« Jf.i •** j hel ar ■ / £t^ *\ SC JS& t is .. >1 m m m m * fH ■Jvr ^4 i<¥M I J OEfflCU Cover Photo: Cultured Blue Mussels, Rhode Island by Joseph H. Bailey Copyright © National Geographic Society The 1990 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters Strategic Assessment Branch Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 6001 Executive Boulevard Rockville, Maryland 20852 DOCUMENT LIBRARY Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution oi X: \_ 00- = .3- ? CD = r- : o I i CD m CD ■# > ™'H.. July 1991 Project Team Dorothy L. Leonard Eric A. Slaughter Paul V, Genovese Sharon L. Adamany Christopher G. Clement Report Team In addition to the Project Team, a special Report Team was assembled and managed by Daniel J. Basta, who also provided editorial guidance. Maureen A. Warren conducted com- prehensive reviews of all draft material and coordinated production. Davida G. Remer prepared and managed graph- ics and tables for the report. Carol M. Blackwell placed and edited all copy and graphics, and prepared the camera-ready document. John J. McDonough III selected and placed the photography and helped design the cover. Mitchell J. Katz designed the original layout, conducted the final copy edit, and coordinated printing. The Project Team prepared the original drafts and conducted quality control reviews of all final narrative and data in the report. draft materials were provided by Charles N. Ehler of NOAA, T.C. Siewicki of NOAA (NMFS), David Dressel of the Food and Drug Adminis- tration, Carin Bisland of the Environmental Protection Agency, Donald Steffeck of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Roy Martin of the National Fisheries Institute. The 1990 Register was produced in cooperation with the Interagency Task Force on Shellfish-Growing Waters which includes NOAA, the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Special appreciation is extended to the many State public health, natural resource management, and wildlife enforcement officials who provided their data and expertise throughout the Register process. Their participation made this report possible. Acknowledgements This report is a result of the dedication of many individuals in NOAA's Strate- gic Assessment Program. In addition to the Report Team, Donald W. Field, Timothy R. Goodspeed, Thomas J. Culliton, Daniel R. G. Farrow, Anthony S. Pait, and Vernon R. Leeworthy provided supporting information on wetlands, estuaries, population, pollution, and recreation. Reviews of Introduction The 1990 National Shellfish Regis- ter of Classified Estuarine Waters (Register) describes declines in estuarine water quality, decreases in the acreage of approved mollus- can shellfish-growing waters, and continuing declines in the Nation's shellfish harvests. Relationships between these declines are dis- cussed. Although declines in any given year, and even from 1985 to 1990, are not dramatic, an almost inexorable trend that threatens to destroy the harvest of wild or natural shellfish continues through- out the Nation's coastal areas. The Register has recorded changes in the classification of molluscan shell- fish-growing waters since 1966, when there were nine million acres of estuarine waters classified (Table 2). Produced every five years, the Register has evolved from a tabular report on classifications to a detailed analysis supported by an electronic data base and mapping system developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The 1990 Register covers 3,172 shellfishing areas encompassing 18.7 million acres of classified estuarine and offshore waters in 23 states. The data are aggregated by 122 estuaries and sub-estuaries, most of which are identified in NOAA's National Estua- rine Inventory (NEI) (Appendix A). The current NEI does not contain data for Alaska and Hawaii. For Alaska, the data in the Register are organized by five fisheries management districts. Non-estuarine shellfishing areas extending seaward to the three-mile limit (offshore areas), account for about 1 .5 million acres and are treated separately. Register Process. The 1990 Regis- ter is the culmination of five years of data collection and analysis. Following the 1985 Register, shellfish-growing waters were aggregated by estuary according to NOAA's NEI (NOAA, 1985). The classifications of shellfishing areas could then be considered in conjunction with human activities and natural conditions across entire watersheds. This expansion of the Register data base resulted in a series of regional reports produced between 1988 and 1990 that clarified: (1) classifications of shellfishing areas; (2) water quality trends; (3) pollution sources affecting classifications; (4) State program resources; and (5) trends in landings. The 1990 Register process began in February 1990, when NOAA initiated investigations with State shellfish management agencies (Alaska and Hawaii were added to the survey and Pennsylvania was deleted). Data were collected on classified areas and compiled on 280 NOAA nautical charts. Data also were collected on pollution sources, shoreline surveys of actual and potential pollution sources, water quality sampling results, com- mercial shellfish landings, program budgets, and personnel. The 1990 National Shellfish Register Table 1 . Classifications for Commercial Shellfish-Growing Waters a Approved (APP) Conditionally Approved (CON) Restricted (RES) Prohibited (PRO) Waters may be harvested for direct marketing at all times. Waters do not meet the criteria for approved waters if subjected to intermittent microbiological pollution, but may be harvested when criteria are met. Waters may be harvested if shellfish are subjected to a suitable purification process. No harvest for human consumption at any time. a. Harvest-limited refers to the sum of shellfish-growing waters that are classified Conditionally Approved, Prohibited, and Restricted. The 1990 classified areas were compared with those for 1985. Changes in acreage were estimated and entered into the Register data base. Newly classified areas including all areas in Alaska and Hawaii were measured with an automated planime- ter. All chart data used in the Register are being digitized to provide precise acreages and a digital map data base to replace the manually maintained charts. A supplement to the 1990 Regis- ter that presents data on each shellfishing area is in preparation and will be available from NOAA. Classifying Waters to Protect Public Health. