Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHashamomuck Pond Stormwater Remediation Project HASHAMOMUCK POND STORMWATER REMEDIATION PROJECT PROJECT SPONSOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK CONTACT PERSON MR. TOM WICKHAM, SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 MAIN RD. SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 516-765-1892 PROJECT DURATION: 12 MONTHS FROM DATE OF COMPLETE CONTRACT FUNDING REQUESTED: $39,000 MATCH TO BE PROVIDED: 539,500 PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS USDA - NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE RIVERHEAD COUNTY CENTER 300 CENTER DRIVE - ROOM E - 16 RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901-3398 CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION/ SUFFOLK COUNTY MARINE PROGRAM 39 SOUND AVE. RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 II. PROJECT SUMMARY This project would implement and monitor the effectiveness of stormwater remediation efforts at Hashamomuck Pond, a 170 acre tributary of the Peconic Bay Estuary in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. This Pond is listed on the NYSDEC Priority Water Problem List. Urban runoff has been identified as the primary cause of the impairment to its potential as a shellfishing area. The high coliform bacteria counts following rainfall events have resulted in year round closure of the Pond to shellfishing with occasional winter openings during periods of low rainfall. An extensive field sampling (see appendix 1) of the distribution and abundance of hard clams in the Pond revealed $800,000 worth of standing stock($3.2 million in regional economic value) that under existing conditions can only be harvested on a few days during the winter. For many years, baymen and Town officials have sought to mitigate the effects of runoff to the Pond. In order to efficiently expend scarce funds presently available for stormwater remediation projects, significant field observations and water quality sampling has been completed (see appendix 2). This sampling has been conducted by the NYSDEC Bureau of Shellfisheries as well as by citizen volunteers under the sponsorship of the Town Board of Trustees. A review of this sampling reveals that the primary sources of coliform contamination of the Pond by runoff lies in the area of the Pond called Long Creek, and occurs after rainfall events. Field evaluations by Town officials, USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) conservationists and specialists from Cornell Cooperative Extension(CCE) have identified three major areas of stormwater runoff to this area of the Pond. In cooperation with the Town Engineer, these personnel have developed conceptual structural designs to mitigate runoff at these locations. These designs include installation of drainage rings, construction of a flash board riser to impound and infiltrate water, and construction of a stone filled infiltration basin with a water quality inlet as described in the NYSDEC manual on reducing the impacts of stormwater runoff. Initial TR55 drainage estimates of peak flow and flow volume made by USDA-NRCS indicate that sufficient land area exists at each location to install these structures. This project would design, construct and monitor the effectiveness of these installations. Monitoring would be accomplished by continuation of ongoing water sampling by NYSDEC personnel and volunteers. - A second facet of this project would involve production of an educational brochure and site visits. These would be produced by Cornell Cooperative Extension/ Suffolk County's Marine Program and would be coordinated with activities sponsored by the Peconic Estuary Program. In this way other municipalities can learn and adopt these techniques. This project conforms to the goal and objective of this implementation grants program by protecting and improving the quality of surface water in Hashamomuck Pond by reducing the impact of non-point source pollution through recharge of stormwater runoff. By recharging this runoff, deleterious pollutants such as bacteria, sediments. metals, nutrients and oils and greases will be removed and degraded in the soil thus allowing clean water to move through groundwater to the Pond. The benefits of this project are substantial in terms of jobs for baymen and economic activity in the Town. Overall Goal of the Project: The overall goal of the project is to design, construct and monitor a stormwater runoff mitigation system that will result in water quality improvement and opening of shellfishing grounds in Hashamomuck Pond. III. OBJECTIVES AND TASKS Objective 1. Complete watershed analysis for the three sites. Total time 3 months. Task a. Complete field surveys of the watersheds to include quantification of drainage basin size and characteristics such as impervious surface area, ground contours, soil types, ground surface types and other field data required to compute detailed flow rate and volume for storm events at each of the three locations. Time required: 2 months. Personnel involved: USDA-NRCS Conservationists and CCE specialists. Task b. Complete computer estimates (TR55) of stormwater runoff flow rate and volume for various storm events. Time required: 1 month. Personnel involved: USDA-NRCS Conservationists. Objective 2. Design, Engineer and obtain Permits for each stormwater mitigation structure. Time required: 5 months. Task a. Design and Engineer structures. 