RE-CLAM-ATION OF THE
BLUEPOINTS BOTTOMLANDS:
THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF A LARGE SCALE
EFFORT TO RESTORE SUSTAINABLE HARD CLAM
POPULATIONS TO GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY
Carl LoBue, Chris Clapp - TNC
and Mike Doall – SUNY Stony Brook
TNC’s interests in shellfish are based on
ecosystem services and their historic
dominance at our sites
No clams
2 clams
4 clams
8 clams
16 clams
Hard clams and bay scallops in Peconics since 2001
Hard clams in Great South Bay since 2004
In 1970s, there were enough hard clams
in Great South Bay to filter the entire
volume of the bay in ~2.5 days, and over
50% of US clams came from GSB
Great South Bay clam harvesting circa 1970
Today harvest is down by over 98% and
it takes clams ~36 days to filter the bay
Annual Hard Clam Harvest from Great South Bay
Brown tide 1985
Data from NYS DEC
700,000
Brookhaven
600,000
500,000
Babylon
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Year
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
0
1970
# of Bushels
Other shellfish
have not
replaced clams
Islip
Apparent shift in
the composition
of dominant
algal species
Much of New York’s bay bottom was
deeded prior to statehood
These 13,000 acres in central GSB, have been in private
ownership for over 300 years
•The lands were used for
private shellfishing and
aquaculture, including
mechanical harvest (since
1912 by the Bluepoints Co.)
•Bluepoints Co. divested
from GSB in 2003
•In 2004 TNC completed
purchase of all Bluepoints
Co. submerged land in NY
Large Scale
Shellfish Surveys
Year
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
Abundance Index .
Eastern Great South Bay, Hard Clam
Abundance Indicies
9
8
Seed
7
> Legal size
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Results of 2004 survey show
system is “recruitment limited”
TNC average 0.18 clams / m2, 0.04 cherrystone-chowder / m2
At 0.75-1.25 C/ m2 recruitment = 0
74% TNC sites had
no clams
Annual Hard Clam Harvest from Great South Bay
Data from NYS DEC
700,000
Brookhaven
600,000
Islip
Babylon
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Year
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
0
1970
# of Bushels
500,000
TNC established the Bluepoints Bottomlands
Council, consisting or Federal, State, County
and Town resource managers, academic
scientists, baymen, marine extension and
aquaculture experts, community stakeholders
Objective: Reestablish the hard
clam population in GSB to an
average density of 6 clams/m2
by 2020 for the purpose of
ecosystem health/enhancement
and sustainable harvest
Eight Broad Strategies
1. Manually rebuild spawning potential
2. Passively rebuild population by protecting natural
clam sets
3. Improve post-release survival of hatchery reared
clams
4. Maximize survival through ecosystem-based
approaches to managing predation
5. Increase understanding of temporal changes in the
composition and concentration of nutrients in the
GSB, local and system-wide ecological effects from
changes, and rank major nutrient sources
6. If deemed necessary, mitigate thru SSER
7. Assure that harvest management and enforcement
are consistent with rebuilding and sustainability
8. Foster better community stewardship
Restoration and Monitoring
• Approximately 1.25M adult clams
stocked in over 20 areas on TNC
lands in GSB since 2004
• Clams monitored for survival and
spawning
• Water monitored for larval
abundance
• Large scale population Surveys
done in 2004 and 2006
(Brookhaven and TNC
cooperatively)
• Water temp, water clarity, + YSI in
2004
TNC Spawner Sanctuary Network
BR 2
BR 1
Y
Size, Density, Sources
First few sites were several acres, now the sizes of
the sanctuaries are between 0.5 and 1 acre each
Stocking density varies, but is typically between
10 – 20 clams / m2 – higher when clams are smaller
To date clams have come from Greenwich Cove CT
in spring and late fall, north shore bays in summer
North shore clams are
generally smaller in size
Survival Assessments
•The first season’s stocking had 66% survival (5 months).
•Modifications to handling resulted in improvements in
initial (3-8 month) survival rates (typically above 90%)
•Although at some sites we see high predation rates by
whelks, accounting for over 90% of the observed mortality
•Knobbed whelk far outnumber
channel whelk in SCUBA samples
•Smaller clams from the north
shore have higher mortality rates
than large clams from
Greenwich Cove
Larval Analyses
• In 2004 – larval sampling was done in both GSB and PE
– (Analyses by Dr. D. Padilla and L. Perino)
• Nine Larval sampling stations in GSB, sampled weekly
May-October
• Visual ID
live, preserved
• Molecular
• A modified
sampling design
continued in 2005
Results from visual and molecular
identification and enumeration of
clam larvae •Visual identification of live larvae is
accurate but its not possible to
enumerate them
•Visual identification of preserved
samples results in too many false
positives to be useful (Perino 2006)
•Molecular identification is accurate but
labor intensive and expensive
•2005 samples are in storage
•First appearance and duration of live
larvae in samples is consistent with CI
& Gonad ripeness indices
Spawning Evaluation
Samples of 20 clams are collected weekly or
bi-weekly for Condition and Gonad ripeness
evaluation to see if, when, and how well the
clams are spawning.