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) classifies shellfish-growing waters to protect public health. The NSSP is a coop- erative program involving states, industry, and the Federal government. Since 1983, it has been administered through the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC). The ISSC was formed to promote shellfish sanitation, adopt National Shellfish Sanitation Program The NSSP assumes that a relationship exists between pollution from human activities, shellfish-growing waters, and human disease. Pathogens (disease- causing bacteria or viruses) may enter waters through direct discharges of untreated or poorly treated human wastes or through nonpoint runoff from streets, farms, or construction sites. Bivalve molluscs, such as oysters, filter large volumes of water, and concentrate pollutants and pathogens. uniform proce- dures, and develop compre- hensive guide- lines to regulate the harvesting, processing, and shipping of shellfish. The NSSP requires each state to classify shellfish-growing waters using sanitary surveys that: (1 ) identify actual or potential pollution sources; (2) evaluate hydrology and meteorology affecting pollutant transport; and (3) sample waters for bacterial quality (at least five times annually for each station). Waters are The 1990 National Shellfish Register classified into four categories de- scribed in Table 1 . Table 2 shows estuarine acres classified since 1966. Public health concerns also focus on changing environmental conditions that affect pathogens, density and distribution of human pathogens, harvest practices, and the increasing risks of human disease (FDA, 1990). Enteric Diseases. For nearly a century, shellfish have been recog- nized as vehicles of foodborne enteric disease. Although the implementation of the NSSP in 1 925 led to the control of bacterial pathogens such as cholera and typhoid fever, the occur- rence of shellfish-associated viral diseases (10,384 cases through 1989) has increased (G. Richards, Pers. Comm.). For example, since 1961 almost 1 ,400 cases of oyster- and clam-associated hepatitis A have been documented nationally. Vibrio Bacteria. Vibrios are a group of bacteria found naturally in saline coastal waters. Recent outbreaks (334 cases between 1973 and 1987) have been associated with Vibrio cholerae, V. vulnificus, and V. parahaemolyticus. Ingestion of Vibrio can cause gastroenteritis and even death, particularly in compro- mised patients. In 1988, 43 cases of V. vulnificus were reported, resulting in 18 deaths nationwide (Centers for Disease Control, 1989). However, only 27 cases and twelve deaths were linked to shellfish consumption (S. Rippey, Pers. Comm.). In Apalachicola Bay (FL), V. cholerae have been found in approved and prohibited waters; there was no correlation between coliform bacteria levels and Vibrio (Blake and Roderick, 1983). Deaths linked to out-of-state shipments suggest that handling and transport time may affect the pathoge- nicity of the organisms. Marine Biotoxins. Shellfish-growing waters may be affected by blooms of certain species of dinoflagellates or diatoms. Blooms which produce marine biotoxins can cause a variety of human illnesses. On the North Atlantic Coast, paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is caused by Alexandrium tamarense, which Table 2. Classified Estuarine Acres (x 1,000), 1966-1990 State 1966 1971 1974 1980 1985 1990 Maine New Hampshire Massachusetts 352 ! 39 96 63 551 520 214 1,045 344 127 318 632 395 233 1,454 1,443 1,991 275 204 1,768 1.045 344 127 318 632 395 1,045 11 304 128 1,034 13 312 902 13 406 Rhode Island 135 135 Connecticut New York 392 1,021 395 425 1,096 357 1.077 New Jersey 392 403 Delaware 233 1.318 1,444 230 1,424 231 1,375 231 Maryland 1.198 1,412 973 183 141 1,250 405 1,375 Virginia 1,498 1,575 1,575 North Carolina 1,990 2,126 2,245 2,286 South Carolina 276 279 279 279 Georgia 204 204 168 168 Florida 1,767 930 961 1,206 Alabama 356 356 373 354 371 Mississippi 122 109 106 2,468 390 1,781 433 434 Louisiana 1.011 1,763 3,358 3,394 Texas California 486 7 1,109 278 1.109 278 1,136 274 1,851 110 1.897 129 Oregon 5 29 28' 39 39 36 Washington 44 224 223 244 243 262 Alaska ND ND ND ND 198 Hawaii ND ND ND ND 18 Total 9,071 14,097 14,662 14,223 16,626 17,152 The 1990 National Shellfish Register Figure 1 . Predominant Classifications of Shellfish-Growing Waters o n 03 o c "D CD ■4 — 1 O 7n "O £ CD W CO CO O c CO C O rcentage of uary not av Hawaii. Q. CD c % CO T5 < LL Q. Z) O CO -— _ 03 CD -Q 03 J I I 1 1 □ 03 grea Data Alas The 1990 National Shellfish Register produces the neurotoxin saxitoxin. Maine was the first state in the Nation to monitor for paralytic shellfish poisoning. As a result, some of the State's productive shellfish-growing waters have been closed for most years since 1958. In the Pacific region, the main toxic species causing PSP is Protogonyalaux catenella. Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP) may result from a bloom of the dinoflagellate Ptychodiscus brevis. Restricted to the west coast of Florida until the late 1980s, P. brevis recently caused blooms in Texas and North and South Carolina, and all four states have developed monitoring and assay programs at considerable cost. Amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP), caused by acid released from the diatom Nitzschia pungens has re- cently been identified in mussels from Canadian waters. The disease, which has recently become a concern in the North Atlantic region, causes both gastrointestinal and neurological disorders, and is assayed using high performance liquid chromatography. Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP), caused by several species of Dinophysis, has been identified in Japan, Europe, and Canada. Be- cause the symptoms of DSP are easily confused with those of other enteric diseases, U.S. cases may have gone unreported. Through the use of NSSP marine biotoxin guidelines which require monitoring and tissue assay, coastal states have generally succeeded in eliminating toxic shellfish from com- mercial distribution. However, recre- ational harvesters are often unaware Table 3. Distribution of Classified Estuarine Waters, 1985 and 1990 / s Percent Classified / J* / -^ / <• / ^ $ / 3? / i / i / ,o / _a> / o / or / Region 85 90 85 90 85 90 85 90 North Atlantic 87 69 10 29 1 1 2 1 Middle Atlantic 82 79 11 13 3 4 4 4 South Atlantic 75 71 22 21 3 4 <1 4 Gulf of Mexico 54 48 24 34 17 16 6 1 Pacific 42 53 40 31 18 11 1 5 Total 69 63 19 25 9 9 4 3 of biotoxin risks, and may ignore warnings if waters are not discolored. Accordingly, the majority of PSP cases in the United States result from the recreational harvest of clams and mussels (Nishitani, 1988). National Overview Information collected on the status of 3,172 individual shellfish-growing areas in the U.S. is presented for five Table 4. Classified Offshore Acres (x 1,000), 1990 Harvest- State Approved Limited Maine 884 Massachusetts 349 45 New Jersey 206 59 California <1 <1 Total 1.440 104 The 1990 National Shellfish Register Table 5. Pollution Sources Affecting Harvest-Limited Acreage, 1990 a.b North I Middle South Gulf of Pacific Nationwide Atlant c Atlantic Atlantic Mexico Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Point Sources