2 months. Personnel involved: Town of Southold employees and USDA-NRCS Conservationists. Task b. Obtain permits for each structure. Time required: 3 months. Personnel involved: Town of Southold employees. Objective 3. Construct stormwater mitigation structures. Time required: 2 months. Task a. Order all materials, excavate and install structures. Time required: 2 months. Personnel involved: Town of Southold employees. Objective 4. Conduct educational Program. Time required: 4 months. Task a. Complete brochure including design and layout; review of draft and completion of printing. Time required: 3 months. Personnel involved: CCE specialist. Task b. Complete visits to sites. Time required: 1 month. Personnel involved: CCE specialist and Town officials. Objective 5. Complete progress and final reports for the project. Time required: 2 months. Task a. Complete progress reports. Time required: 1 month. Personnel involved: Town of Southold employees. Task b. Complete Final Report. Time required 1 month. Personnel involved: Town of Southold employees. IV. BUDGET 1-BUDGET BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY I ` Expenditure Category Funds Requested I Local Match Total 1 Salaries and Wages II $16,000 L $3,000 L 19,000 , Fringe 3enerits 11 0 � 1 .000 it 1 ,000 'i Consultant Services it 0 it 0 0 il Travel 1I 500 1 500 I 1 es i .Advertising and Promotion 111 0 500 �0. 11 tcuioment I 0 II 0 0 I Supplies and Materials i 10,000 I 15 ,000 25 .000 11 I, 1 Communication S00 I 500 I 1 .ono Indirect and Overhead i 0 ! 000 I , Is - 3s i I li Training 0 ! 0 � Other (Specify) iL i Education brochure CornL 4,000 1 2,000 6.000 Engineering i1 8,000 4,000 12,000 1 Monitoring 0 1+ 6,000 i 1 6.000 I Land. Easements 0 3,000 3,000 i TOTAL 39,000 , 39 ,500 78 . 5n0 1 2-BUDGET BY OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE RINDS REQUESTED LOCAL MATCH TOTAL OBJECTIVE 1 4,000 2,000 6,000 OBJECTIVE 2 8,000 5,000 13,000 OBJECTIVE 3 22,000 21,500 43,500 OBJECTIVE 4 4,000 3,000 7,000 OBJECTIVE 5 1,000 8,000 9,000 TOTAL 39,000 39,500 78,500 • V. Key Personnel: Town of Southold: Office of the Supervisor Tom Wickham - Town Supervisor. Supervisor Wickham is the chief administrative officer of the Town and will provide overall administrative leadership for the project. Highway Department Ray Jacobs - Superintendent of Highways. Mr Jacobs will be responsible for all construction activities. He has over 30 years experience in highway construction and department supervision. James Richter - Town Engineer. Mr. Richter is the Town Engineer and as such is responsible for design of stormwater structures. Town of Southold Board of Trustees Albert Krupski; Peter Wenczel; John Holzapfel - Elected Trustees of the Town of Southold. These individuals have been involved in project planning and design for several years. They have conducted monitoring surveys of runoff and are responsible for all underwater and wetland areas within the Town. They will participate in conduct of the project, obtaining drainage easements and completion of progress and final reports. James McMahon - Director of Community Development. Mr. McMahon is the chief grants officer of the Town of Southold and will participate in obtaining permits and completion of progress and final reports. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. VII TIMELINE Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 Task la X X 1b X 2a X X 21) — — X X X 3a X X 4a — X X X X 4b X 5a X X X 5b X VIII. Source of Local Match Local match will consist of the following components: 1- Contributed time for personnel from: Southold Town; USDA-NRCS;CCE;NYSDEC Bureau of Shellfisheries. 2- Cash from Southold Town Budget. 3- Supplies and Materials from Southold Town. eili Z. APPENDIX 1 A _a J., ii 4. 1 I l a 3 N 1 A ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF HARD CLAMS IN GOOSE CREEK AND ASHAMOMUCK CREEK , NEW YORK REPORT TO THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY : CHRISTOPHER F. SMITH JAMES MCMAHON , DIRECTOR COOPERATIVE EXTENSION AGENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUFFOLK COUNTY MARINE PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 39 SOUND AVENUE 53095 MAIN ROAD RIVERHEAD , NEW YORK 11901 PO BOX 728 ( 516 ) 727-3910 SOUTHOLD , NEW YORK 11971 (516) 765-1892 The preparation of this report was financially aided through a Federal grant (NA-84-EA-D-00062 ) to the County of Suffolk from the National Marine Fishery Service (Northeast Region , Gloucester , Mass . ) , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , U. S . Dept. of Commerce under the Saltonstall- Kennedy Act of 1954 ( 15 U. S .C . 7130c-2-713c-3) . This report was prepared for the County of Suffolk . 1r • I . Executive Summary A. 1 . ) This project was undertaken to quantify the contribution of hard clam spawner sanctuaries to the shellfish population in Goose Creek and Ashamomuck Creek, Town of Southold , New York. . 2 . ) The approach taken was to survey both creeks ' shellfish 'populations . B . The project was successfully completed . The major findings were that the spawner sanctuary concept as presently in place is not making a contribution to the creeks ' shellfisheries . C . The fishing industry benefits by learning about spawner sanctuaries and being able to make changes in a management strategy to avoid needless waste of time and resources . Also , location of concentrations of clams and their respective sizes help fishermen in their harvesting efforts . II. Introduction The hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria industry has historically been a significant contributor to the economy of Southold Town . As with all natural resources , the populations of clams within town—controlled creeks have experienced radical fluctuations in abundance . In an effort to dampen the degree of