’s issuance of a license to an individual. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Board of Selectmen • MA Division of Marine Fisheries • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med Objective 4 Recommendation 1 Identify and make publically available areas for recreational fishing. Recreational fishing already dominates those shallow areas of the Harbors most easily accessible to recreational fishermen. Information about those areas should be made available to recreational fishermen. Those areas should be officially identified and set aside for recreational fishing, though commercial fishing should not be excluded from those areas. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Board of Selectmen • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med Education Goal 1 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Design and implement a study to assess the economic impact of recreational and commercial shellfishing to Nantucket. This study should address topics such as employment rates (including jobs both directly and indirectly impacted by shellfishing), wages, impacts to other sectors of the economy, cash‐flow through the Island economy, and economic trends related to shellfishing. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 146 • Outside experts as needed • Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission Recommendation 2 Develop and implement a public outreach strategy to highlight the significance of shellfishing both from a cultural and an economic perspective. This may include components such as a series of articles in local newspapers and magazines; a mail campaign; outreach activities at fairs and festivals; recruitment of recreational shellfishers for the NSA; a “meet the fishermen” event; the development and distribution of the Blue Pages book; and an informational display that can be moved from venue to venue (appearing in such places as the library, Town Hall, ferry terminals, the airport, etc). This strategy should be developed in a way that fosters collaboration with other existing outreach plans so as to not duplicate efforts or send mixed messages to audiences. • Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA High Recommendation 3 Develop an oral history of commercial and recreational shellfishermen and those associated with the industry as part of the historical records of the Island. • Nantucket Historical Society* • NSA • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board Low
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 147 Objective 2 Recommendation 1 Develop and implement an outreach strategy to educate the public about how land and water‐based activities can affect shellfish habitat. The outreach strategy should consider opportunities to coordinate with existing education efforts such as those identified in the Harbors Plan. This outreach strategy should make every effort to reach landowners, boaters, yacht clubs and their members, students, Maritime Festival audiences, and others, as appropriate. Additionally, electronic communication methods, including social network tools, should be explored. Examples of possible topics include fertilizer applications and their impact on shellfish habitat, and the dangers of dropping anchor in a shellfish bed. • Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA • Harbor Plan Implementation Committee • Marine Science Teacher(s) • Egan Maritime Institute • reMain Nantucket• Nantucket Health Department • Nantucket Department of Public Works • Others as appropriate High
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 148 Recommendation 2 Support the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee’s work to develop and circulate a Blue Book modeled after those found in many communities on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. Assist with content development and distribution. • Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee * • Harbor Plan Implementation Committee • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med Objective 3 Recommendation 1 Provide information on “best fishing practices” for recreational fishermen, including tips on how to identify legally harvestable scallops, where to access the water, how to be safe while harvesting, and how to minimize impacts on the habitat. Improve outreach to let people know that recreational permits are required to harvest shellfish. Use the outreach opportunity as a way to improve community awareness of the issues facing the shellfisheries. Include information about how the money raised by license sales helps the fishery and the Island’s economy. • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • NSA • Maria Mitchell Association and Aquarium • DMF High Recommendation 2 Improve access for recreational fishermen when feasible. Ensure that these new access points do not lead to illegal parking, blocking of traffic, culling on private property, and other similar issues. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Low
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 149 Board • NSA • Planning Office Recommendation 3 Gather contact information from people when they purchase their recreational shellfish permits. Use that information to communicate with recreational fishermen about upcoming events; management changes; opportunities to provide input on shellfish management; opportunities to participate in surveys about recreational shellfishing; and other important issues/opportunities. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • NSA Low Objective 4 Recommendation 1 Investigate other Fishery Cooperative Research Programs in the region with the intention of developing and implementing a program on Nantucket that will allow local fishermen to be involved in research and stock assessment efforts. • NSA* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • BOS Low Recommendation 2 Identify a select group of fishermen to assist with research by documenting bycatch details such as the percentage of seed and the types and abundance of predators. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Board of Selectmen • Harbor and Low
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 150 Shellfish Advisory Board • Nantucket Shellfish Association• Commercial fishermen Harvest Documentation Goal 1 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Continue to utilize records from shanties to help monitor and verify commercial landings. Additionally, continue to utilize records from shanties for enforcement of limits. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • MA DMF Med Recommendation 2 Implement a means to track the general locations where shellfish were harvested—both recreationally and commercially. The new trip‐level reporting to DMF includes records of the growing areas fished and captures information about effort. Recreational fishing records should be designed to collect information similar to that reported for commercial harvests. While methods to track recreational fishing are imperfect, they could be augmented to also obtain information about where recreational fishermen fish. These commercial and recreational data should be analyzed jointly to understand where the fishing is greatest from year to year, and what significance that might have for management. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Commercial fishermen • DMF Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 151 Support of the Commercial Fishery Goal 1 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Develop marketing strategies, such as branding the Nantucket bay scallop and/or controlling the rate at which scallops reach the market, to optimize the price of the Nantucket bay scallop. As part of this, continue to develop the concept of using a sticker to identify boxes of scallops as coming from Nantucket. Also consider developing quality standards (such as a freshness standard) that would be universally agreed upon and promoted by all who handle Nantucket bay scallops. Work with USDA to see if their marketing programs are applicable to the Nantucket bay scallop fishery. Link with ecotourism opportunities on Nantucket. • NSA* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • Commercial fishermen • Wholesalers • Outside experts as appropriate Med Recommendation 2 Consider establishing a co‐op for marketing purposes. As part of the development of this co‐op, consider making participation optional, and look to other co‐ops for examples of good strategies. Appendix H provides some guidelines and resources for developing this cooperative. • NSA* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • Commercial fishermen Low Recommendation 3 Develop marketing strategies to enhance the value of Nantucket shellfish by‐products (e.g., shells as a buffering source for restoration projects, viscera as a protein source, guts as bait or food, gonads as food). • NSA* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • Fishermen • Wholesalers • Shuckers • Outside experts as appropriate Low Recommendation 4 Review options for timed fishing closures to ensure the quality and consistency of product reaching the market. • NSA* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • Board of Selectmen Low
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 152 • Fishermen • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town Recommendation 5 Explore the apparent correlation between the price of scallops and number of buyers. Determine whether or not the number of buyers affects the price they are willing to pay. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA • Outside experts as appropriate Low Objective 2 Recommendation 1 In conjunction with the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee, consider opportunities to improve shore‐side access and facilities through the expansion of existing access points and/or the creation of new access points. Establish mechanisms to ensure that these new access points do not result in the unreported taking of additional shellfish. • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town* • Nantucket Land Bank • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • Planning and Economic Development Commission • Conservation Commission • Roads and Right of Way Committee Low
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 153 Objective 3 Recommendation 1 Continue to enhance and implement a mentoring program to assist new entries into the fishery. As part of the enhancement, develop a check‐list of topics for the teaching captain to cover with the apprentice. The checklist would include topics such as how to identify a legal bay scallop (to be taught by a Warden or shellfish biologist), how to cull a catch, a review of the regulations, and general etiquette at sea. Continue to allow the reduction of the 40‐day limit to allow for shorter apprenticeships if fishermen demonstrate the appropriate knowledge and skills needed to operate safely. These shorter apprenticeships would require the approval of SHAB. • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board* Med Adaptation of the Plan Goal 1 Objective 1 Recommendation 1 Bring together a group of people (a “Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee”) responsible for overseeing the implementation and adaptation of this Plan. This group should meet regularly and should include representatives from multiple stakeholder groups including recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, scientists, SHAB, the Department of Natural Resources, and managers. Off‐Island expertise should be included as appropriate. The group should work closely with not‐for‐profit entities to help raise funds for management plan research and implementation activities, identify common data reporting/gathering techniques, prioritize research projects, and address other research‐related issues. • Board of Selectmen*• Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town• Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board• NSA• Nantucket Land Council• UMass Boston Nantucket Filed Station• Maria Mitchell Association• Conservation Commission High
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 154 Recommendation 2 Establish a system whereby a review of coordinated threshold criteria (e.g., number of weather‐related fishing days lost, seed density, stock assessments, etc.) or a valid concern raised by a citizen would initiate a public process to address the issue(s)—including possible management actions. • Nantucket Research Collaborative* • Harbor Plan Implementation Committee • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA • Outside experts as appropriate Low Recommendation 3 Review and revise the Shellfish Management Plan every three years. • Shellfish Management Plan Implementation Committee* • Marine and Coastal Resources Department or the Town • Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board • NSA Med
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 155
APPENDIX B: RESOURCES
Abraham, B.J., and P. L. Dillon. (1986). Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of
coastal fishes and invertebrates (mid‐Atlantic)‐‐softshe1 1 clam. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep.