Sewage Treat Plants 238 67 641 57 374 44 973 27 75 25 2,307 37 Combined Sewers 21 6 224 20 211 6 457 7 Direct Discharge 1 <1 84 7 5 1 920 25 6 2 1.015 16 Industry 21 7 223 20 180 21 522 14 129 42 1,077 17 Nonpoint Sources Septic Systems 91 26 123 11 288 34 1,763 48 57 19 2,322 37 Urban Runoff 75 23 655 58 290 34 1.276 35 110 36 2.412 38 Agricultural Runoff 5 3 130 12 233 28 301 8 41 13 718 11 Wildlife 19 7 112 10 306 36 1,115 30 39 13 1,597 25 Boats 55 17 353 31 146 17 507 14 47 15 1,113 18 Upstream Sources Sewage Treat Plants 2 1 104 9 9 1 1.174 32 45 16 1,334 21 Combined Sewers 5 <1 134 4 2 Urban Runoff 3 1 72 6 8 1 793 22 43 14 918 15 Agricultural Runoff 1 <1 435 12 436 7 Wildlife 28 2 35 4 210 6 273 4 a. Acres are times 1 ,000; % is percent of all harvest-limited acreage in region. b. Since the same percentage of a shellfish area can be affected by more than one source, the percentages shown above cannot be added. They will not sum to 100. coastal regions, 23 states, 122 estuaries, and in Alaska, five fisheries management areas (Figure 1). The total acreage of all estuarine growing areas is approximately 21 .1 million acres; 81 percent of these (1 7.2 million acres) are classified for har- vest. Information also is presented on an additional 1 .5 million acres of classified offshore waters (from shore to the three-mile limit). Classifications for states and estuaries are provided in Appendices B and C. Classified Acreage Of the 1 7.2 million acres of estuarine waters that were classified for harvest as of January 1 , 1990, 63 percent were approved for harvest and 37 percent were harvest-limited (Table 3). Of the harvest-limited acreage, about nine percent was conditionally approved. Four states have begun to classify offshore waters, 93 percent of which are approved. Harvest-limited acre- age (seven percent) in these areas is primarily a result of management 6 The 1990 National Shellfish Register closures due to insufficient State resources for monitoring (Table 4). Although many states do not classify offshore waters, in 1989, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reported nationwide landings of over 1 1 8 million pounds of mollus- can shellfish caught within zero to three miles offshore (NMFS, 1990). Given the pollution discharges such as sewage outfalls, into these waters, more offshore areas are likely to be classified as harvest-limited. During the data collection process for the 1985 and 1990 Registers, the reasons an area NSSP regulations requiring current and complete sanitary surveys have not been met. Because State officials have promoted increased monitoring activities, the amount of harvest- limited waters has increased nation- ally. Many states have developed conditional management plans for areas with predictable water quality fluctuations. Implementing such plans often requires additional resources at a time when many states are reducing their budgets. As the amount of harvestable area is reduced, industrial and political pressure may force states to re-open harvest areas which require close surveillance. was classified as harvest-limited were entered directly on the charts and later analyzed. State personnel were interviewed to determine whether classification changes between 1985 and 1989 were directly related to changes in water quality (less than two percent), or were a result of management decisions (over 98 percent). Water quality changes were supported by sanitary surveys that identify pollution sources, suc- cessful clean-up efforts, and sampling results. Management decisions fall into three major categories: 1 ) those based on increased monitoring; 2) those based on political judgements; and 3) a default position, where areas are classified as prohibited because Effects of Pollution The effect of a pollution source on shell- fish-growing waters depends on the amount of coliform bacteria discharged, the dilution and dispersion factors, flushing ability related to tides and circulation, size of the growing area, and the presence of other pollution sources. Although man- agement capa- bilities vary greatly from state to state, about half are able to survey and sample most areas with harvest potential while the rest leave at least some productive waters closed because of inadequate man- agement resources. Several states survey and sample an area only if there are active leases or after a lease application is received. Pollution Sources Affecting Har- vest. Pollution sources affecting an area were identified primarily through sanitary surveys conducted by State agencies. Only sources that signifi- cantly affect the classification of shellfish-growing areas were identi- fied. A pollution source may be identified in a sanitary survey despite The 1990 National Shellfish Register Figure 2. Commercial Shellfish Landings for Selected Species, 1985-1989 NORTH ATLANTIC MIDDLE ATLANTIC SOUTH ATLANTIC GULF OF MEXICO PACIFIC Million Pounds 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 25 - oo 20 - Lt LU t 15 " O 10- 5 " \ I 100 - 80 - CO 1 60 - " 40- 20 ■ No Gommer cial han /est 20 ■ SCALLOPS O en 5- I 6- 00 _l LU <2 4- 00 H 3 2 2- Wo vmmer tial han rest No "omme cial har vest i a small contribution of coliform bacteria. In the case of some sources, additional shellfishing areas may be classified as buffer or safety zones, anticipating plant closures or bypasses, and in response to sea- sonal increases in boating activity. Table 5 shows the acres and percent of harvest-limited acreage in each region adversely affected by 14 pollution source categories. The acreage and percent of harvest-limited acreage in each estuary affected by each pollution source category is shown in Appendix D. The effect of coastal development on shellfish-growing areas can be seen by the increasing acreage adversely affected by development-related pollution sources from 1985 to 1990. For example, the largest increases are attributed to urban runoff, increasing from 23 to 38 percent of harvest- 8 The 1990 National Shellfish Register limited waters. The acreage ad- versely affected by septic systems increased from 22 percent to 37 percent. Pollution from septic sys- tems is associated with continuing growth in tourism and vacation home development. Also indicative of accelerating pressures from coastal recreation is the increase in waters adversely affected by boating, up from 11 to 1 8 percent. Recent Trends in Landings. Figure 2 shows landings between 1985 and 1 989 for the four major species harvested in each region. Data by state are presented in Appendix E. In all regions, commercial harvests declined. By the end of 1990, Gulf of Mexico oyster landings fell to 10.6 million pounds, making the Pacific region the leading producer at 10.8 million pounds. A notable exception to declines is the increase in landings of scallops (non- estuarine) along the Atlantic Coast. This