these fluctuations , the Town has undertaken projects to create spawner sanctuaries intended to enhance spawning production and resulting subsequent levels of harvest . The goal of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the spawner sanctuary concept as presently created in Ashamomuck Creek and Goose Creek , Town of Southold , New York . Figure 1 shows the general location of the two creeks . III . Purpose The Spawner Sanctuary Concept The concept of a spawner sanctuary is simple . By planting spawning size clams in areas with high clam survival , it is hoped that their offspring will survive to legally harvestable size and thereby contribute to future spawning and shoreside economic activity . The spawner sanctuary concept is presently under scrutiny by various organizations in regard to their effectiveness . Many assumptions are made prior to undertaking creation of a sanctuary . The concept and its assumptions are discussed in other reports (Kassner and Malouf , 1982 ; MSRC , 1985) . This report focuses on results of surveys of the shellfish populations of two creeks (Ashamomuck and Goose) . The objectives of the surveys were : 1 . To quantify survival of planted clams within the spawner sanctuaries ; and , -1- 1\ 1 N FIGURE I. NEW YORK'S MARINE DISTRICT a1 crib Bronx GOOSE PORT ✓ETTERSON CREEK —11,--14 HARBOR • ASHAMOMUCK CREEK 1 Queens MATT/TUC APBrooklyn r-') 41144,11P, P / Nassau /NLET J Co Suffolk - 414.. GAROINERS Co. , BAY l Pt-CONIC MAYTA/ K i "46... ��GFEAT S. BAY BAYS I PO/NT • ) • S/+1 NN£COCK • 44 /NLET U 5 I0 L 1 1 STATUTE MILES 0 5 I1 KILOMETERS • 0 5 IO 1 1 1 NAUTICAL MILES ' r. .r.. . - 2. To quantify their contribution to the shellfish . • populations of each creek. The Sanctuaries Figures 2 and 3 show the location of the spawner sanctuaries in Ashamomuck Creek and Goose Creek. These sanctuaries were created by stocking each area with Mercenaria mercenaria notata clams. These clams are easily separated from usual clams in that the shells posses some degree of red checkering on its external surface. Shellfish culturists (Rraus , Relyea , personal communication) indicate that between 50 and 90% of notata offspring also possess this red external shell checkering . Clams used in these sanctuaries were obtained from the Aquacultural Research Corporation in Dennis , Massachusetts . Their biologist indicates that an average of 78% of their notata offspring show these marks . This project also assumed that offspring of spawner sanctuary clams would show such marks . The Goose Creek spawner sanctuary was established in November , 1982 with seed from the town ' s rafting program. Since that time , approximately 50 bushels (500 count) of clams have been placed there . The area of this sanctuary is about 7 ,500 sq . ft . (697 sq . m. ) The Ashamomuck Creek sanctuary was also created in November , 1982 with 18 , 000 notata clams . Its area is approximately 1600 sq. ft . ( 149 sq . m. ) . Also , in 1985 100 , 000 25mm (shell length) notata hard clams were purchased and broadcast planted throughout the two creeks . Creation of the sanctuaries was completed by bringing bushels of clams to the site and pouring them out of the bushel bags onto the bottom. IV . Approach Materials and Methods These surveys were conducted from a 14 ' Boston Whaler equipped with a 25 horsepower outboard motor . A small venturi dredge (Figure 4) was used to collect three samples from each station by excavating a 17 1/2" diameter circular area defined by a metal cylinder . This area was dredged to a depth of 14" . Station locations were determined using a small hand-held rangefinder . Figure 5 shows shell dimensions used in this project and a drawing of the notata trait. V. Findings Results and Discussion Ashamomuck Creek is a saline tidal creek of 167 acres . Extensive residential development has occurred around its shores and at least two major highway drains inflow to its waters . Recently , the creek was closed to shellfish harvesting because of high coliform bacteria counts . This winter , however , the creek has been open as a conditional clamming area. Depths in the creek range from shallow intertidal to 15 ' . Baymen and naturalists -3- L • J la _ • • ''--- ., "•w �1 0 -----,,...,..,- ._)') i.:2 0 IY6 �, : ./ )3 :?o. A. ... a�! r i9 So i ' • l a.2 a i9 . 1, �h11 I r .1 , • t ---••• a 6 r 4.... 1 I �3 ate' f►71�a.,"__ / ' •••!. , ;\ ,� • til ,......,,I Y . ;t� 3 . 1 1.C. , . S �� , as . :t9 X 3 .yI5 ;' 'F- 3 Z • '9,. j r to I �`� ...- .., SPAWNER SANCTUARY • rP ..+•--""..r rr 1 1ro..u.ti 4.;. • ,,r• •1 r • 1 ..A �` . •• ' ` 4, • l / .,t \1 - • I -o FIGURE 3 . DIAGRAM OF •GOOSE CREEK SHOWING STATION LOCATIONS AND LOCATION OF ua THE SPAWNER SANCTUARY. (D r� FIGURE 2.. DIAGRAM OF ASHAMOMUCK CREEK SHOWING STATION LOCATIONS AND LOCATION OF THE SPAWNER SANCTUARY. ; • • `I� • ':` �7 � •t. l , ` % s7 am •,-)....a:i." . e _ . . +.. . \\ 1.11.1 \-70i...dr, . 7� T• �� ;ti� ,� 11.1,. •1.1 C,I, +�•T� • //.?V,, FSI } 11 ` •d1 10.. .1. 1 .1 ' • W • of ° J. aq n6 ,a5 •> j . �` fir'. ': D •-••. s,..i. -.... \ • •i6 • Si.. <i4. - .o ' q 3 '. • - :•. ii I t.1..,Y1 . t i ., . . . , I •. 6 • k 0 9 3 �.. yY • • 1� • 33 • 6 5 ti, '�`... .:. . /.. _ 3•9f 35 • 11 r • 1, ;cal.,�'., •_ .� f . . 4� � ... ... •.. ... ... .... .... ...a.1 ' :.rYd: rye 11181 w1 111/ III 1.Y1 61,11n 3 �� _.11.1..1.•.• fj// • . *Y.3/4."O -'--'''''..<..\\H " -, . .i... ..1 1.1 IW.I.N"1.1...111 , .I "-7.•::.::••0.: ... k ..#;\I:.'A• 11►__ ..1.. _.n = I �" SPAWNER SANCTUARY' C!. -l- I • • t- ;•,�1,�. J�� 1 ' y� 1 .x.11 .A )"\ . , .