82(11.68). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL‐82‐4.
Andrews, C. (1990). Fishing Around Nantucket. Maria Mitchell Association; Nantucket, MA.
Andrews, J.C. (1944). Map of Nantucket Harbor showing eelgrass colonies in the 1940's. Town of
Nantucket Report.
Baier, C. (2000). Red Tide and Shellfish Poisoning: Toxic Products of Marine Algae. Online at:
http://www.agls.uidaho.edu/etox/resources/case_studies/REDTIDE2.PDF (last viewed 2/14/2012).
Bixby, A. (2005). Town of Nantucket Beach Management Plan. Adopted by Board of Selectmen.
Boyce, P. (2012). Personal communication.
Broadaway, B.J., Hannigan, R.E. (2009). Shell chemistry used to identify essential habitat for Bay
Scallops in Nantucket, MA. American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, 2009, San Francisco.
Broadaway, B.J. (2010). The Role of Sulfur in Biomineralization: Argopecten Irradians and the Impact of
Ocean Acidification.
Broadaway, B.J. (2011). Is sulfur in scallop shells an indicator of stress response in ocean acidification?
Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Annual Meeting, 2011, Boston.
Broadaway, B.J., Hannigan, R.E. (2012). Is the Taurine/Glycine Ratio an Indicator of Stress Response to
Ocean Acidification. American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Ocean Sciences meeting,
2012, Salt Lake City.
Burkholder, J.M., Mason, K.M., Glasgow, H.B. (1992). Water‐column Nitrate Enrichment Promotes
Decline of Eelgrass Zostera marina: Evidence from seasonal mesocosm experiments. Marine
Ecology Progress Series. 81(163‐178). Online at: http://www.int‐
res.com/articles/meps/81/m081p163.pdf (last viewed 2/14/2012).
Census Bureau. (2000). U.S. Census 2000
Census Bureau. (2010). U.S. Census 2010
Cohen, A. N. (2011). The Exotics Guide: Non‐native Marine Species of the North American Pacific Coast.
Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions, Richmond, CA, and San Francisco Estuary Institute,
Oakland, CA. Revised September 2011. Online at: http://www.exoticsguide.org (Last viewed
2/15/2012).
Colarusso, P. (2011). Personal Communication regarding impacts to eelgrass.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (2009). Nantucket Harbor Embayment System Total Maximum Daily
Loads for Total Nitrogen. Report #97‐TMDL‐2 Control #249.0. Online at:
www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/nantuckt.doc
Conant, K. (2000a). Spat Collection.
Conant, K. (2000b). Soft‐shell Clam Propagation.
Conant, K. (2000c). Nantucket Aquaculture Quahog Growout 2000.
Conant, K. (2000d). Spat Collection: Scallop 2000.
Conant, K. (2000e). Soft Shell Clam Propagation 2000.
Conant, K. (2002). Shellfish Survey Memo.
Conant, K. (2003). Shellfish Propagation.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 156
Conant, K. (2004a). Predator Investigation.
Conant, K. (2004b). Shellfish Propagation.
Conant, K. (2005a). Nantucket Bay Scallop Fisheries Management Plan Proposal
Conant, K. (2005b). Shellfish Propagation.
Conant, K. (2006a). Letter from K. Conant to D. Fronzuto re: the Boat House at Brant Point
Conant, K.L. (2006b). Madaket Harbor/Long Pond Annual Report 2006.
Conant, K.L. (2006c). Shellfish Propagation 2006.
Conant, K.L. (2007). Madaket Harbor/Long Pond Annual Report 2007
Conant, K.L. , Curley, T.L. (2005). Nantucket Scallops, Argopectin irradians, overwinter twice and spawn
Division of marine Fisheries. (2011). Personal Communication (August).
Costello, C.T. (2011). Twelve‐Year Mapping and Change Analysis of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Areal
Abundance in Massachusetts (USA) Identifies Statewide Decline. Estuaries and Coasts.
Curley, T. (2002). Nantucket Harbor Water Quality, Annual Report
DMF. Shellfish Sanitation and Management. Online at:
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/pspmoni.htm#shelsani (Last viewed
3/1/2012).
Edumndson, S. (2012). Personal Communication regarding her research on conchs.
Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. (1983). Species profiles: life histories and environmental
requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid‐Atlantic)—bay scallop. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS‐82/11.12. U. S. Army Corps o f Engineers, TR EL‐82‐
4. 17 pp.
Fronzuto, D. (2011). Personal Communication (12/22/2011).
Fronzuto, D. (2012). Personal Communication regarding updates to the SMP.
Gobler C.J., Berry, D.L., Anderson,O.R., Burson, A., Koch, F., Rodgers, B.S., Moore L.K., Goleski J.A., Allam,
B., Bowser, P., Tang, Y., Nuzzi, R. (2008). Characterization, dynamics, and ecological impacts of
harmful Cochlodinium polykrikoides blooms on eastern Long Island, NY, USA. Harmful Algae 7: 293–
307.
Goldsborough, W. J. (1997). Human Impacts on SAV ‐ A Chesapeake Bay Case Study, in Atlantic Coastal
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, Anthropogenic Impacts, State
Regulations, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks, ASMFC Habitat Management Series #1, Eds.
C. Dianne Stepahn and Thomas E. Bigford.
Harwell, M. C., Orth, R. J. (2002). Long‐distance Dispersal Potential in a Marine Macrophyte. Ecology
83(12) 3319‐3330.
Herr, M. (2011). Personal Communication.
Hickey, J.M., Shields, T., Kennedy, J., Ford, K. (2012). Shellfish Planting Guidelines.
Howes B., S. W. Kelley, J. S. Ramsey, R. Samimy, D. Schlezinger, and E. Eichner (2006). Linked Watershed‐
Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for Nantucket Harbor, Town
of Nantucket, Nantucket Island, MA. Massachusetts Estuaries Project, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. Boston, MA.
Howes B., S. W. Kelley, J. S. Ramsey, R. Samimy, D. Schlezinger, and E. Eichner. (2010). Linked
Watershed‐Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Threshold for the Madaket
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 157
Harbor and Long Pond System, Towns of Nantucket, MA. Online at: http://www.nantucket‐
ma.gov/pages/nantucketma_marine/madharborest.pdf (last viewed 2/14/2012).
Howes, B. (2010). Madaket Harbor and Long Pond, Nantucket, MA. Online at:
http://www.oceanscience.net/estuaries/Madaket.htm. (Last viewed 2/14/2012).
Karney, R.C. Ten Years of Scallop Culture on Martha’s Vineyard. Online at:
http://mvshellfishgroup.org/article.php?id=45 (Last visited 2/15/2012).
Kelley, K.M. (1981). The Nantucket Bay Scallop Fishery: The resource and its management.
Kelley, K.M. (1989). Distribution of Eelgrass in Nantucket Harbor, MA., Summer 1989. Town of
Nantucket Health Department, Report
Kelley, K.M. (1986). An Update on the Management of the Nantucket Bay Scallop Resource. Nantucket
Shellfish and Marine Department.
Kilburn, D. (1986). Nantucket’s Scallopers Hope to Bolster a Faltering Industry. Nat. Fisherman, Oct: 12‐
13
Leschen, A.S., R.K. Kessler, and B.T. Estrella. (2009). Eelgrass Restoration As Construction Impact
Mitigation in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical
Report TR‐37.