increase generally is attributed to declines in estuarine abundance which has forced many fishermen to harvest offshore areas, and to recent fishing agreements between the U.S. and Canada. Pacific oyster landings have also increased slightly as a result of successful aquaculture. Commercial Harvest. Over the last three decades, commercial stocks of wild estuarine shellfish have continued to decline nationwide despite restora- tion efforts such as oyster reef replen- ishment, hatchery operations, and selective breeding. For example, Chesapeake Bay produced more than 32 million pounds of oysters annually until about 1959 when a sharp decline began. By 1989, only four million pounds were harvested from the Bay, and in 1 990 this dropped further to 3.7 million pounds. Even with an increase in aquaculture, the American shellfishing industry seems no longer able to meet the Nation's demand for shellfish prod- ucts. Oyster imports increased from 21 million pounds in 1970 to 46 million pounds in 1988, and other species show similar trends (Virginia Sea Grant College Program, 1990). Despite price increases, the actual value of all U.S. landings of oysters, clams, and scallops has decreased (in constant dollars) from $368 million in 1985 to $360 million in 1989 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1985; National Marine Fisheries Service, 1990). Recreational Harvest. In 1985, about four million adults participated in recreational shellfishing for crusta- ceans and mollusks nationwide (NOAA, 1991a). This added up to over 28 million person-days of recre- ational shellfishing activities. Though data are not available on landings, some states estimated that recre- ational landings were higher than commercial landings. Over one-fifth of the fish and shellfish consumed nationwide is derived from recre- ational or subsistence fishing (Na- tional Academy of Sciences, 1991). This high level of participation con- cerns State and Federal officials because they do not have the re- sources to monitor recreational fishing waters adequately. The 1990 National Shellfish Register Major Causes of Declines in Land- ings. Despite long-standing evidence supporting greater restraint, over- harvest remains a significant cause of decline in natural shellfish stocks (Kennedy, 1983). Disease and pollution are also major concerns among natural harvesters and aquac- ulturists. For example, after MSX and Dermo reduced oyster populations in Chesapeake Bay, traditional seed beds in the James and Choptank rivers were opened. This placed the remaining harvestable population at risk of being entirely eliminated (Hargis and Haven, 1988). Disease. Beginning in the 1950s, the parasitic diseases MSX and Dermo attacked oyster populations along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Since 1957, many significant mortalities have occurred, especially during periods of drought and high salinity. Entire populations have been wiped out in several estuaries. There has been some success in producing MSX- resistant strains through selective breeding, but these strains were not resistant to Dermo in Chesapeake Bay (Ford, pers. comm.). In recent studies of shellfish mortality, viruses have also been found as causative agents (Comps, 1988). Preliminary findings suggest that the ability of shellfish to withstand such infections is compromised by environmental pollutant stresses (Anderson, 1988). Pollution. Harvest areas are classified as approved if pollution levels are below minimum coliform standards. Many states reported that areas containing harvestable stock (or which have the potential for aquaculture, especially on the Pacific Coast) were closed or downgraded due to bacterial levels or the lack of supporting sampling data. In addition, shellfish continue to be routinely stressed by low oxygen events caused by nutrient inputs from urban and rural sources (Chesapeake Executive Council, 1989). Chemical contaminants cause direct damage to shellfish, including death and reduced recruitment (Bender and Huggett, 1988). Im- proved shellfish management and replenishment programs are not likely to overcome these problems, and aquaculturists may not be able to use Table 6. Status of Shellfish Management Programs, 1990 a State Areas Acres Acres Acres/ Managed Classified Sampled Sampling (x 1.000) (%) Station Maine 285 30 371 902 90 714 New Hampshire 14 90 481 Massachusetts 307 100 3,474 Rhode Island 78 136 100 567 Connecticut 131 358 100 888 New York 166 1,077 85 718 New Jersey 251 403 100 167 Delaware 39 231 25 100 1,686 Maryland 226 1.375 1.937 Virginia 269 1.575 100 788 North Carolina 232 86 2,287 100 1,610 South Carolina 279 100 100 775 Georgia 44 169 740 Florida 298 1,206 100 969 Alabama 10 371 100 4.818 Mississippi 38 434 100 3,122 Louisiana 180 3,394 80 4,243 Texas 96 1,898 90 2,751 California 112 130 5 2,150 Oregon 43 36 80 367 Washinqton 139 262 100 33 Total 3,124 16,844 92 1,571 a. Estuarme shellfish-growing waters only. 10 The 1990 National Shellfish Register the natural waters directly without significant improvements in overall estuarine water quality (Costagna, 1987). State Programs The data compiled in the Register are primarily a synthesis of the information and knowledge accumulated on an almost daily basis by State shellfish management agencies. Conse- quently, the quality of data presented is directly related to the resources available to conduct shellfish manage- ment responsibilities. Since State resources vary, the availability and detail of shellfish-related information varies. For example, sampling station density ranges from just 33 acres per station in Washington to 5,288 acres per station in Louisiana. Table 6 shows how shellfish-producing states compare in acres managed and survey and sampling activities. Appendix F provides data on budgets and sampling stations. Shellfish-growing waters classified as conditionally approved require the most management resources. These areas are opened or closed on the basis of rainfall or river stage estab- lished in a current FDA-certified plan. Plans for conditionally approved areas must be updated and supported by extensive sampling. Areas classified as approved do not require a manage- ment plan but do require sampling. State budget shortfalls usually lead first to a curtailment of field sampling and then to administrative down- grades in many conditionally approved (or even approved) areas. Conditionally approved areas are often the most productive, and closing such areas typically reduces landings. The 1 1 states which had no budget increase between 1985 and 1990 (Appendix F) manage about 45 percent of the Nation's approved and conditionally approved acreage, and also produce about 45 percent of the Nation's total value of shellfish har- vest. Each year since 1985 the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference has expanded the NSSP regulatory guidelines that define the responsibili- ties of State shellfish management programs. In addition, the Congress is considering mandatory seafood inspection requirements. Given budget trends in State shellfish programs since 1985, many states may not have adequate resources to keep up with these expanding regula- tory demands. This could lead to further administrative reductions in approved and conditionally approved harvesting areas. 