�_ ":: / 1..1.1 ••.., , ,.,, • •• • MATERIALS: PUMP- HOMELITE AP220 2" intake 2" •output 140 gallons per minute ENGINE- BRIGGS AND STRATTON 3 hp. HOSE- 1.5" firehose DREDGE- Constructed of 4" PVC pipe plumbed with a 1" venturi . BAG- 4mm mesh knotless nylon netting. FIGURE 4. DIAGRAM OF COLLECTING TECHNIQUE AND LIST OF MATERIAL DETAILS. -6- • • • .:..a jar. r �.. : • .:,/2.:4Plf.iNE f 1111.-Va •?-r14 i!Z:;;*; :L"/. w SHELL DIMENSIONS USED IN THIS PROJECT. L- LENGTH H- HEIGHT W- WIDTH ti NOTATA CLAM FIGURE 5 . HARD CLAM SHELL DIMENSIONS AND NOTATA TRAIT DIAGRAM. . • report this creek to be highly productive for shellfish. Tidal range in, this creek is 2-3 feet. Goose Creek is also a saline creek and comprises some 80 acres . Extensive residential development has also occurred on the shoreline. Baymen and naturalists report this creek to be historically a poor producer of shellfish . Depths in this creek range from shallow intertidal to 12 ' in the dredged channel . ,Tidal range in Goose Creek is 2-3 feet . One report (Kraus , 1971 ) reported hard clam presence at 15 stations in this creek. Tables 1 and 2 summarize results of shellfish surveys in Goose and Ashamomuck Creeks . The Goose Creek survey was conducted from 6/86 to 8/86 . Ashamomuck Creek was surveyed from 11/86 to 1/87 . Figures 6-13 show concentrations (,#/m2) of clams in the seed , littleneck, cherrystone , and chowder size categories for each creek. In Ashamomuck Creek only two notata clams were found outside the spawner sanctuary and in Goose Creek none were found . These were likely placed there by the town seeding program. An unknown number of notata clams were broadcast throughout the creek in hopes they would spawn. The sanctuary in Ashamomuck Creek has experienced 61 . 4 percent survival since 1982 . Once word circulated that these clams had been seeded, a certain amount of poaching likely occurred . This rate of survival isn ' t too bad , however , considering they have been in place for four years . Table 3 summarizes the quantity and value of the hard clam resources in each creek. From these calculations it can be seen that Ashamomuck Creek has an extensive population of hard clams . The fishery in this creek is potentially worth almost $800 , 000 in landed value or $3 . 3 million in regional economic value . For Goose Creek these values are much lower ; $130 , 405 in landed value and $547 , 701 in regional economic value . -8- TABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 1 2 SITE WAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG #/M2 R STATION # SAMPLE # CLAMS 0/M !/M ALENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 1 17.2 15.05 2.15 0 0 A 0 0 - 8 7 45.15 36 32 20 40 34 22 48 43 25 40 35 22 40 35 23 39 34 20 54 45 29 C 1 6.45 45 39 25 2 2.15 0 0 0 2.15 A 0 0 - 8 1 6.45 52 72 47 C 0 0 - 3 4.3 2.15 0 2.15 0 A 0 0 - 8 1 6.45 71 62 38 C 1 6.45 41 35 22 4 8.6 2.15 6.45 0 0 A 3 19.35 67 56 36 82 72 41 59 50 33 B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 52 44 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 6 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - TABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 2 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG 1/M2 STATION # SAMPLE # CLAMS 1/M2 q/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 ' A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 8 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 9 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 1 6.45 50 43 27 B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 10 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - I B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 11 4.3 2.15 2.15 0 0 A 1 6.45 48 43 26 B 1 6.45 40 35 23 C 0 0 - 12 4.3 2.15 2.15 ' 0 0 A 1 6.45 51 42 29 B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 34 30 20 13 2.15 2.15 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 -- C 1 6.45 43 31 21 14 A 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 - C 0 0 - FABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 3 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG #/M2 NATION fi SAMPLE N CLAMS N/M� #/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER , N r-. 15 4.3 0 0 2.15 2.15 A 0 0 - 8 0 0 - C 2 12.9 68 59 40 85 76 48 16 6.45 4.3 0 2.15 0 A 0 0 - B 2 12.9 37 32 22 78 63 40 C 1 6.45 21 19 10 17 8.6 4.3 4.3 0 0 A 1 6.45 42 39 23 B 0 0 - C 3 19.35 23 20 12 51 44 26 47 43 27 18 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 8 0 0 C 0 0 19 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 0 0 - 1 1 B 1 6.45 42 43 27 C 0 0 - 20 6.45 4.3 2.15 0 0 A 1 6.45 63 55 34 8 1 6.45 47 38 24 C 1 6.45 45 38 25 21 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - 8 0 0 - C 0 0 - ABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 4 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG N/M2 IATION N SAMPLE I CLAMS //M2 N/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER N 22 12.9 10.75 2.15 0 0 A 1 6.45 39 35 20 B 4 25.8 44 39 26 42 37 23 44 37 24 39 34 22 C 1 6.45 44 40 23 23 27.95 12.9 6.45 8.6 0 A 7 45.15 73 64 37 20'" 18 10 31 27 20 • 64 57 33 72 65 39 40 36 22 45 34 24 8 1 6.45 6 6 3 C 5 32.25 39 35 22 69 58 36 78 72 39 63 55 33 76 69 41 24 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 25 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 53 48 36 26 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - ABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 5 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS .*SITE AVG N/M2 rATION N SAMPLE N CLAMS N/M2 N/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER cn .