Leschen, A.S., Kessler, R.K., Estrella, B.T. (2007). Eelgrass Restoration Project (July 1, 2004‐October 31,
2007). Online at:
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/hubline/hubline_5yr_eelgrass_restoration
.pdf. (Last viewed 2/14/2012)
MacFarlane, S.L. (1999). Bay Scallops in Massachusetts Waters: A Review of the Fishery and Prospects
for Future Enhancement and Aquaculture. For Barnstable County’s Cape Cod Cooperative Extension
and Southeastern Massachusetts Aquaculture Center.
MacKenzie, C.L. (2008). The Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians, Massachusetts through North Carolina:
Its Biology and the History of Its Habitats and Fisheries. Marine Fisheries Review. 70(3‐4).
Marine Biological Laboratory. Marine Organism Database. Online at:
http://www.mbl.edu/marine_org/marine_org.php?func=detail&myID=BX9887. (Last viewed
2/15/2012.)
Martha’s Vineyard Data Report. (2006). Martha’s Vineyard Data Report. Online at:
http://www.mvcommission.org/doc.php/Housing%20Data.pdf?id=618 (Last visited 2/14/2012).
Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Inc. (2005). Coatue. On line at:
http://www.nantucketconservation.com/info_files/properties/coatuef.html. (Last viewed on August
2, 2003).
Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources Department. (2007). Seed Relay Protocol.
Nantucket Marine and Coastal Resources Department. (2010). Guidelines for Lease of Bottom Land for
Aquaculture “Draft.”
Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission. (1980). Commercial Fishing… Can
Nantucket Bring it Back?
Newell, R.I.E. (1989). Species Profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes
and invertebrates (North and Mid Atlantic) – blue mussel. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR E1‐82‐4.)
Norton, A.B. (2000). Nantucket Bay Scallop Resource Conservation Management Plan. Prepared for the
Marine and Coastal Resources Department Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 158
NYS Seagrass Taskforce. (2009). Final Report of the New York State Seagrass Task Force:
Recommendations to the New York State Governor and Legislature. Online at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/finalseagrassreport.pdf (last viewed 2/14/2012).
Oktay, S., Barham, A. (2009). Nantucket Harbor Water Quality Research ‐ submitted to REMAIN and
MCRD.
Oktay, S., Barham, A. (2010). Nantucket Harbor Water Quality Research ‐ submitted to REMAIN and
MCRD.
Oktay, S. (2012). Personal Communication regarding percent of Harbor Plan recommendations
complete. (12/16/2012).
Paerl, H., Paul, V., O’Neil, J.M., Joyner, J., Arthur, K., Joyner, A., Capper, A., Ross, C., Heil, C. Lyngbya
Toxicology. Online at:
http://www.agls.uidaho.edu/etox/resources/case_studies/REDTIDE2.PDF (last viewed
2/14/2012).
Patrick, James E. and Robert Benchley III. (2002). Scallop Season: A Nantucket Chronicle. Nantucket:
Autopscot Press.
Peters, J. A. (1978). Scallops and their utilization. Mar. Fish. Rev. 40(11): 1‐9.
Ray, R. (2010). Personal Communication re: the number of licensed shanties on Nantucket.
Rhode Island Sea Grant. Did you Know? Shellfish Aquaculture is Good for the Environment! Online at:
http://www.ecsga.org/Pages/Sustainability/BenefitsBrochure.pdf. (Last viewed 6/7/2012.)
Riley, T, Boyce, P. (2011). Personal communication regarding larval release.
Riley, T. (2012). Personal Communication regarding spawning protocols.
Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce. Conch Description. Online at
http://www.sms.si.edu/irlfieldguide/Busyco_canali.htm. (Last viewed 2/14/2012.)
Stanley, J. G., and DeWitt, R. (1983). Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of
coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic) ‐ ‐ hard clam. U.S. Fish Wildlife Services. FWS/OBS‐
82/11.18. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL‐82‐4. 19 pp.
Stanley, J.G., and Sellers, M.A. (1986). Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of
coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid‐Atlantic)‐‐American oyster. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep.
82(11.65). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL‐82‐4.
Starbuck, K. Is There a “Recipe” for a Sustainable Wild bay Scallop (Argopecten irradians irradians)
fishery on Nantucket Island, MA, USA
Talmage, S.C. and Gobler, C.J. (2010). Effects of Past, Present, and Future Ocean Carbon Dioxide
Concentrations on the Growth and Survival of Larval Shellfish. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America.
Tettelbach, S.T. and Feng, S.Y. (1986). Intensity of crab predation on northern bay scallops Argopecten
irradians irradians: effects of prey size and predator assemblages on seasonal patterns. Journal of
Shellfish Research.
Tettelbach, S.T., and Smith, C.F. (2009). Bay Scallop Restoration in New York. Ecological Restoration.
27:20‐22.
Tettelbach, S.T., Barnes, D., Aldred, J., Rivara, G., Bonal, D., Weinstock, A., Fitzsimons‐Diaz, C., Theil, J.,
Cammarota, M.C., Stark, A., Wejnert, K., Ames, R., Carroll, J. (2011). Utility of High Density Plantings
in Bay Scallop, Argopecten irradians irradians, Restoration. Aqua Int. 19:715‐739.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 159
The Committee to Establish the Nantucket Marine Collaborative. (2006). Nantucket Marine
Collaborative.
Town and County of Nantucket. Annual Report. Fiscal Years 2001 through 2010.
Town of Nantucket. Nantucket Master Plan. (2009).
Town of Nantucket. Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board Website. Online at: http://www.nantucket‐
ma.gov/pages/nantucketMA_BComm/shab. (Last viewed 2/15/2012).
Town Shellfish Regulations §230
Urban Harbors Institute. (2009). Nantucket and Madaket Harbors Action Plan.
Willauer, W. (2008) How to Manage our Scallop Fishery!
Weissberger, E., Chintala, M. (2012). Personal communication re: EPA bay scallop habitat study and
related sediment data.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 160
APPENDIX C: LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Matthew Herr Chair Fisherman
Frank Dutra Vice Chair Nantucket Shellfish Association
Tara Riley Secretary Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
Sarah Oktay University of Massachusetts Boston Nantucket Field Station
Peter Boyce Maria Mitchell Association, Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Doug Smith Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Carl Sjolund Nantucket Shellfish Association
Jake Kritzer Environmental Defense Fund
Cormac Collier Nantucket Land Council
Dave Fronzuto Department of Marine and Coastal Resources
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 161
APPENDIX D: LIST OF COMMITTEE AND
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Committee Meetings:
2010 2011 2012
October 13 January 12 January 26
November 17 February 1 February 23
December 1 February 15 September 26
December 15 March 1
March 16
April 11
April 25
May 10
September 21
October 5
October 19
November 16
November 30
December 7
December 14
Public Meetings:
2010 2012
November 10 April 17
December 1
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 162
APPENDIX E: LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDERED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS
PLAN
The recommendations contained in the Shellfish Management Plan represent those that the Committee
feels are most appropriate for the current commercial and recreational shellfishing situation. However,
during the course of plan preparation, a number of other recommendations were identified through
research, interviews, and Committee discussions. Some of those were deemed not currently applicable
to the management of Nantucket’s shellfish, but may be of use as changes in the shellfisheries occur
over time or as new information becomes available. Those recommendations with potential
applications for the future are identified below, along with a description of the benefits of the
recommendation and the reason for not including the recommendation in this version of the Shellfish
Management Plan.
Recommendation: Include provisioning of seed as a requirement of a private shellfish aquaculture
license.
Benefits: Seed is an important part of the Island’s propagation activities. Obtaining seed from
aquaculture enterprises would reduce the Town’s expenses, and would also engage the
aquaculture enterprises in caring for the wild stock of shellfish in Nantucket waters.
Reason for non‐inclusion: While the State DMF noted that the Town could ask for seed, the
licensee could not be required to provide seed of greater value than the $25/acre license fee.
The Committee decided that the amount of seed did not warrant the license requirement.
Recommendation: Require commercial shellfishermen to provide assistance with research, propagation,
seed management, education, and other shellfish‐related activities as part of the commercial shellfish
license requirements.