11 North Atlantic Figure 3. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1990 New Hampshire Estuarine Drainage Area Boundary Classified Shellfish Growing Waters (461 Areas) 12 North Atlantic In the North Atlantic region, 1.1 million acres of estuarlne waters were classified for shellfish harvest in 1990 (Figure 3). This region experienced the largest decrease in percentage of approved estuarine shellfish-growing waters nation- wide, from 88 percent in 1985 to 69 percent in 1990. In addition, Maine classified over 884,000 acres offshore, all approved, and Massa- chusetts classified over 394,000 acres offshore, of which 349,000 were approved. Estuarine Shellfish-Growing Wa- ters. The North Atlantic region extends from the U.S. -Canada border in Maine to the tip of Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Estuaries in the region are small, deep, and subject to strong tidal forces. There are only about 1 ,200 square miles of coastal wetlands in the region (NOAA, 1991b). Consequently, habitat for intertidal molluscan shellfish is limited while habitat for subtidal species such as scallops is excellent. The estua- rine water surface areas range from six square miles for the Merrimack River to 548 square miles for Cape Cod Bay. Five of the drainage basins that most directly affect the quality of the region's shellfish-growing waters are dominated by metropolitan areas; the rest are largely rural, agricultural and forested (NOAA, 1990). Penobscot Bay has the most ap- proved shellfish-growing waters, 215,000 acres, followed by Casco Bay, with 1 13,000 acres. Appendix C identifies the estuaries in the region and summarizes the status of shell- fish-growing waters in each. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1985-1990. Approved estuarine shellfish-growing waters declined from 88 to 69 percent of classified estuarine waters between 1 985 and 1 990. Over 352,000 acres in the region are now classified as harvest-limited. In addition, a net of 10,000 non-productive acres were removed from the Register data base. Declines in approved waters occurred in Maine and Massachusetts, and resulted in 219,000 acres being downgraded to harvest-limited classifi- cations. However, nearly 1.3 million approved acres were added offshore. Table 7 shows classifications by state for 1985 and 1990. Eight of the 1 5 estuaries in the region had downgrades in classification of shellfish-growing waters, while five had upgrades. Approved acreage outside estuaries in NOAA's NEI increased by 8,000 acres. However, downgrades occurred in Passamaquoddy, Englishman, Table 7. Distribution of North Atlantic Classified Estuarine Waters, 1985 and 1990 / ^ Percent Classified to ' *> / £ / £ / c / ■P / o / o ; / o / .0 Or > / State 85 90 85 90 85 90 85 90 ME 90 78 8 22 1 1 1 >1 NH 34 34 55 15 11 52 MA 70 36 25 62 <1 1 5 1 Total 88 69 10 29 1 1 2 1 13 North Atlantic Table 8. North Atlantic Pollution Sources Affecting Harvest- Limited Acreage, 1990a.b Sources Maine New Massa- Hampshire chusetts Acres % Acres % Acres % Point Sources Sewage Treat Plants 115 57 9 100 120 85 Combined Sewers 1 11 21/5 Direct Discharge "\ 1 Industry 11 5 4 44 9 6 Nonpoint Sources Septic Systems 82 40 2 22 15 Urban Runoff 24 12 6 67 50 36 Agricultural Runoff 6 67 5 4 Wildlife 6 67 19 14 Boats 17 S 5 56 38 22 Upstream Sources Sewage Treat Plants 2 ? Combined Sewer Urban Runoff 3 2 Agricultural Runoff Wildlife a. Acres are times 1 ,000; % is percent of all harvest-limited acreage in state, b. Since the same percentage of a shellfish area can be affected by more than one source, the percentages shown above cannot be added. They will not sum to 100. Narraguagas, Penobscot, Casco, Saco. Boston, and Cape Cod bays. In seven estuaries, additional acres were classified. The majority of these were prohibited acres in Penobscot, Frenchman, Massachusetts, and Cape Cod bays, because most of the additional acres were classified as prohibited. Most classification changes in Maine and Massachusetts were a result of management decisions based on increased sanitary survey and sam- pling activities. Significant water quality declines occurred in Hampton, Little, and Rye harbors, and Cape Cod Bay, and significant upgrades occurred in the Winnicut, Oyster, and Bellamy rivers, and Little Bay. Pollution Sources Affecting Shell- fish-Growing Waters. The pollution sources affecting North Atlantic shellfish-growing waters reflect the region's high population density in areas such as Boston Bay, in contrast to low population density in areas such as Passamaquoddy Bay. Table 8 shows the major categories of pollution sources affecting the har- vest-limited waters in the North Atlantic region. Data on pollution sources by estuary are provided in Appendix D. Sewage treatment plants affect 67 percent of harvest-limited areas. However, the region has the smallest number of point source dischargers, about 400. Of these, 59 are found in Great Bay and 69 in Boston Bay. The metropolitan area of Boston, with a population of over 2.5 million, impacts shellfish-growing waters in both Boston and Massachusetts bays. Sewage treatment plants affect the most shellfish-growing waters, fol- lowed by septic systems, industry, and urban runoff. In 1988, highly produc- tive shellfish-growing waters (approxi- mately $315,000 annual harvest) were closed in Boston Bay because of major malfunctions in the area's overloaded sewage treatment plants. Boston has since begun construction 14 North Atlantic of a $6.1 billion plant as a corrective measure. In New Hampshire, all harvest-limited waters are affected by sewage treatment plants. However, harvest- limited waters are also significantly affected by industry (44 percent) and agricultural runoff (67 percent). The effects of these sources have required the State to close or restrict 64 percent of its classified shellfish- growing waters. In contrast, pollution from septic systems affects almost as much harvest-limited waters (40 percent) in Maine as do sewage treatment plants (57 percent). Shellfish-growing waters in all but one of Maine's eight estuar- ies are affected by septic effluent. As a result, towns have adopted dis- charge ordinances that restrict devel- opment in low-lying coastal areas. Developers in such places must add sand filtration and chlorination to their septic systems. After 1992, any system that pollutes shellfish-growing waters will be shut down by the