-4 27 49.45 30.1 19.35 0 0 awner A 4 25.8 59 50 30 nctuary 46 40 25 11 Notata 47 40 25 lams) 48 41 25 B 2 12.9 44 38 23 38 30 19 C 17 109.65 51 43 28 50 41 27 61 53 30 52'' 43 27 44 39 22 39 35 20 • 38 32 20 43 38 23 48 41 25 42 36 23 39 33 21 57 43 26 26 23 14 41 36 23 42 36 22 48 43 25 43 37 25 28 10.75 6.45 2.15 2.15 0 Spawner A 0 0 - Sanctuary B 3 19.35 57 47 30 (all Notata 31 18 11 clams) 70 56 37 C 2 12.9 29 25 15 27 23 13 'ABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 6 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG ii/M2 4 NATION I SAMPLE A CLAMS #/M2 02 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 0' 29 23.65 0 8.6 8.6 6.45 A 2 12.9 50 47 28 83 68 42 B 4 25.8 65 53 36 66 58 35 81 69 40 86 75 46 C 5 32.25 57 47 27 78 67 42 72 63 39 85. 76 45 73 ' 66 40 30 4.3 2.15 2.15 • 0 0 A 1 6.45 26 23 14 B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 48 42 26 31 2.15 2.15 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - . C 1 6.45 7 6 3 32 6.45 2.15 2.15 2.15 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 3 19.35 57 47 30 31 18 11 70 56 37 33 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - ABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 7 , in SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG I/M2 TATION k SAMPLE N CLAMS K/M2 p/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 34 2.15 0 0 0 2.15 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 102 82 50 35 15.05 2.15 4.3 4.3 4.3 A 3 19.35 81 65 42 72 63 39 73 60 40 8 2 12.90 91 76 46 65 56 34 C 2 12.90 49 41 25 65 56 35 , 36 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 37 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 38 2.15 2.15 0 0 0 A 0 0 - 0 0 0 - C 1 6.45 38 31 20 39 A O 0 2.15 - 2.15 0 0 0 B 1 6.45 17 15 9 C 0 0 - TABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 8 1 to SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG #/M2 STATION # SAMPLE N CLAMS N/M2 N/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 40 4.3 4.3 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 1 6.45 13 12 8 C 1 6.45 25 22 13 41 8.6 4.3 2.15 2.15 0 A 0 0 - B 2 12.9 28 25 15 76 59 38 C 2 12.9 47 41 25 55' 48 29 • 42 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 43 0 0 0 0 0 . A 0 0 - 8 0 0 - C 0 0 - 44 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 45 4.3 2.15 2.15 0 0 A 1 6.45 40 35 21 B 1 6.45 44 39 26 C 0 0 - 46 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - FABLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 9 h. SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG ii/M2 .. NATION # SAMPLE N CLAMS I/M2 #/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 47 2.15 2.15 0 0 0 A 1 6.45 39 34 22 B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 48 8.6 2.15 4.3 2.15 0 A 1 6.45 57 47 30 B 2 12.90 71 57 38 56 47 28 C 1 6.45 31 18 11 49 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - ' C 0 0 - 50 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 51 0. 0 O. 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - - 52 2.15 0 0 2.15 0 A 1 6.45 57 47 27 B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 53 4.3 0 0 4.3 0 A 1 6.45 83 67 41 B 1 6.45 70 56 37 C 0 0 - ' I • BLE 1. DATA SUMMARY FOR GOOSE CREEK - Page 10 1 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS . *SITE AVG N/M2 'ATION R SAMPLE # CLAMS #/M2 #/M2 ALENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER I 03 54 4.3 0 4.3 0 O ; A 1 6.45 65 52 36 B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 56 48 28 55 0 0 0 0 . 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - ** - CREEK WIDE AVERAGE 5.0 2.3 1.6 0.7 0.3 CREEK WIDE AVERAGE ***3.9 1.6 1.3 0.7 0.3 GOOSE CREEK SPAWNER SANCTUARY Number of clams stocked since 1982 - 25,000 Area of Sanctuary 697M2 (7500 ft2) Density = 35.9 clams/M2 1986 Results: #/M2 Sample 4§75 Sample B 10.15 Average 30.1 Total N surviving to 1986:20,980 % Survival = 83% * CCa-teg—or Seed <25.4mm Littleneck 25.4 - 36.4 Cherrystone 36.5 - 41.2 Chowder >41.3 , ** Including Sanctuary ***Excluding Sanctuary 1. 1 TABLE 2. DAIA._$IJMMARY FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 1 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG /M2 0, ATION N SAMPLE N CLAMS N/I12 N/M2 ILENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER ... 1 o - 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 12 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 6.45 55 44 30 B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 3 8.6 2.15 6.45 0 0 A 3 19.35 43 36 24 53 41 26 70 55 36 B 1 6.45 58 49 34 C 0 0 - 4 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 1 6.45 59 50 34 B 0 0 - C 0 0 - !5 6.45 2.15 2.15 2.15 0 A 0 0 - B 2 12.9 49 40 39 22 20 13 C 1 6.45 51 44 28 6 15.05 10.75 4.3 0 0 A 2 12.9 41 37 26 34 25 14 B 3 19.35 42 34 21 45 36 22 63 55 32 C 2 12.9 43 36 22 17 17 12 TABLE 2. DATA_$j.J t1ARY FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 2 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG #/M2 0 TATION N SAMPLE I CLAMS N/M2 N/H2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTHI SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 7 10.75 2.15 4.30 2.15 2.15 A 2 12.9 80 60 37 n 50 42 27 B 0 0 - C 3 19.35 87 66 44 49 41 22 65 55 35 �; a„ '7./; 8 17.2 4.3 10.75 0 2.15 A 2 12.9 60 50 33 58; 47 31 8 0 0 - C 6 38.7 35 30 20 62 52 36 71 62 36 62 50 34 77 65 42 46 41 25 9 19.35 2.15 17.2 0 0 A 0 0 - B 6 38.7 73 59 38 42 34 21 50 40 27 74 58 40 52 42 28 73 59 39 C 3 19.35 62 47 32 59 47 32 53 44 28 10 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 47 40 27 TABLE 2. DATAAUMMARY FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 3 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG 11/M2FATION I SAMPLE N CLAMS A/M2 #/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER cm 1 1 j 11 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 12 15.05 8.6 6.45 0 0 A 4 25.8 27 24 15 19 17 11 27 24 15 58 52 30 B 1 6.45 42, 35 22 C 2 12.90 53 47 20 56 49 30 13 12.90 2.15 10.75 0 0 A 3 19.35 48 45 28 53 47 26 45 40 23 B 3 19.35 65 56 33 • 49 43 29 51 45 26 C 0 0 - . 