Benefits: Fishermen have both the equipment and the knowledge needed to help with many
tasks that could benefit their fisheries. Additionally, engaging fishermen in research, education,
and management activities provides fishermen with a different perspective on the fishery,
builds relationships and understanding between managers and fishermen, and provides cost‐
saving resources to the town.
Reason for non‐inclusion: While DMF considers such a requirement to be allowable, the
Committee decided to remove the recommendation of fishermen participation as a license
requirement. Instead, the idea of collaboration between fishermen, researchers, and managers
is heavily stressed in the Research Plan, is an important part of the Plan’s adaptation strategies,
and appears throughout the recommendations. An additional difference is that the Plan now
incentivizes fishermen’s participation rather than making it a requirement.
Recommendation: Reduce bay scallop limits for the “occasional” commercial fisherman.
Benefits: Reducing limits for those who commercially fish part‐time would, in theory, leave
more shellfish to be caught by people who fish all season and who depend on fishing for their
livelihoods.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 163
Reason for non‐inclusion: In part, this recommendation was not included due to the uncertainty
of the definition of an “occasional” fisherman. Additionally, the Committee did not generally
support any reductions in catch allotments.
Recommendation: Reduce the number of bushels landed per day.
Benefits: Catch reduction is a very common fisheries management strategy used to relieve
pressure on fish stocks and to encourage successful reproduction and re‐building of populations.
Reason for non‐inclusion: Given the uncertainty about (1) why bay scallop populations
fluctuate, (2) the reproductive cycle of scallops, and (3) the cause(s) of the general downward
trend in bay scallop population, the Committee did not see the value in reducing catches when
there was no indication that doing so would reverse the population trend or make the fishery
more stable from year to year (Note: in the early 1990s, the limit was reduced from 12 bushels
per day to 5.)
Recommendation: Implement a four‐day/week fishery, with same total number of bushels allowable
per week.
Benefits: A shorter work week with the same total weekly harvest would allow fishermen to
make more efficient use of their time on the water, and might positively affect the price of
scallops. It is generally believed that bay scallops caught on Friday do not go to market until the
following Monday. Given that they are not freshly caught, they are considered by buyers to be
an inferior product and bring in less money per pound than those shellfish sold Tuesday–Friday.
Reason for non‐inclusion: There is insufficient information about when catches are sold and for
what price, therefore the impact of a four‐day week on bay scallop prices is not well‐enough
understood to make the recommended change. Furthermore, a four‐day work week with the
same catch limit would put an additional burden on those responsible for processing the catch.
The Committee decided that, rather than make this an outright recommendation, a means
should exist (the adaptation process) to consider this strategy if circumstances warrant.
Research to understand the impacts of a 4‐day week without an increase in bushels/day could
influence whether or not to implement such a recommendation in the future.
Recommendation: Develop official shellfish landing locations throughout the Harbors to improve
inspection and recording of each catch.
Benefits: Strategically located official shellfish landing locations would help improve accuracy of
data on catch amounts and allow for more thorough inspections.
Reason for non‐inclusion: The availability of shellfish wardens fluctuates, making it difficult to
commit to staffing each landing location. Additionally, the routes of fishermen would likely be
affected if their landing locations were limited potentially adding to fuel costs and shortening
time available for fishing.
Recommendation: Use shanties as a way to facilitate inspection and record of catch.
Benefits: Shanties process a large portion of the bay scallop harvest and could provide a cost‐
effective way of gathering information about catches and enforcing size regulations.
Reason for non‐inclusion: The general feeling is that shanties should not be involved in the
enforcement aspect of the shellfish industry to a greater extent than already used.
Recommendation: Eliminate the 30‐day delayed entry (“hardship”) license.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 164
Benefits: Some believe that the delayed entry license is an easy way for people to unfairly
circumvent the need to purchase a scalloping license prior to the start of the season, thus
rewarding people who do not show a strong commitment to the fishery.
Reason for non‐inclusion: Very few people take advantage of the delayed entry license, and
they are penalized a month of fishing at the start of the season. Also, few people actually make
use of the hardship license, therefore the impact is fairly small. (For example, in the 2011–2012
season, 10 people applied for the delayed entry license, 4 were issued, 3 were used sporadically,
and only 1 was still being used in January 2012 (Fronzuto, Personal Communication, 2012)). For
these reasons, most of the committee felt there was little need to go through the steps required
to do away with the license.
Recommendation: Identify and designate areas for use solely by recreational shellfishermen.
Benefits: Recreational shellfishing is a significant part of Nantucket’s shellfishing culture. Setting
aside places where recreational fishermen could harvest exclusively might reduce user conflict
between recreational and commercial fishermen.
Reason for non‐inclusion: For the most part, the methods used by commercial and recreational
shellfishermen separate them spatially, and conflicts between recreational and commercial
shellfishermen are rare. At this time, there is no need to set aside exclusive recreational areas.
Recommendation: Create a cooperative whereby fishermen would have access to shucking, marketing,
training, and other joint resources.
Benefits: A cooperative could help reduce individual costs (e.g., shared shucking facilities) and
offer new opportunities (e.g., a joint marketing strategy), thus providing a bit of stability in an
unstable industry.
Reason for non‐inclusion: The idea of establishing a cooperative has not been successful in the
past for reasons including the cost of operating a cooperative, differences of opinion about what
a cooperative should or should not do, and a general disinterest in joining and running a
cooperative. For these reasons, the idea of a general cooperative was not included in the
recommendations; however the Plan does include a recommendation for a marketing
cooperative. This type of organizing appealed to members of the Committee who saw it as a
way to increase the fishermen’s ability not only to earn more money from the sale of their
catch, but also as a way to prevent other products from being marketed as Nantucket bay
scallops.
Recommendation: Promote the “Nantucket Marine Collaborative,” envisioned to involve fishermen and
researchers in the enhancement of shellfish stock, largely through propagation activities at the Brant
Point Boat House.
Benefits: An organization that involves fishermen and researchers, can apply for funding, and
can work specifically to enhance shellfish populations would be of great benefit to the Island’s
shellfish resources.
Reason for non‐inclusion: The “Nantucket Marine Collaborative” concept was developed at a
time in which the Town did not have a shellfish biologist focusing on propagation issues. With
the employment of Tara Riley, the Town now has in‐house propagation expertise. This Plan
does, however, recognize the value of involving fishermen in research, propagation, and
education activities. Accordingly, the Plan makes recommendations to ensure more predictable
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 165
and appropriate funding to continue propagation and outreach activities that include fishermen,
managers, and researchers.
Recommendation: Implement a “traffic‐light” system for adapting shellfish management activities
whereby the monitoring of trends and thresholds would trigger a change in management.
Benefits: A traffic‐light system provides a great deal of structure and predictability and helps to
identify the key pieces of information needed in order to make management decisions.
Reason for non‐inclusion: While the Committee generally liked the structure that the traffic‐
light approach provides, it felt that (1) the requisite data do not yet (and may never) exist to
inform a traffic‐light‐type decision‐making process, (2) the concept would not receive wide
acceptance from the fishing community, and (3) that the approach’s real value was in helping to
organize important information. Rather than linking a traffic‐light system directly to adaptation
measures, the concept is included in the Research Plan as a means to organize and better
understand and interpret data.
Recommendation: Implement a catch limit for the bay scallop fishery
Benefits: A catch limit for the bay scallop fishery (as opposed to catch limits for each fisherman)
might help protect spawning biomass.
Reason for non‐inclusion: The Committee did not support any limits on catch that might be
more restrictive than the current limits.
Recommendation: Research the potential for using natural or artificial substrates in the Head of the
Harbor and explore other locations if more appropriate.
Benefits: Artificial substrates can provide important habitat for shellfish species.
Reason for non‐inclusion: The Committee felt this recommendation was not necessary.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 166
APPENDIX F: EXAMPLES OF TRAFFIC LIGHT
CONTROL RULES IN DATA-POOR FISHERIES
Fisheries management often aims to estimate and manage toward maximum sustainable yield (MSY),
which is an estimate of the average harvest that can be maintained year in and year out without
overfishing the stock. MSY‐oriented management often requires complex stock assessment models,
which might not be applicable to species that are short‐lived with high population turnover and high
variability in year‐to‐year stock size with dynamics driven heavily by environmental conditions external
to stock demography. Many coastal shellfish species, certainly including bay scallops and other species
in the waters surrounding Nantucket, exhibit these attributes. For species such as these, trends in the
population or ecosystem might be more useful than stock status relative to some reference point for
determining management actions. One tool for capturing these trends in a way that provides a single
assessment index is known as the “traffic light” method.