State. Landings The region's harvest has declined dramatically since the 1950s. Oyster landings dropped from 219,000 pounds in 1986 to 1 13,000 pounds in 1989. Clam landings dropped from 14.6 million to 8.3 million pounds, and mussel landings dropped from 6.6 million pounds to 4.8 million pounds. The exception is the scallop harvest, which increased from 1 1 .7 million to 20.3 million pounds as a result of offshore fishing agreements with Canada. Figure 4 shows landings in millions of pounds of meats for the principal harvested species for the three states in the region. Landings by State. Oyster landings have been sporadic in Maine, rising from 49,000 pounds in 1985 to 138,000 pounds in 1986, and declin- ing to 69,000 pounds in 1989. Clam landings declined from 4.5 million pounds to less than three million pounds. Over-harvesting and the closing of polluted shellfish-growing waters have contributed to this decline. Maine's scallop harvest increased from 813,000 pounds in 1 985 to 1 .7 million pounds in 1 989. The State classified over 884,000 acres of offshore waters, and was the first to establish a plan for managing episodes of marine biotoxins. Maine estimates that the closings imposed under the plan reduce harvest earn- ings by about seven million dollars annually (Shumway et al., 1988). In recent years, the occurrence of blooms has increased temporally and geographically. Closures from biotoxins have extended into surf clam and mussel-harvesting areas. There have been no commercial harvests in New Hampshire since 1986. Only recreational harvest is allowed in approved shellfish-growing waters. The State estimates that downgrades of shellfish-growing waters and harvest restrictions over the last 20 years have resulted in an 85 percent loss in harvestable softshell clams and a 67 percent loss in harvestable oysters (Seiforth, pers. comm.). ~15 North Atlantic Figure 4. North Atlantic Commercial Shellfish Landings for Selected Species, 7985-7989 MAINE NEW HAMPSHIRE MASSACHUSETTS Million Pounds 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 0.12 " ERS S008 " > o 0.04 " Wo commei cial harvest 10" 8 " >v CO < 6 _i ° 4- 2 " T" No commer cral harvest 16" SCALLOPS co ro 4" No commer cial harvest 6" CO _j LU co 4 2 2" No commei icial harvest Wo comme cial harvest Oyster landings, though sporadic, generally declined in Massachusetts from 87,000 pounds in 1986 to 44,000 pounds in 1 989. Some of this decline resulted from the closure of the Taunton River to all shellfish harvest- ing. To mitigate this closure, the State supervises a relay program which moves clams from the Taunton River to approved areas in Cape Cod Bay. These clams are monitored for toxic chemicals as well as for coliform bacteria. Nevertheless, clam landings declined by almost 50 percent from 9.5 million pounds to 5.4 million pounds. This resulted, in part, from the closure of several large shellfish- growing areas in Boston and Massa- chusetts bays. Mussel landings from aquaculture operations and from Nantucket Shoals were minimal. Massachusetts also had a large increase in scallop harvest, primarily 16 North Atlantic Recreational clam digging on the tidal flats of Maine is an important tradition and a concern to public health officials. V Courtesy of Robert E. Glika, National Geographic Society from newly classified offshore shell- fish-growing waters totaling 394,000 acres. Landings increased from almost 10 million pounds to over 18.5 million pounds between 1985 and 1990. 17 Middle Atlantic Figure 5. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1990 VBfl I ■ Pennsylvania Maryland Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New Jersey Delaware Virginia □ Estuarine Drainage Area Boundary Classified Shellfish Growing Waters (1,385 Areas) 18 Middle Atlantic In the Middle Atlantic region, 5.3 million acres of estuarine waters were classified for shellfish harvest in 1990 (Figure 5). Over 79 percent were approved and 21 percent were harvest-limited. In addition, New Jersey classified 265,000 acres of offshore waters, 78 percent of which were approved. This region ranks highest in the Nation in both quantity of classified and percent- age of approved waters. Estuarine Shellfish-Growing Wa- ters. The Middle Atlantic region extends from Buzzards Bay in Massa- chusetts through Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. The region's coastal plain estuaries are shallow and subject to strong tidal circulation, creating an ideal habitat for molluscan shellfish. Consequently, this region contains more estuarine shellfish-growing waters (4.2 million acres) than any other. The region's estuaries vary in size from a surface water area of 32 square miles for the Delaware Inland Bays to 3,800 square miles for Chesapeake Bay. The drainage basins directly affecting the quality of shellfish-growing waters are relatively densely populated and contain large amounts of urban land (NOAA, 1990). Chesapeake Bay has the region's largest drainage area, greatest freshwater inflow, and contains the most wetlands. Nearly half of all approved shellfish-growing waters in the region are in the Bay. Appendix C identifies the estuaries in the region and summarizes the status of shell- fish-growing waters in each. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1985-1990. Approved shellfish-growing waters in the region declined from 82 percent of classified waters in 1985 to 79 percent in 1990. Downgrades occurred in all but two states (New Jersey and Virginia), and resulted in an additional 156,000 acres being downgraded to harvest- limited classifications. Over one million acres are now classified as harvest-limited in the region. In addition, over 78,000 non-productive acres were removed from the Register data base. Table 9 shows classifica- tions by state for 1985 and 1990. Eleven of the 21 estuaries in the region had downgrades in classifica- tion of shellfish-growing waters, while five had upgrades. Approved acreage outside estuaries in NOAA's NEI declined by 26,000 acres. Declines Table 9. Distribution of Middle Atlantic Classified Estuarine Waters, 1985 and 1990 Percent Classified & 1 / & / P / $ / -O / P / ■£ / o / -i — wT CD o CD U -3? "cd CO c/) ? c CT3 -J -C .w "55 -c CO "c5 E e o O .o c CD § CO 0) i_ D) Li- ce 'c CD > co co en h~ co CD CD CO cd / \ U) X / e ■c 7q / "\ E E o x \ £ T3 c CO >. CO 2 co CO CD r^ CO CD CD 00 CD / s / __ r 1 TO ^ _ r S- E E o "\^ r § CD CO g CO CD D CO CO en r^ 00 CD CD 00 CD 9* « CD U) CtJ Is CO C13 ■C E E o CD E E o CD E E Q CD E E o 1 £ 1 o >, CD w CD CD -z. co co CD h-. 