14 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 0 0 - B 1 6.45 69 58 36 C 0 0- - 15 25.8 2.15 19.35 4.3 0 A 2 12.9 65 56 34 63 57 35 B 9 58.05 65 58 35 78 65 40 78 72 41 53 47 29 68 58 35 50 45 29 47 42 26 48 41 25 55 48 27 (Notata) C 1 6.45 65 58 34 TABLE 2. DATA_.SUMMARY FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 4 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG fl/M2 TATION S SAMPLE H CLAMS 1/M2 #/M2 /LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER N 16 17.2 4.3 12.9 0 0 c.' A 4 25.8 55 50 29 49 44 26 50 46 27 48 44 26 B 4 25.8 36 33 20 45 40 25 54 48 30 50 44 26 C 0 0 - 17 2.15 0 0 2.15 0 A 0 0 - • B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 65 57 38 18 34.4 17.2 17.2 0 0 A 7 45.15 69 61 35 39 33 20 36 30 19 62 54 32 54 47 27 49 43 25 38 75 21 B 3 19.35 56 50 29 64 60 34 50 43 27 C 6 38.7 61 55 33 55 49 27 43 35 23 40 36 21 27 24 14 39 35 22 4 TABLE 2. DAsA_UMMARY FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 5 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG N/M2 1 NATION II SAMPLE N CLAMS N/M2 N/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER N 19 15.05 8.6 4.3 2.15 0 A 4 25.8 10 9 5 60 49 29 1 68 56 34 12 10 6 8 3 19.35 46 41 25 36 31 20 28 68 42 20 32.25 10.75 21.5 0 0 A 4 25.8 50 45 29 1 65 57 35 48; 42 25 62 54 32 8 6 38.7 74 64 39 59 53 31 62 57 33 62 54 33 62 56 33 56 48 28 C 5 32.25 45 39 25 48 40 23 57 50 29 46 40 24 48 41 26 21 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - 8 0 0 - C 0 0 - 22 19.35 6.45 12.9 0 0 A 5 32.25 60 54 32 60 54 32 63 55 33 j 1 53 48 28 46 39 24 8 2 12.9 37 33 20 60 52 31 C 2 12.9 62 51 30 45 41 25 1 1 TABLE 2. DATA_SUMMARY FOR, ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 6 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG A/M2 1 STATION II SAMPLE IY CLAMS I/M2 A/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER `. 23 6.45 0 6.45 0 0 A 0 0 - B 1 6.45 53 46 28 C 2 12.9 58 51 31 56 48 30 24 4.3 4.30 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 1 6.45 42 37 22 C 1 6.45 42 37 22 25 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - 1 C 1 6.45 55 47 30 26 6.45 2.15 2.15 0 2.15 A 1 6.45 25 22 14 B 1 6.45 82 66 43 . C 1 6.45 62 54 32 27 0 0 0 0 0 1 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 28 0 • 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 29 19.35 6.45 10.75 2.15 0 A 1 6.45 75 66 39 B 4 25.8 14 13 7 66 55 34 51 44 28 58 51 30 C 4 25.8 50 46 26 29 26 16 62 56 34 46 38 23 TABLE 2. DA_JA_UMMA{Y FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 7 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG A/M2 , STATION I SAMPLE A CLAMS 1/M2 11/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER N 30 4.3 0 4.3 0 0 A 0 0 - B 1 6.45 54 47 29 C 1 6.45 ' 62 51 31 31 4.3 0 4.3 0 0 A 1 6.45 65 56 35 B 1 6.45 64 57 32 C 0 0 32 30.1 12.9 15.05 2.15 0 A 8 51.6 72: 63 31 49 44 27 44 38 24 40 35 21 58 51 31 40 36 23 30 27 16 60 53 30 . B 4 25.8 61 53 30 70 61 35 40 37 23 70 63 36 C 2 12.9 27 25 15 58 52 31 33 19.35 • 4.3 4.3 10.75 0 A 1 6.45 77 72 42 B 3 19.35 22 20 12 66 59 38 73 63 40 C 5 32.25 21 19 11 73 63 37 76 66 39 59 52 31 59 53 32 TABLE 2. DAJA._St1MNIARY FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 8 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG #/M2 N ;TATION I SAMPLE I CLAMS A/M2 1/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER ' 34 25.8 17.2 6.45 2.15 0 A 4 25.8 71 62 37 54 50 30 39 34 20 41 36 22 B 2 12.9 29 26 16 40 34 21 C 6 38.7 47 42 26 31 29 16 26 24 14 27 25 15 42 ' 37 23 54 48 30 35 32.25 12.9 19.35 0 0 A 4 25.8 51 45 26 46 40 24 51 43 27 32 28 18 B 2 12.9 41 36 23 30 28 17 C 9 58.05 45 40 26 48 42 27 53 47 30 51 46 29 51 47 30 36 31 19 55 49 31 62 54 32 44 39 24 36 12.9 4.3 8.6 0 0 A 1 6.45 57 49 29 B 2 12.9 31 29 21 32 28 17 C 3 19.35 55 49 30 61 51 28 51 43 25 TABLE 2. DAJA._5 IIIARY FOR . ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 9N. tNi iSITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG #/M2 2 TATION # SAMPLE # CLAMS #/M N/M2 LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 37 - 15.05 10.75 4.3 0 0 A 4 25.8 51 46 30 33 30 19 41 35 22 38 35 21 8 0 0 - C 3 19.35 36 32 20 61 54 33 23 21 13 38 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 39 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - B 0 0 - C 0 0 - 40 27.95 10.75 10.75 6.45 0 A 7 45.15 37 32 20 71 63 38 22 20 12 58 51 31 49 44 27 29 25 16 • 38 35 21 (Notata) B 1 6.45 41 36 22 C 5 32.25 68 61 36 80 21 41 75 68 38 68 61 35 62 54 33 1 b N 1 TABLE 2. DAJA._SUMMARY FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 10 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS - *SITE AVG U/M2 iTATION N SAMPLE N CLAMS $/M2 #/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 41 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - ' 8 0 0 . C 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 8 0 0 C 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 - 8 0 0 C 0 0 44 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 A 1 6.45 59-50-34 B 0 0 C 0 0 45 6.45 2.15 2.15 2.15 0 A 0 0 - 8 2 12.9 49-40-39 22-20-13 C 1 6.45 51-44-28 46 15.05 10.75 4.3 0 0 A 2 12.9 41-37-26 34-25-14 8 3 19.35 42-34-21 45-36-22 63-55-32 C 2 12.9 43-36-22 17-17-12 1 a N TABLE 2. DATA._SUMMARY FOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 11 . ' SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS - *SITE AVG a/M2 STATION 1 SAMPLE if CLAMS #,M2 A/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 47 10.75 2.15 6.45 0 2.15 A 2 12.9 60-37-30 • 50-42-27 B 0 0 - C 3 19.35 87-66-44 49-41-22 65-55-35 48 17.2 4.3 10.75• 0 2.15 A 2 12.9 60-50-33 58-47-31 B 0 0 C 6 38.7 35-30-20 71-62-36 77-65-42 46-41-25 62-50-34 62-52-36 49 19.35 2.15 10.75 6.45 0 A 0 0 - B 6 38.7 73-59-38 42-34-21 50-40-27 74-58-40 52-42-28 73-59-39 C 3 19.35 59-47-32 62-47-32 53-44-28 APPENDIX 2 t 3 I i 1 I 1 I I 1 1i1' _... __ T - SOU .