Traffic light indices use a range of variables that are relevant to the productivity of the stock, including
fishery‐dependent and fishery‐independent data (e.g., catch, catch‐per‐unit‐effort, mean size,
recruitment rates, etc.) and ecosystem monitoring (e.g., temperature, rainfall, habitat condition,
abundance of predators and prey, etc.). Fishermen and biologists determine the suite of important
metrics and the data available to estimate each. Then, each year each metric is ranked as green if the
value suggests good conditions for the stock, yellow if the value suggests no change or average
conditions, and red if the value suggest poor conditions. These rankings can be determined based on
empirical research on the stock (e.g., thermal tolerances), or based on time series values (e.g., whether
the value falls in the top third, middle third or bottom third of the past ten years). The average of all of
the metrics determines the overall index for the stock in that year. If the metrics include a wide range of
ecosystem attributes, the index might also provide a good index of overall system health, although the
choice of variables to include is often biased toward those of most importance to key target species.
One disadvantage of traffic light methods is that a time series of data is typically needed to establish
relative values and trends. A fishery starting from scratch with these methods might require 5 years of
data or more before the outputs can be used to make management decisions. However, if enough data
sets already exist, then the fishery can establish a retrospective time series against which to evaluate
current conditions from the outset. In most cases, it is likely that data will exist for a subset of the
chosen metrics, allowing a partial index to be estimated immediately and additional variables to be
added through time as the database grows. Once an index has been established and fine‐tuned, the
outputs can be used to adjust fishery management measures (catch limits, license numbers, season
length, etc.) and other environmental regulations (fertilizer or pesticide use, number of boat moorings in
key habitats, other aspects of coastal development and use).
Following are examples of traffic light indices that have been developed for the northern shrimp fishery
of the Canadian Maritime Provinces and the salmon fishery in the Pacific Northwest of the United
States.
Atlantic Canadian Shrimp
Fisheries for northern shrimp off the Maritime Provinces of Canada have adopted traffic light systems
that are tailored slightly to specific fishing locations on the coast. Below are examples from two of these
locations, Sept Iles and Hawke Channel, from the 1999 fishing year, reproduced from the paper by
Koeller et al. (2000). For both locations, most of the indicators used are stock and fishery data, although
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 167
each also incorporates one ecosystem variable. For Sept Iles, the ecosystem variable is an index of
predation pressure, whereas for Hawke Channel temperature data are used. At the time of Koeller et
al.’s paper, the traffic light indices were not yet linked to management measures, and instead were
simply a gauge rather than a control rule2.
2 This might have changed in the decade since the paper, and would be worth researching.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 168
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 169
Pacific Northwest Salmon
The Northwest Fishery Science Center, in collaboration with Oregon State University, has developed a
traffic light index for Chinook and Coho salmon run strength that relies primarily on ecosystem
indicators, including aspects of both physical and biological oceanography, as well as abundance of
salmon in ocean trawl surveys. The table below from the report by Peterson et al. (2010) illustrates the
variables used, their scores from 1998–2009, and the overall index produced each year. Furthermore,
the figures following the table show that this index has impressive predictive capacity for these
populations, with a very strong correlation between the index values and run size. However, this index
is not yet linked to management measures either.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 170
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 171
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 172
APPENDIX G: CONSIDERATIONS FOR
DEVELOPING A MARKETING
COLLABORATIVE
In the broadest sense, a cooperative (or co‐op) is simply a group of people working together to
collectively improve their situation. There is a long history of such cooperatives for the purposes of
energy production, localized wastewater treatment, agricultural crop raising and marketing, craft sales,
and so on. The marketing of scallops from Nantucket is considerably more focused but there is much
that can be transferred from these broader initiatives.
The Nantucket Shellfish Association already fulfills portions of the role of a shellfish cooperative,
providing assistance in resource planning, research, propagation, and management solutions. The areas
of marketing and product sales, however, have historically been the purview of individual fishermen.
From time to time there have been discussions of ways to improve the product value of “Nantucket
Scallops” (as opposed to those taken or produced in other locations) with the implication that scallops
from the Island’s waters should be considered more desirable. To date there has been marginal
implementation of any of these ideas.
The Committee’s recommendation is that a cooperative, group effort could lead to the “branding” of
Nantucket Scallops and a marketing effort that would result in higher prices per unit for scallops taken in
local waters.
Benefits of a Cooperative
At a 2010 workshop sponsored by the University of Maine SeaGrant Program
(www.seagrant.umaine.edu/extension/shellfish‐marketing), Robert Rheault, the Executive Director of
the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association discussed how their cooperative worked in the production
and marketing of shellfish raised through aquaculture. Many of his points are applicable to potential
use on Nantucket.
Rheault began by stating his group’s experience that the branding and appropriate marketing of specific
groups of shellfish could add about 8% to the sale price of the product. In this process he emphasized
the role of the co‐op as a “price maker” (the entity that can, if not entirely control the price of the
product, work with an existing distribution system to improve the price) rather than a “price taker” (an
entity that takes whatever price a buyer sets). This enhanced value can sometimes be the difference
between economic success and failure on the part of the growers; or, in the case on Nantucket, the
fishermen.
This enhanced value was accomplished by establishing the product as a recognized brand, complete
with a brand description, marketing materials, logos, and packaging. His organization worked to
establish brand recognition as well as “product category.” In the Nantucket instance the message would
be something like, “Shellfish are good, and Nantucket Scallops are the best.” Rheault emphasized that
building brand recognition is not an overnight occurrence; it can take years to build such brand
recognition. (The benefits can be destroyed overnight, however, with one instance of poor quality or
service.)
Marketing differs from broad‐scale advertising in that it is focused on a particular market and offers a
message tailored to that market. If a market survey shows that most shellfish are sold to restaurants,
for example, the marketing might emphasize such aspects as freshness, healthfulness, consistency in
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 173
size and appearance (important to chefs), and distinctive taste. A goal might be to have the name
Nantucket scallops listed on a menu as a specialty item. Shellfish growers sometimes compare their
product to wines; just as Riesling grapes can be grown in many different areas, each producing its own
distinct flavoring of wine—distinct to the “sophisticated” wine fancier—so too can shellfish from specific
area bring their own distinctive taste to the table.
Establishment of a Cooperative
There are several guides to establishing cooperatives available through government or non‐profit
entities. The US Department of Agriculture has an entire office dedicated to various types of
cooperatives through its Rural Business‐Cooperative Service Branch. The Cooperative Development
Institute; Northeast Center for Cooperative Business in South Deerfield, MA (www.cdi.coop) provides
“education, training and technical assistance to start‐up cooperatively‐structured enterprises in all
business sectors.”
The Committee’s recommendation for a cooperative is limited to enhancing market access and
broadening of market opportunities. As such, it is an extension of existing activities of the fishermen. A
typical process for determining the need or desirability for a co‐op and its implementation if determined
to be desirable would follow a pattern somewhat similar to that following.
Determining whether there is a need and/or opportunity for cooperative efforts
Generally this would entail a survey of the existing fishermen to see whether they see
sufficient potential benefits to even continue the discussion.
Establishing the level of interest
Is there a broad section of the industry willing to participate? Will there be sufficient
interest to provide financial support to further the process? Will there be sufficient interest
to participate in meetings, committee work, etc.?
Conducting a Feasibility Study for a co‐op.
This would involve a more formalized market analysis and cost analysis for the efforts
anticipated by the co‐op and a preliminary cost‐benefit analysis for participants. It is critical
that this step involve an impartial market analysis and not merely rely on unsubstantiated
opinions.
Developing a Business Plan
What sort of administrative/management structure will be needed to operate the co‐op?
What sort of financing will be required for both start‐up and continuing operation? What
will be the “end products” of the co‐op and how will they be developed?