Sampling is designed to
evaluate;
1) Temporal (within and
among years) variability
2) Spatial (within and
among bays) variability, 3)
Differences among two
source locations (GC, CT
and OB, NY)
Laboratory Analyses
as of Sept. 2006
• Condition Index,
Gonad Ripeness
Index, Sex, and Size
calculated for over
4,800 individual
clams to date.
• Lab work
preformed by M.
Doall at SUNY’s
Functional Ecology
Laboratory
Source
GSB
Replants
GSB
Natives
GC Natives
OB Natives
Peconic
Replants
# Clams # Sites
2,658
8
156
1
63
195
1675
1
1
2
Example of seasonal trends in
Gonad Ripeness Index
Rankings of gonad ripeness over time (PB)
100%
80%
70%
40%
0
1
2
3
30%
4
60%
50%
20%
10%
Week
Sep 8
Aug 25
Aug 11
Jul 30
Jul 15
Jun 30
Jun 16
Jun 2
May 17
0%
May 2
Percent Gonad Rank .
90%
6
Date
Oct-06
Aug-06
Jun-06
Apr-06
Feb-06
Dec-05
Oct-05
Aug-05
Jun-05
Apr-05
10
Feb-05
Dec-04
Oct-04
Aug-04
Jun-04
Apr-04
Condition Index
Inter-annual Variability in Spawning Magnitude
GSB Station A
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
Interannual Seasonal Variability in Spawning Times
GSB Station A
10
Legend
Y-Mean
2004
Y-Mean
2005
Y-Mean
2006
Condition Index
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Date
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Spring-Summer bottom water temperature in GSB
31
2004
29
Temp. (C)
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
5/23
6/6
6/20
7/4
7/18
Date
8/1
8/15
8/29
Spring-Summer bottom water temperature in GSB
31
29
2004
2005
Temp. (C)
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
5/23
6/6
6/20
7/4
7/18
Date
8/1
8/15
8/29
Spring-Summer bottom water temperature in GSB
31
2004
29
2005
Temp. (C)
27
2006
25
23
21
19
17
15
5/23
6/6
6/20
7/4
7/18
Date
8/1
8/15
8/29
Inter-annual Variability / Spatial Variability within GSB
GSB Station A vs. Station J
10
Legend
Station A
Y-Mean
Station J
Y-Mean
Condition Index
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
Date
Sep-06
Jul-06
May-06
Mar-06
Jan-06
Nov-05
Sep-05
Jul-05
May-05
Mar-05
Jan-05
6
Nov-04
6.5
Temporal and Spatial Variability Among Estuaries
Great South Bay vs. Peconic Estuary
10
Legend
Y-Mean
GSB - Site A
Y-Mean
PB - Coecles
Condition Index
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
Date
Oct-06
Aug-06
Jun-06
Apr-06
Feb-06
Dec-05
Oct-05
Aug-05
Jun-05
Apr-05
Feb-05
Dec-04
Oct-04
Aug-04
Jun-04
5.5
Apr-04
6
Continuous chlorophyll readings from GSB
and PB clam restoration sites, 2004
60
GSB
PB
50
Chl (ug/l)
40
30
20
10
0
6/2/2004 6/22/2004 7/12/2004 8/1/2004 8/21/2004 9/10/2004
Date
Conclusions from Spawning Evaluation:
Temporal variation
1. There is large inter-annual variability in clam condition and
spawning, reflecting variability in environmental factors.
2. Environmental conditions in Fall appear to have a major
influence on condition and spawning the following year.
3. Over the past 3 years, 2006 was the best year for clam
conditioning, this was correlated with good clam growth
throughout the bay.
4. 2006 was the worst year in Coecles harbor (PB), may be
associated with a red dinoflagelate bloom in the Fall of 2005
(Gobler, in press)
Conclusions from Spawning Evaluation:
Spatial variation
1. Similar levels of condition and spawning patterns were
observed at 8 sites across CGSB in 2006. (Site J was the
poorest)
2.
Largest differences were observed between systems
(i.e. Great South Bay vs. Peconic Estuary vs. Long
Island Sound)
3. Site differences can vary between years.
Overall observations from this large-scale
shellfish restoration project
•
•
•
•
•
Involving many partners is time consuming, but
essential for sustaining momentum and support
Try to anticipate and address all the major threats
impacting the species ecological requirements
Monitoring is expensive yet critical for evaluating
success and being adaptive to unforeseen
circumstances (monitor at scale)
By incorporating a BACI project design you can
interest researchers and pool research and
restoration $
Long-term success requires preventing past threats
from re-occurring. (Could require a philosophical,
political, and/or environmental shift)
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Suffolk County
NOAA CRP
NYS DOS
NYS DEC
Brookhaven Town
Greenwich Shellfish
Commission
Brookhaven Baymen’s
Association
Islip, Babylon, Smithtown
Townships
FINS
SSER
•Environmental Defense
•SUNY Stony Brook
•Long Island Maritime Museum
•West Sayville Boat Basin
•CCE
•A long list of private
foundations and individuals who
have contributed to this project
•A dedicated and growing core of
Bluepoints volunteers