+ , `'`' ♦. SU •.e w .rQ IStA -'� ND LAS • __•� • / _/ • • AIM, 11144 I ,. stillittiti`--..___, . ....,a 0.a•. ,_ •.-... ___ . .. • 1,\700 -� 7 n/ ab Q • \ ./ ' ' 7-'-.11400 • . 404...... 3j : . I • me sawn ill .4 • , '` —NT al ..� O ,•'' 11116. c? ,, 'T. 1 1~ yrbO `. INNE0.0 II 30 )01° •41.1•00 WI NO alall 4. 44 ii*.#5 . ,....,,, , + , \i. *,1. -..-.(.., t• Is, � ▪ y 4407 ..... Y 3 + u: • oe � I, ; ,,,,44. is , ,... ,,:: 4 ,. ,,,. 4 1,,, - -- _ 4. .4‘ -4"-.141,' ! j O 0 MR 00 SW Q401.: '11-6 �001011. w ' o�!� 10 T. sirsl 4 0001 •u•10 • tea 101 Z Q X433 i .�)1 •O' Ica11\ .r •iM 1 1 000 •.. .;10 "�'�O I 11 _NV II makisk.,_ ti. ;)„000-46, iiiv-ip 1 Ad till 161 614 144 • ' pig stak • _or . iftinvir.. ...- iiiii, ® ,. . . as * ill la r7:1:114i111 11110.10 , VI a • . +00 40.1 Ems► ^1 • 10 tea. ., P6-IS-110107 —10 1 ) to • NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT or ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION lbw/ DIVISION OF MARINE AND COASTAL RESOURCES BAY SURVEY AREA NUMBER 3DAY DATE COLLECTED BY(Nome,nol Inlllale) 11zntiIwlc-wlv kk — 5wA Z► 7- 18 - 91-/ 3,-v<•.Q.- Lo v kA STA. BTL. LAB SAL 'C TC FC NO. NO. NO. EST. TIDE '100 W A MPN1100m1 MPNIIOOmI REMARKS f / 1 9 8.3 � q: '7 E 1 tq h �rt II('o 2( ,Vo w,K . 1, 1 2 - - 1 9i3:18 7:g? . ?: 374PI _ Ifo 0 75.---- , ,-- o 7 1'2 3 1 98;3.g .JO Ebb toy ' Zr� pity. 2 4/ 19.8.4 0 7:5l - _ y3 .. (73 7-16-?it z i A 19841 9 : 5s 9 . I � J842 � 5� / i � . 3 ,. . 19843 9 S _ fa. 1984 4 l :3 3 --- L/3 19 8 4 5 - - --- - e, c • SAMPLES EXAMINED BY Niine,nol In! lets) DATE EXAMINE!) TIME EXAMINED(Incu beIlon Begun) /q<►70: 4h / -2 7/ te-- 5X3/5i READINGS BY(Miele) , _ LT 21n /. BQ 24 BQ 48 a( ) (-- --Z,LT(48) \ EC(24) EC(48) `/ 1 ) COMPUTATIONS BY(InlJJ ler/ COMPUTATIONS CHECKED BY (Inulols) TEMPERATURE CONTROL ` 80.15-1 (10/07)-10 gink NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION aim/ DIVISION OF MARINE AND COASTAL RESOURCES NOW BAY SURVEY AREA NUMBER DAY DATE COLLECTED Y(Name,nol Inlilpls) 23 ' abw�, aawlv:, , 50_1_,110f d- 7--.1'7-9 .44 Q vc%'►9 STA. BTL. LAB SAL. 'C IC FC NO. NO. NO. EST. TIDE '/00 W A MPNI10Om1 MPNI100m1 REMARKS z _ c?�'fi p:58j , .. p 93 .y "Ra,-rl 7-/8 PY 1'2. .L 1.993?C; �o:a "i'� 76 3 _ ,a7 9�s- _ No w•:t11_— I.i 3 199Ti gy0:03 est — - q `�_3 _ _ ,t/ 1 9 9 2 8 �o:05- Is'_ � 0. /S-C) 21b 5- 19 9.2 9 /0: 1.2_ -_P / R./ b i b _ r EivN eF ,...,1 /3140.1..7 City veil 1 -4— a. i - 1-993 1- /o: if -- _-1.x""0. a-/ _ . 35 19932 /0•/7 9 i 199 _ <3_ < - • Lf) _19934 -- 43 4`3 , SAMPLES EXAMINED BY(Name, nol Inlllels) DATE EXAMINED TIME EXAMINED(Incubation Begun) 7 A H oa cz/J C A GC) , 7 —/-1-*/ / Y.:D 0_11',o-r READINGS BY(Inlllels) 1 LT(24) L, LT(40) IP EC(24),-°P EC(40) DO(24) BO(40), + COMPUTATIONS BY(Initials) COMPUTATIONS CHECKED DY(InlUals) TEMPERATURE CONTROL �---.� J tlV17•r �.g�1)-10 • a NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MARINE AND COASTAL RESOURCES BAY SURVEY MGL(ll_ (1 AREA NUMBER BAY `` DATE OLLECTED_ - Y(Nem ,nol Inlllel )1t �1� f.,61 rno,v\c„ c PA — 6' 2- . / .VCW 05 O1) , 1�[ l�. ��_i 11 } 0I-T<( ' r r STA.. BTL. Lyek...,..k.-br)6(6°---k i SAL. 'C TC FC J NO. NO. NO. EST. TIDE '100W A MPNI100mI MPNI100mI REMARKS 1.9.414 fo:1/6 -e )s" Is f•Z Iz 19 4• •1'5 /0 30 ,- 3- 75- bo 4 :1 O U' /1/4.;0 ____ tiro ico a,iA r P3 ir ;00 30 I50 l50 R. ! 6 19,1 19 / / o ' `i ai .,.� ,23 . . 3.v 7 113 4 ? 0 ti: o?' . 9 `, r--13 0, G N se c��L (47-, , _ &aq. 74- _ - 1 _ SA E EX MINED BY(Name,nol Inillels) DATE EXAMINED TIME EXAMINED(Incubellon Begun) . C ,� , 6,21. CO /bio ADT READINGS BY(Inllteis) CZ_ LT(24) LT(40) X/ EC(24) EC(48) „-�-P DO(24) .l' p BO(48) �- COMPUTATIONS BY(lnlllsls COMPUT Ti7I NS CHECKED BY Inillels TEMPERATURE CONI O P5 (- -- _. /f 0 'C • V\ ' / in c. f —_. '•i'. •.•I!'. _:, 71i';il.t;t>alL� _ (.tit ='y' N /// Z S.{ ., 1,p,1I�I lli�!t 1 \ll. .'lit ill _ ! •.,.• ' 0I • ., ..W�1 r 1r•,r- 1 1 •1�.1 i11 ,Its L I.t 1 a1 111. ,y I• _., 1' ! !' • • r! I I. Ula_ t•I. ,. ! I ,,'1 II•'. 111 • • i' !1 1,I �:�;.'•,•'y (' l'---.1. •4 '' ". e 4... 0 \ • ' • 't ... •• ••• •': ;I'..;...1:11'41.11,.11.0 •• ' A . .. . : . i . !.. ." . . . t?I ^`�/ \ti F�> �� • y4; 'i:!i Irk„ I{�,/II�,' i!1'! :.11il t,I l(;�i...1;',;1.7.1. 1......__:,.... .� I', �.. "• rt -C .. ' � • ! tl3r•' 11.it .:•' .lki f•,.),,.1tIp�ll(!1=(, .: t•i �l •'1" O 1•1 :rti B ' I !\ • ' �r .i l r ! ) (1 l!l �1 1'1' ,! r ul ' � r.' �• ,i •,•i1•.., Fes. �� .! r ' i�tt ' I, 1••••! ,, 1• t•— 4! / I= -r 1. ,.,", .' e! i 0 Li 0 .• O t „.; r 11 1'i' �'1, •f-- ICCriI' 1:1 r .:,6/..... '1.*).;I p• I,I• .� .� QUO _ ,' I i.; 1 i 11' O •r •1 I J • • i ' y' ai ��0 S G , f' t�' ;•,••1•1•:11.:} 1.,-� 1,1:1.......:.1•11;i l1.1,-,:.:vh,.1,1.11::::,;11;1: 11,•;.,.. (. .l 1 ..:, ,cs IV . : • , , ,, i 1 ;t3 :rl) Z r._ ,r .r 1 Has , (//� 4�SU(�O. - ,. • .,•,, �� 1 '.� • r. •'Q+tt /• LI ' •,,I•,..J •t.:i .'1j �� V. _ .' f l , I j1, .tl� I, ii:.!1`t c.„ i, ,.';..; , r 7 1:• ,N. ill(. -,. • j r } . t is: r 'J� .\li, / ..— iii: " 'I– nS.'. MILL I' C` toivi..._. 1 1,.� _ j �� 1. _ /'!; �1• Ila \.--.., . . ., C tt ��, !': Ila _ _ • 7 - 1 0 2� I' ,• / ` , �! ��` is $;'1 :• 0 ; -- °;,(_' '.