Developing a Marketing Plan
Who are the competitors now? How will they react to the co‐op development and
implementation? What is the current product distribution system and will it change with
the establishment of a co‐op? How will success be determined?
Disadvantages of a Co‐op
There can be a downside to the establishment of a cooperative and any group contemplating such an
exercise would do well to consider these and decide whether they are applicable in the particular
instance under consideration.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 174
Some of the potential disadvantages include:
Members have to give up some of their independence and function in a group setting rather
than individuals.
Depending on the Business Plan of the Co‐op, there may be a cost to the individual members.
The Business Plan should give a realistic estimate as to when the benefits will outweigh the
costs, but this will only be an estimate and unexpected situations may affect the pay‐back time.
There needs to be broad participation and support by members of the industry (in this case the
Nantucket scallop fishermen), otherwise there could be a situation where a limited few are
working to improve the value of the entire crop—a situation that is ripe for failure.
It may be necessary to hire staff for the implementation of the marketing effort. This involves
oversight of personnel, meeting payrolls, and various logistical actions.
Example of a Co‐op comparable to that recommended for Nantucket
The Copper River/Prince William Sound Marketing Association, based in Cordova, AK
(http://copperrivermarketing.org/) was established to “develop regional seafood brands” and prepare
and implement a broad‐based marketing plan to promote those brands. They define the purposes of
the organization to:
Develop regional seafood brands.
Develop marketing plan for regions brands.
Secure funds and implement the marketing plan.
Facilitate member marketing program through common development of informational
documents, market research, and promotion.
Promote, foster and encourage quality assurance standards to attain highest industry standards.
Promote improvements to the commercial fishing industry infrastructure in the region.
To implement these actions the group has incorporated as a non‐profit organization under federal and
state tax laws and created a Board of Directors and staff to administer the organization programs. Some
of the specific activities they undertake (as described on their web site) are to:
Coordinate site visits for the press,
Host events for food writers,
Provide a listing of where to get product and contacts for fishers who sell directly to
restaurants/retailers,
Establish and/or link to consumer web sites using or mentioning their product (think
NantucketScallops.com),
Participate in seafood shows across the country
Prepare public relations/press releases on their products that tell the story of the product,
provide fishermen profiles (i.e., “humanize” or “put a face on” the product), provide the history
and tradition of the fishery, etc.,
Utilize social media such as Facebook to get their message out to a wider segment of the public,
and
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 175
Prepare printed materials common to the fishery (as opposed to specific fishers) including
informational brochures, promotional materials, flyers and packaging used as part of product
shipments.
For Further information
Contacts
Cooperative Development Institute; Northeast Center for Cooperative Business
South Deerfield, MA
(413) 665‐1271
info@cdi.coop
www.cdi.coop
Copper River/Prince William Sound Marketing Association
509 First Street ‐ P.O. Box 199
Cordova, AK 99574
(907) 424‐3459
info@copperrivermarketing.org
http://copperrivermarketing.org
Robert Rheault,
Executive Director, East Coast Shellfish Growers Assoc.
(401) 783‐3360
bob@moonstoneoysters.com
William Brockhouse, USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture"
Rural Business‐Cooperative Service"
Cooperative Programs
Washington, DC.
(202) 720‐2021
bill.brockhouse@wdc.usda.gov!
Bibliography
Many of the following materials relate to aquaculture. Despite being based on a “wild” crop, because
the Nantucket scallop industry involves a single species taken from a well‐defined, limited area, it has
many similarities to aquaculture.
Free Publications
From the USDA Rural Business‐Cooperative Service
How to Start a Cooperative
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 176
www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir7/cir7rpt.htm
Understanding the Cooperatives: Who Runs the Cooperative Business?
www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir456.pdf
Co‐ops 101
www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir55/cir55rpt.htm
Do Yourself a Favor: Join a Cooperative.
www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir54.pdf
AK Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development. 1997. Alaska Fishermen's Direct Marketing
Manual. 93p http://seagrant.uaf.edu/bookstore/pubs/MAB‐53.html
Anonymous, 2003. Aquaculture Marketing Analysis and Opportunities in the Northeast Region.
Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center White Paper 03‐07. 72p.
www.nrac.umd.edu/files/Whitepapers/wp_no3_marketing.pdf
Gilbert, R. (1989). Small‐Scale Marketing of Aquaculture Products. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center, No. 350. 4p.
https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/.../64/
Swann, L., and Reipe, J.R. (1991). Making Wise Choices When Direct Marketing Your
Aquaculture Products. Illinois‐Indiana Sea Grant, IL‐IN‐SG‐FS‐91‐2, 6p.
www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/education/ras/.../marketingAS‐464.pdf
Peterson, H.C., and Fronc, K. (2005). A White Paper on Marketing Research Needs for the North
Central Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center. 9p.
www.extension.org/mediawiki/files/e/e3/Aquaculturemarketing.pdf
Pomeroy, R. (2003). Developing an Aquaculture Business Plan. CT Sea Grant, CTSG‐03‐14. 2p.
seagrant.uconn.edu/publications/aquaculture/busplan.pdf
Strombom, D.B. and S.M Tweed. (1992). Business Planning for Aquaculture: Is it Feasible?
Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center, No. 150‐1992.
darc.cms.udel.edu/AquaPrimer/bizplannrac150.pdf
Publications for Purchase
Chaston, I. (1984). Business Management in Fisheries and Aquaculture. Fishing News Books.
Engle, C. and Quagtainie, K. (2006). Aquaculture Marketing Handbook. Blackwell Publishing.
Shang, Yung, C. (1980). Aquaculture Economics: Basic Concepts and Methods of Analysis.
Westview Press, Inc.
Shaw, Susan. (1990). Marketing: A Practical Guide for Fish Farmers.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 177
APPENDIX H: SEAFOOD BRANDING AND
MARKETING INITIATIVES
While there is no universal definition for environmental labeling or eco‐labeling, the Organisation for
Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) has defined environmental labeling as the "voluntary
granting of labels by a private or public body in order to inform consumers and thereby promote
consumer products which are determined to be environmentally more friendly than other functionally
and competitively similar products” (http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12283/en).
Ecolabeling is a market‐based economic instrument that seeks to direct consumers' purchasing behavior
so they consider product characteristics other than price. These characteristics may be associated with
economic, social, environmental, or ecological objectives. Consumers' preferences for different
characteristics will produce price and/or market share differentiation between products with and
without ecolabels. These differences provide economic incentive for businesses to seek product
certification under the ecolabel. Consumers are provided with relevant product information via the
ecolabel that may impact their purchasing and consumption decisions
(http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12283/en).
In the case of seafood branding, the labeling program appeals to consumer preferences for sustainably
harvested, high‐quality seafood from a known, local source, and also a desire to support community
businesses and grow the local economy. The program encourages these consumer preferences by
identifying seafood that meets these criteria as defined in program standards. The suppliers in the
seafood industry therefore have financial motivation to seek certification under the program to profit
from these consumer preferences and to support their own interests.
The following is a summary of primary seafood branding programs operating at an international,
regional, or state‐level.
Marine Stewardship Council
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (http://www.msc.org/) is a global, independent, non‐profit
organization designed to use ecolabel and fish certification programs to: (1) recognize and reward
sustainable fishing practices, and thereby contribute to health of the world’s oceans; (2) influence
consumer seafood purchases; and (3) work with partner organizations to create a sustainable seafood
market. These MSC programs are the first in the world to be completely consistent with the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Guidelines for the Eco‐labeling of Fish and Fishery
Products from Marine Capture Fisheries.
The MSC is recognized as the global leader in certification for sustainable wild‐capture seafood. The
Council distinguishes itself through its scientific approach, independence, and transparency. The MSC
has two core standards: (1) MSC environmental standard for sustainable fishing; and (2) MSC chain of
custody standard for seafood traceability. Fisheries and seafood businesses voluntarily seek certification
against the relevant standard.
MSC Standards
Sustainable Fishing
The MSC standard for sustainable fishing (http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme‐documents/msc‐
standards/MSC_environmental_standard_for_sustainable_fishing.pdf) has 3 overarching principles,
each supported by detailed criteria, that every fishery must prove that it meets:
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 178
Principle 1: Sustainable fish stocks
The fishing activity must be at a level which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery
must operate so that fishing can continue indefinitely and is not overexploiting the resources. For those
populations that are depleted, the fishery must operate in a manner that demonstrably leads to their
recovery.
Principle 2: Minimizing environmental impact
Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of
the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.
Principle 3: Effective management
The fishery must meet all local, national and international laws and must have a management system in
place to respond to changing circumstances and maintain sustainability.
Each of these three principles are developed further by detailed criteria in the MSC Environmental
Standard for Sustainable Fishing
Seafood Traceability
The MSC standard for seafood traceability (http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme‐documents/msc‐
standards/msc‐coc‐standard‐v3) has 4 overarching principles, each supported by detailed criteria, that
every fishery must prove that it meets:
Principle 1: The organization shall have a management system
Principle 2: The organization shall operate a traceability system
Principle 3: There shall be no substitution of certified products with non‐certified products
Principle 4: There shall be a system to ensure all certified products are identified
MSC Certification Requirements
The MSC certification requirements (1) establish how the two core standards should be interpreted by
certifiers conducting assessments; (2) ensure proper assessment methodology of fisheries and
businesses against MSC standards; and (3) ensure consistent assessments against MSC standards
regardless of when, where, and by whom the assessment is performed. The most current MSC
certification requirements can be found at: http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme‐documents/msc‐
scheme‐requirements/msc‐certification‐requirements‐v1.2/view
Third Party Certification
MSC operates a third party certification program (http://www.msc.org/about‐us/standards/third‐party‐
certification). This type of program is central to MSC impartiality and credibility. MSC establishes
standards for sustainable fishing or seafood traceability, and fisheries and businesses can be certified if
they meet these standards. Under a third party certification program, however, MSC establishes the
standards but it does not conduct certification assessments or issue certificates. Instead, independently
accredited certifiers perform impartial assessments of fisheries and businesses using MSC standards. In
addition, as another level of impartiality, a third organization Accreditation Services International GmbH
(ASI) conducts the accreditation of independent certifiers to conduct MSC assessments.
In contrast, in second‐party certification an organization, product or service, meets standards
established by peers, such as an industry association. In first‐party certification, an organization,
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 179
product, or service establishes the standards and assesses itself against those standards. A third‐party
certification, conducted by impartial experts, therefore offers the highest level of quality assurance and
lack of bias.
Review process for MSC standards & certification requirements
MSC standards are officially reviewed every 5 years in an inclusive, transparent, and multi‐stakeholder
process that follows the MSC Standard Setting Procedure (http://www.msc.org/about‐
us/standards/review).
MSC certification requirements also are reviewed regularly by the MSC Technical Advisory Board
(TAB) to keep up with the most current scientific knowledge and industry practices
(http://www.msc.org/about‐us/standards/reviewing‐methodologies).
Success and Criticism
The reputation of the MSC continues to expand across the globe. According to 2010 research conducted
in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan, 23% of adults are aware of
the MSC ecolabel program (http://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/latest‐research‐shows‐leap‐in‐public‐
awareness‐of‐the‐msc‐ecolabel). This recognition is a significant increase from 9% in 2008.
In January 2012, however, eight major Alaska salmon processors, which constitute approximately 72% of
the Alaska salmon catch, withdrew from participation in the MSC certification program, effective
October 2012 (http://www.msc.org/newsroom/news/msc‐statement‐regarding‐alaska‐salmon). These
processors claim the process of MSC recertification every five years is cumbersome and expensive and
they wish to seek a broader marketing message. In addition, the processors assert the MSC certification
was an independent affirmation of an already established and invariable fact, namely that since
statehood, Alaska’s salmon fishery has always been sustainably managed
(http://pressroom.alaskaseafood.org/alaska‐salmon‐processors‐pull‐back‐from‐msc‐fao‐based‐
certification‐gets‐a‐boost/).
Some critics also claim that MSC certification has lost cache because of its increased prominence and
prevalence in the seafood industry. MSC also has been criticized for the certification of controversial
fisheries with questionable sustainability, such as Patagonian toothfish (Chilean Seabass) and Antarctic
krill.
Gulf of Maine Responsibly Harvested Program
The Gulf of Maine Responsibly Harvested branding program was developed by the Sustainable Seafood
Initiative within the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), an independent, non‐profit, marine
research and education institution. The program is designed to: (1) Reward traceable and responsibly
harvested seafood products through market differentiation; (2) Enable consumers to support products
that they can feel good about; (3) Motivate improvements to the sustainable harvest and traceability of
Gulf of Maine seafood; (4) Unify the region's seafood industry around a shared identity; and (5) Achieve
an economically and ecologically thriving and stable seafood industry
(http://www.gmri.org/mini/index.asp?ID=33&p=111).
In contrast to the Marine Stewardship Council, a third‐party certification program where one party
establishes the standards but another independent party conducts certification against the standard,
the Gulf of Maine Responsibly Harvested Program is a first‐party certification program where the same
part both establishes the standards and conducts certification. The Gulf of Maine Responsibly
Harvested Program describes itself as a verification program instead of a certification program.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 180
Standard for Responsibly Harvested Seafood
Overall the Gulf of Maine Responsibly Harvested brand signifies the following standards:
1. The seafood product was harvested or grown and processed in the Gulf of Maine region and
meets criteria regarding sustainability and traceability;
2. Supply chain participants have made a commitment to the continuous improvement to the Gulf
of Maine seafood industry;
3. A portion of the proceeds supports the Gulf of Maine Research Institute’s efforts to motivate
and reward improvements to the sustainable harvest of seafood.
The Gulf of Maine Responsibly Harvested brand has developed standards for both wild and farmed
species (http://www.gmri.org/upload/files/GMRH_Standard_with_Header[1].pdf). These standards
were developed through engagement with fisheries management authorities, the fishing industry, the
scientific community, environmental interest groups, fish processors, dealers, and retailers. In addition,
the standards were based on notable existing seafood branding standards and programs, including the
FAO guidelines and MSC standards discussed in the above section.
Standard for Wild Seafood
For wild seafood to qualify for participation in the program, the seafood must have been harvested at a
level that enables utilization while maintaining its availability for present and future generations. This
includes the following:
Fisheries are managed by competent authorities and have management plans in place that
incorporate a science‐based approach to ensure sustainability.
If stock sizes are below management target levels, whether due to natural or man‐made
causes, management plans are established that enable rebuilding within a specified
timeframe.
Sufficient data exists to determine harvest levels.
Monitoring and compliance measures are in place to ensure acceptable harvest levels.
Enforcement exists to ensure that harvesters follow regulations, and to prevent illegal
practices and unreported harvest.
Standard for Farmed Seafood
For farmed seafood to qualify for participation in the program, production must comply with all
state and federal regulations, including the following:
Indigenous marine life and its environment are not threatened.
Discharge of drugs and pesticides is prevented.
Discharges of excess feed are minimized.
Numbers and weights of animals, amounts of feed, and frequency of cleaning, inspections,
maintenance, and repairs are recorded and available.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 181
In addition to the seafood product meeting the criteria outlined above, participants in this
cooperative branding program must demonstrate the following:
The seafood product meets all relevant government regulations regarding its production.
The seafood product is traceable from the management area or farm in which it was
harvested to the point of sale.
The seafood product was harvested or grown, and processed within the region, which is
defined above.
There is no automatic assessment of specific wild or farmed seafood. Instead GMRI will assess fisheries
and farms on an ongoing basis based on available time and resources. A seafood supply chain partner
seeking GMRI certification must submit an application that includes a description of the seafood
product, proof of traceability, and an outline of how the applicant will contribute to seafood
sustainability in the coming year. GMRI does recognize other existing seafood branding efforts,
however, and those fisheries and other seafood businesses that are certified under the Marine
Stewardship Council, Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Aquaculture Certification Council, or the Maine
Aquaculture Association will be considered by GMRI to satisfy the sustainability and traceability
requirements of the GMRI brand.
But, there are automatic qualifiers—MSC and others.