•' -,I 1 i , /O' I• '' '• 'r a ^►_ .1 •4 '•,.) ':1!.. :'% •1 1 1 r .t•,,. :r O1 I� L1. _lli '!' 'all;5t +i , I ti ..ti',I...1 ! 4, O; '� ', ','!ih • i': : ,,�p , • ! _alb._ - ,:. . )010,1 ."•41:1"r( II:I' 0 I Iyy( .1, i t I i 'I•e r../:hlj: dr1; .1.:1•' • .I, a • ;4 ' :�,. ' , o ham--' ,' .' -'� ,- • 0 )— / _ gyp# > ` 1 f( 1!',– ` 0 (-.1 TABLE 2. DATA"_SJ1MMARYFOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 12 SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG P/M2 STATION II SAMPLE P CLAMS $/M2 A/M2 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER 50 2.15 0 2.15 0 0 • A 0 0 - " B 0 0 - C 1 6.45 47-40-27 51 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 . B 0 0 C 0 0 ' N ',1 co ( w/#) 'N33213 A0f1WOWVHSV NI NOIlVIS HOV3 IV SWV1) 02IVH 3ZIS 033S JO NQIlVI1N3UN00 '9 3af1JI3 ..:),.:,,,,,:14.,_ •••• .•:I. / , . \\\\::__,. '• / — - •AdVOI3NVS ONMVdS o I TABLE 2. DATA_SUMMARY BOR ASHAMOMUCK CREEK - Page 13 M SITE AVERAGE SHELL DIMENSIONS *SITE AVG ii/M2STATION N SAMPLE K CLAMS 1/M2 d/112 (LENGTH-HEIGHT-WIDTH) SEED LITTLENECK CHERRYSTONE CHOWDER CREEK WIDE AVERAGE 10.7 3.8 5.8 0.9 ' 0.2 ASHAMOMUCK CREEK SPAWNER SANCTUARY Number of clams stocked in 1982: 18,000 I. Sizes of notate hard clams in the Ashamomuck Creek Spawner Sanctuary Area 149m2 (1600 ft2) Sample A — L H W Density 120/m2 64 56 33 65 59 35 1986 Results 55 49 31 lI/M2 65 56 33 • * Sample A 70.95 54 47 28 * Sample B 77.40 55 47 2963 57 34 AVERAGE 74.18 57 50 30 66 57 33 62 54 31 Total for 149m2 = 11,052 66 57 33 % Survival = 61.4 Sample B — 58 49 30 58 51 31 52 46 28 62 • 55 32 53 47 28 40 37 23 71 61 36 52 47 28 60 52 30 • 55 48 31 a r r,^ - r 1 1,.' • .-t ____e_i____H. ‘ •.. . , • I1 • I' id' ••1�1.IS% C• ••••"...1. ,,.. r ,•,.;.,\/ i 1 >c9.,‘...%. • 6 •• +` • ! . 17:1 -L._. •••. 'I" t. .0,..••••,!..--- ........--0" % :• A/., 11.1.: k.aii\ ., •i•\ .M •O �'1 ;� �i' • :.. ; . • • I. Q _ ....-- '• ., • _ 40.1 11.1.1• • ter, • '. •'.., ''.',,`<1��,J , / .�-- ;: .0 --- •r� D. . • ;•.` eAJ:��1Z•s • • V. . • © ab ,o o 1\. . .•. : '• ... .. , 1 1 . .�(. • 1 r:1411..-•1' yU�4 .. ... ... .... .�. • . 1.0.•1./:T 1.4 �� • 10. 1..11,w1 111 1,1 1r.1 ...$.0 ...1 0 O Y.11• ' r• 6 : • • ...... 1..u.•U. ." 1.014141 I pp/�/ '.. A • . \ . ...—.:.111--- "'-- ". = ) k i SPAWNER SANCTUARY. "'` `// :1.w 1,4.11\---- K\k\ • �\�• • ////�, '••. .• 1,--+-I. . .. •,�. ' / 1..1.1 •4•..1.1\,.i V►. FIGURE 8. CONCENTRATION OF CHERRYSTONE SIZEHARD CLAMS AT EACH STATION IN ASHAMOMUCK CREEK. t ► (#/m2)) • 1 I 015 • V , , , {r r o # a� P� Lb t . D 0 ♦ �'-r"`'2„ • •` . 13 0 < , ' ^O `• '` .. OJ.• 4 . • 0 0,10 -1 nn _ -6 o1 .o a\•, A . iot j-1 I I) o 0 ._ r O - SPAWNER SANCTUARY T ,•• --0 : � FIGURE 10. CONCENTRATION OF SEED SIZE HARD CLAMS AT EACH STATION IN GOOSE CREEK. I (#/m2) i CAA ' 1 • _ 1 • At.. 1 1 T , 4� • / t• f .. i, • f r 00 M 0 . a� � P° ,.o ` ; 02 g ff , ( / 1 .„..,, .,..... _ _ . . ,c,c.,„,...- >.›).... r • or? is cil-citic #., . •r Q SPAWNER SANCTUARY r4.6. 1.. ,t , • ..„ , " • • . FIGURE 11. CONCENTRATION OF LITTLENECK SIZE HARD CLAMS AT EACH STATION IN GOOSE CREEK. (#/m2) t •,� l v 1 • . • • a•oo * '• .s .,.\ . J • / 1.. • , 0d I �Jr • • 4 0 p y4 / a• , �� I t A.::-*... 4 0c " Vi ' I` sa• . .. ' • i / \ , ) , 0 4)• , DJ,i'i.t. ',11 1 • r O . •ti SPAWNER SANCTUARY FIGURE 12. CONCENTRATION OF CHERRYSTONE SIZE HARD CLAMS AT •EACH STATION IN GOOSE CREEK. (#/m2) (J 00 1 • o '.-...--................................. .1 ....„1 .„.4i 1.02.:,1_} ..) , _,:z4,44 D 4 O M' I • v 4 ,i' O a 1„,.,(31.-1; . 0 4 #49 JTII) lt, , 4. 0 A , : -- 1 - • — ^•-' -----,,....f)" 1,4117,1/P1 --6,.Q?_. 011 it al ',•-;\. i -".‘t ti ! ' r SPAWNER S/U•IC I UARY �� `' ,... 0 $ ....„..c. t.......i:";(1 . .. , ... • .,..-;_„;.t„ I it - FIGURE 13. CONCENTRATION OF CHOWDER SIZE HARD CLAMS AT EACH STATION IN GOOSE CREEK. (#/m2) W Table 3 . Quantities and value ( 1987 $ ) of littleneck , cherrystone and chowder size hard clams in Ashamomuck and Goose Creeks. Regional Economic Creek Total # Bushels Value* Value** ASHAMOMUCK littleneck 3919924 7840 705600 2963520 cherrystone 608264 2212 77420 325164 chowder 135170 772 11580 48636 TOTAL 4663358 10824 794600 3337320 GOOSE littleneck 518016 1036 93240 391608 cherrystone 226632 824 28840 121128 chowder 97128 555 8325 34965 TOTAL 841776 2415 130405 547701 * littleneck $90/500 count bushel cherrystone $35/275 count bushel chowder $15/ 175 count bushel ** Regional Economic Multiplier = 4 . 2 The spawner sanctuary is responsible for none of the hard clams ' success in Ashamomuck Creek . The reasons for the sanctuaries ' failure can not be positively identified and this determination was beyond the scope of this project . Possibilities will be discussed later . Results from the Goose Creek spawner sanctuary are similar . the sanctuary itself experienced 83% survival over the past four years . Its contribution to the population in the creek , however , has been zero as a result of their spawning . Surveys in both creeks show a general lack of smaller size seed likely due to effects of the brown tide algae . The larger seed will sustain the fishery for a year or two but if the brown tide persists , sooner or later the fishery will collapse . Why the Failure? The obvious question that arises from the results of this study is why did the sanctuaries fail? To answer this question with any surety would take a giant , extensive field project . A number of possibilities exist , however , that can be discussed . 1 . Larvae produced in the creeks were not retained for the 14 day planktonic life history stage . There is a good possibility that a significant portion of the larvae produced by the sanctuaries since 1982 were swept out into -40-