Participant annual review and traceability audit
A supply chain partner who seeks to maintain GMRI certification must submit to an annual review and
traceability audit.
Review process for Gulf of Maine Responsibly Harvested Standards
GMRI will conduct an annual standards review. GMRI will consult with the fishing community, including
management authorities, industry, scientists, consumers and environmental groups, in this review.
After two years of implementation, GMRI will engage a third party to conduct a critical review.
Current Status
As of February 2012, the Gulf of Maine Responsibly Harvested Program has verified the following seven
species: Haddock, Northern Shrimp (US), American Lobster, Atlantic Cod (US), Atlantic Sea Scallops (US),
Atlantic Pollock, and Whiting (Silver Hake) (US).
Maine
Port Clyde Fresh Catch
In an effort to preserve their fishing heritage, small community, and fishing resources, the fishermen
based in the small village of Port Clyde, Maine developed the Port Clyde Fresh Catch™ brand
(www.portclydefreshcatch.com). Under the brand, wild seafood is caught locally in the Gulf of Maine
and harvested using environmentally conscious fishing methods. The brand guarantees 100% supply‐
chain traceability that begins at harvest, and continues through packaging at the Port Clyde‐based,
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HAACP)‐certified processing facility.
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 182
Port Clyde’s fleet consists of approximately one dozen groundfishing vessels that fish from Portland to
the Canadian border. Catch includes shrimp and groundfish, including haddock, flounder, cod, pollock,
and hake. Catch is sold through wholesale and their local Community Supported Fishery.
Port Clyde developed the first Community Supported Fishery (CSF) in the nation. Community Supported
Fisheries are analogous to the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) model. CSF customers pre‐
purchase a “share” or specific quantity of seasonal catch. Various share sizes are available to suit
customer needs. These seafood shares are delivered weekly, biweekly or monthly, depending on the
program, to a designated delivery located during a specific time slot. Through the CSF the customer
receives exceptionally fresh, high‐quality, local seafood at a competitive price, and can directly support
local fishermen and the community. In return the fishermen receive crucial pre‐season capital to
finance their fishing efforts, increased profit by selling direct to consumers, and a guaranteed market for
their variety of seasonal catch. Many fishing communities across the country have followed Port Clyde’s
example and established their own local branding and associated CSF.
Massachusetts
Cape Ann Fresh Catch
The Gloucester Fisherman’s Wives Association followed the example of Port Clyde and established the
Cape Ann Fresh Catch (CAFC) Community Supported Fishery (CSF) in 2008, with initial delivery in June
2009 (http://www.capeannfreshcatch.org/index.html). CAFC has established a CSF based on sustainably
caught local seafood from the Gulf of Maine, but does not publicly advertise a trademarked brand
name.
CAFC offers weekly and biweekly shares of whole fish, fillets, and alternating whole/fillet available five
days per week, at a total of 16 pick‐up locations. CSF catch varies according to season but is comprised
primarily of groundfish, such as cod, hake, haddock, pollock, whiting, and flatfishes, such as yellowtail
flounder and grey sole.
Seafood Marketing Commission
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has established a Seafood Marketing Commission, which held its
first official meeting on January 31, 2012. The Commission is comprised of lawmakers, state officials,
restaurant owners, and commercial fishermen. The goal of the Commission is “to brand Massachusetts
seafood—the way Maine does with lobster and Alaska promotes salmon—as a healthy, sustainable food
that supports the local economy” (Abelson, 2012). The Commission is investigating current seafood
branding programs in other states and pursuing funding to launch a Massachusetts branding program.
New Hampshire
NH Fresh & Local Seafood
The NH Fresh & Local Seafood brand originated from collaboration between New Hampshire Sea Grant,
the City of Portsmouth, and local commercial fishermen
(http://extension.unh.edu/Marine/NHSeafood.htm). The brand signifies seafood that is sustainably
caught and processed in New Hampshire. NH Fresh & Local Seafood Branding Standards are available at
http://extension.unh.edu/marine/Docs/NHS‐standards‐v1‐11.pdf. The program currently has 12 local
restaurant partners, 10 retail partners, and 4 wholesale partners.
New Jersey
Jersey Seafood
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 183
The Jersey Seafood brand and logo (http://www.jerseyseafood.nj.gov/) were established by state
statute in 2008 (http://www.jerseyseafood.nj.gov/Seafoodreg.pdf) under the New Jersey Department of
Agriculture. The program is modeled after the state’s Jersey Fresh branding program for agricultural
produce.
Aquatic farmers, commercial seafood harvesters, and packer/processors of New Jersey seafood may
apply for a license from the New Jersey Department of Agriculture to market their products using the
Jersey Seafood logo.
North Carolina
Several local fishing communities in North Carolina have established local seafood branding programs,
including the following:
Outer Banks Catch (http://www.outerbankscatch.com)
Carteret Catch (http://carteretcatch.org/)
Brunswick Catch (http://www.brunswickcatch.com)
Ocracoke Fresh (http://www.ocracokeseafood.com)
All of these seafood recognition programs are local initiatives to sustain the livelihood and heritage of
the local fishing industry, and to promote the benefits of eating and buying local seafood. None of these
programs are initiated by state statute; however, they are often a product of collaboration between
local fishing industry associations, North Carolina Sea Grant, and other interested organizations. In all
programs, the brand signifies seafood caught by the local county or island fishermen.
Alaska
Alaska Seafood
The Alaska Seafood branding and marketing program is a professional, extensive and comprehensive
program managed by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Initiative (ASMI) (http://www.alaskaseafood.org).
ASMI is a public‐private partnership between the State of Alaska and the Alaska seafood industry. The
mission of ASMI is to increase the economic value of the Alaska seafood resource through the following
measures:
Increasing the positive awareness of the Alaska Seafood brand,
Collaborative marketing programs that align ASMI and industry marketing efforts for maximum
impact within the food industry,
Long‐term proactive marketing planning,
Quality assurance, technical industry analysis, education, advocacy and research, and
Prudent, efficient fiscal management.
ASMI also oversees Alaska Seafood certification under sustainability standards
(http://sustainability.alaskaseafood.org/certification) and chain of custody standards
(http://sustainability.alaskaseafood.org/chain‐of‐custody). These certifications assure customers that
only sustainable seafood from a certified Alaska fishery will carry the Alaska Seafood brand label.
Louisiana
Louisiana Wild Seafood Certification Program
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 184
Funding for this program was provided by British Petroleum (BP) following the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. BP awarded $48 million to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries. This award includes $18 million for seafood safety testing and $30 million for an
extensive marketing and advertising campaign. The funds for each program will be paid out over a
three‐year period (http://www.louisianaseafoodnews.com/2011/11/23/where‐and‐when‐the‐money‐
flows‐%E2%80%93‐applying‐bp‐dollars‐for‐louisiana‐seafood‐industry‐restoration/).
The Louisiana Wild Seafood Certification Program (LWSCP) was established by state statute as a
collaborative effort among state agencies: “The secretary of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is
authorized to establish a quality certification program for Louisiana wild fish [as defined by statute]…and
for Louisiana wild seafood products, including wild‐caught shrimp, which are taken, harvested, or landed
in Louisiana… in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals, Louisiana State University, and any other state or federal agency
deemed appropriate.” (http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=727850).
An overview of the program can be found at:
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/document/6584‐
LA%20Wild%20Seafood%20Certification%20Program%20Overview/La_Certification_Program_O
verview_4‐23‐10.pdf
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/shrimp_task_force/34822‐
Shrimp%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20Thursday,%20November%2029,%202011/lwscp_‐
_rene_‐_stf.pdf
The program is expected to launch in spring 2012.
References:
Abelson, Jenn. “State officials say they want to find ways to better market local fish.” Boston Globe 31
January 2012. Website: http://www.boston.com/Boston/businessupdates/2012/01/state‐officials‐say‐
they‐want‐find‐ways‐better‐market‐local fish/gDt8EuVXQLfioonCrPvaHJ/index.html
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 185
APPENDIX I: MEMO OF HARVESTING
CRITERIA
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 186
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 187
Shellfish Management Plan, October 2012 Page 188