00 CD CD 00 CD \ \ / / \ 1 \ L. o > 00 00 CD r» 00 CD CD CO CD / 1 '^ :: ^^ / /" \ "5 o o CD c c o O CO CO CD h- CO CD CD CO CD v CO " 1" y CD E E o 1 c CO _w CD "D O 00 00 CD h- co CD CD CO CD 2 CD 1.1 c6 ■c £ 7a CD E E o CD E E Q CD E E 8 2 § = 3 3 ° 1 1 1 co ^r c\j SU31SAO 1 ' 1 ' 1 o o o CD -*t C\J si/wio ■ 1 i 1 i 1 i CD ^r CM SdOIIVOS CD ■* C\J O O O S13SSDIAI 22 Middle Atlantic Landings by Major Bays. Over 32 million pounds of oysters were har- vested annually in Chesapeake Bay until 1 959, when a major decline began. MSX and Dermo were the major causes of the loss (Ford, pers. comm.). By 1989, landings were only about four million pounds. This decline has affected the ecology of the Bay and has impacted other fisheries as well (Hargis and Haven, 1988; Chesapeake Executive Council, 1989). Delaware Bay experienced a similar decline in oysters due to MSX begin- ning in 1957. By the early 1970s, harvest was at an all-time low. How- ever, after Hurricane Agnes in 1972 the oyster population recovered, only to be decimated again by MSX in the early 1980s (Ford, pers. comm.). Over 640,000 pounds were landed in the Bay in 1980, declining dramatically to 39,000 pounds in 1985. There was no significant harvest in 1989. Reef restoration has been unsuccessful, although several northern beds may recover in the 1991 season (Cole, pers. comm.). Clam landings in the Bay also declined from over 500,000 pounds in 1985 to only 37,000 pounds in 1989. Declining harvest is compli- cated further by the closure of many shellfishing areas pending sufficient resources to conduct sanitary surveys. Landings by State. Buzzards Bay is the only major Massachusetts shellfishing area in this region. How- ever, landings are low compared to other Middle Atlantic estuaries. Oyster landings in the Bay fluctuated between 18,000 and 33,000 pounds between 1985 and 1989. Only about 2,000 pounds of oysters were landed annually between 1985 and 1989 in Rhode Island. Clam landings declined from about six million to just over four million pounds during the same period. Scallop landings declined from 22,000 pounds in 1985 to zero in 1986 because of brown tide infections, and have not been reestablished. A new management program has begun to revitalize the shellfish industry in Connecticut. The State legislature provided significant funds for reef restoration and regulatory program expansion. The industry is allowed to relay juvenile oysters from public grounds classified as restricted to private leases in approved waters. The program has also further stimu- lated aquaculture operations. Oyster landings increased from less than one million to almost two million pounds between 1985 and 1989. Over the same period, clam landings declined from 845,000 pounds to 710,000 pounds. In 1987 a brown tide seri- ously affected scallop harvest, reduc- ing landings to 130,000 pounds. Aquaculture has sustained the oyster industry in New York, increasing landings from almost 299,000 pounds to 339,000 pounds between 1985 and 1989. However, the largest New York producer recently reported massive mortalities in one of its growing areas. Viral disease is suspected (Relyea, pers. comm.). Bay scallop landings in New York declined from 269,000 pounds in 1985 to about 40,000 pounds in 1989, following a brown tide. However, 23 Middle Atlantic State officials expect the population to recover over the next two years. New York has the only sizeable mussel production in the region; landings increased from 154,000 pounds in 1985 to 585,000 pounds in 1989. With the support of 15 hatcheries, clam landings, primarily in Great South Bay, remain at about nine million pounds per year. New Jersey offshore waters provided the largest harvest of surf clams and ocean quahogs in the region, totaling over 71 million pounds in 1989. New Jersey currently has 10 hard clam hatcheries and 30 growers, which should increase the hard clam land- ings in the near future. Scallop landings from offshore harvest in- creased from 1 .7 million to almost four million pounds between 1985 and 1989. Although consumer demands for Maryland clams increased during the 1980s, landings decreased from 23 million pounds to eight million pounds between 1985 and 1989. Clam landings in Virginia declined from 14 million pounds in 1985 to nine million pounds in 1989. However, landings of scallops tripled to almost eight million pounds. This represents a trend away from declining estuarine species toward more abundant offshore species. 24 Middle Atlantic Only a few skipjacks remain, but are still the primary means of oyster dredging in the Maryland waters of Chesapeake Bay. Courtesy of Emory Kristof, National Geographic Society 25 South Atlantic Figure 7. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1990 □ □ Estuarine Drainage Area Boundary Classified Shellfish Growing Waters (473 Areas) £$$ 26 South Atlantic In the South Atlantic region, 2.9 million acres of estuarine waters were classified for shellfish har- vesting in 1990. Over 71 percent were approved and 29 percent harvest-limited. This region ranks second in the Nation in percent of approved shellfish-growing waters, and third in percentage of approved waters. Estuarine Shellfish-Growing Wa- ters. The South Atlantic region extends from North Carolina to southern Florida. The estuaries of the region are shallow, and while they receive 40 percent of the freshwater inflow on the entire Atlantic Coast, they are more affected by wind- generated circulation than by tides or rivers (NOAA, 1990). Consequently, the estuaries are moderately to highly susceptible to pollution retention. This region ranks third in amount of estuarine water surface area, 4,443 square miles. Estuaries range in size from a surface water area of nine square miles for the North and South Santee rivers to 2,949 square miles for Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds. The latter contains over half of the region's approved shellfish-growing waters. In both size and approved shellfish- growing waters, the Albemarle/ Pamlico Sounds estuary is second nationwide only to Chesapeake Bay. South Atlantic estuarine drainage areas (EDAs) contain nearly 5.9 million acres of coastal wetlands, second only to the Gulf of Mexico, including the productive sea islands complex of channels and marshlands in South Carolina and Georgia. Sixteen of the 1 8 EDAs in the region are dominated by forests. Appendix C identifies the estuaries in the region and summarizes the status of shell- fish-growing waters in each. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1985-1990. The South Atlantic region had the smallest net change in classification and the smallest net loss of approved waters between 1985 and 1990. Although classification changes took place in 12 of the region's 18 estuaries, the net change was only 140,000 acres. Of this net change, 5,000 acres were downgrades in previously approved shellfish-growing waters, and 135,000 acres were additions to the classifica- tion system (primarily in the restricted classification) from previously unclas- sified waters. The South Atlantic led all regions in additional acreage classified as restricted. Florida added 65,000 restricted acres to support increases in relaying and depuration operations. Similarly, South Carolina added Table 1 1 . Distribution of South Atlantic Classified Estuarine Waters, 1985 and 1990 Percent Classified / "? i P / c? / & ir / O / o 0.4- ^ ,_,, -— 1.2- co < 0.8- _i o 0.4- _J 12- SCALLOPS ^ CO \ Wo common ■ial harve ■■t No commercial harve St 12- MUSSELS 00 4- No commeri ial harve " Nc commer 'ial harve ;l No commercial harve ;t Nc commer •ial harve u on shellfish habitat as well as on public health. For example, the region has the greatest intensity of pesticide application to agricultural lands in the Nation (NOAA, 1990). Although human pathogens normally may not be associated with wildlife and agricul- ture, the nutrients and toxics from these sources do affect water quality and shellfish habitat. This is espe- cially true in the South Atlantic be- cause of weak estuarine circulation. Landings The region's landings declined dramatically between 1985 and 1989. Oyster landings declined from 1 .6 million to one million pounds, clams declined from 3.1 million to 1.7 million pounds, and scallops from 10.4 million to 3.4 million pounds. No mussels were landed during this period, although South Carolina reported new 30 South Atlantic landings of two offshore species, blood arc and whelk. Figure 8 shows landings in millions of pounds of meats for the principal harvested species for the four states in the region. Landings by Major Bays. Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds is the largest oyster-producing estuary in the South Atlantic region, and historically has been the source of 60 percent of all landings in North Carolina. Land- ings peaked at 1 .4 million pounds in 1987 and declined to 530,000 pounds in 1989, due in part to MSX and Dermo. This suggests that the estuarine salinities varied abnormally during this period. Although the classifications of shellfish-growing waters did not change significantly, North Carolina expanded sampling because of rapidly expanding devel- opment. In 1985, South Carolina's Charleston Harbor, St. Helena Sound, and Broad River estuaries combined to produce over 745,000 pounds of oysters, but only 75,000 pounds were landed in 1989. Like Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds, these estuaries were affected by MSX and Dermo, as well as red tide blooms from the dinoflagellate Ptychodiscus brevis. The decline also was influenced by over-harvesting and the net loss of 9,000 acres of ap- proved shellfish-growing waters. The Indian River estuary produced the largest landings of clams and scallops (calico) in the region, and nearly all landings of these species for the Atlantic coast of Florida. Clam landings for this estuary declined from 1 .5 million pounds in 1985 to 306,000 pounds in 1989, due primarily to over- harvesting. Also, conditionally ap- proved waters increased by 26,000 acres and restricted waters by 57,000 acres. Landings by State. In North Caro- lina, oyster landings declined from 545,000 pounds in 1985 to 530,000 pounds in 1989, as a result of MSX, Dermo, and red tide bloom effects. Clam landings remained constant at 1 .3 million pounds, while scallop landings declined from 456,000 pounds to 84,000 pounds. Three of the State's six estuaries had declines in approved shellfish-growing waters and three had increases. Four of the six had increases in conditionally approved waters. Consequently, the major reasons for declines were disease, over-harvesting, and habitat loss. Several new clam hatcheries have begun operations, and the State revised its leasing program in support of aquaculture initiatives. In Septem- ber 1 987, a bloom of the toxic di- noflagellate Ptychodiscus brevis occurred. The State closed 361 ,000 acres of shellfish-growing waters for three months between Cape Hatteras and the South Carolina border (48 percent of the State's oyster beds). The economic loss was estimated to be $3.5 million. Most of the affected areas were re-opened within three months. Like many Atlantic Coast states, South Carolina's oyster industry has been damaged severely by a combi- nation of over-harvesting, disease, 31 South Atlantic pollution, and habitat loss from coastal development. Oyster landings declined from one million pounds to 290,000 pounds between 1985 and 1989. Only two of the State's once numerous oyster-shucking houses remain. Clam landings fluctuated between 108,000 and 240,000 pounds. The State has just begun operations at the Nation's largest clam hatchery. No scallop or mussel landings were reported. Between January and May 1988, South Caro- lina closed over 4,600 acres of approved shellfish-growing waters after discovering the red tide in its northern waters. The State currently is planting shell to revitalize its oyster beds, and is encouraging aquaculture operations. Georgia had the second smallest shellfish harvest in the Nation. In 1989, oyster landings reached their highest level in five years, 46,000 pounds. Although Georgia's estuarine waters are high in nutrients and are relatively clean, restrictions on dredg- ing, access to reefs in tidal creeks, and the difficulty of removing oysters from large clumps has delayed development of the oyster industry. Leases for bid are rare because upland property owners' rights extend to the mean low water level, and all marsh lands are state-owned. In addition, the State's limited classifica- tion resources led to a policy that requires the closing of all shellfish- growing waters near urban areas. These same factors affect the clam harvest, which did not decline but varied greatly from 7,000 pounds to 64,000 pounds annually. Oyster harvest in Florida increased from 28,000 to 134,000 pounds as a result of hatchery operations. The number of planted seed oysters produced in hatcheries increased from 16 million in 1988 to 74 million in 1990. The scallop harvest declined from 10 million to 3.4 million pounds. The historically substantial clam harvest also declined significantly, from 1 .5 million pounds in 1 985 to 300,000 pounds in 1989. Decreases in Indian River resulted primarily from over-harvesting. However, in the St. Johns River and Biscayne Bay estuaries, the decline resulted from pollution due to increases in urban population. Most of Biscayne Bay's shellfish-growing waters have been removed entirely from classification. Still, clam hatchery operations have recently been initiated in Indian River and Biscayne Bay. 32 South Atlantic Recreational harvest of intertidal oysters in inland creeks in Georgia. Courtesy of Bates Littlehale, National Geographic Society 33 Gulf of Mexico Figure 9. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1990 34 Gulf of Mexico In the Gulf of Mexico region, 7. 1 million acres of estuarine waters were classified for shellfish harvest in 1990 (Figure 9). Forty-eight percent were classified as ap- proved and 52 percent as harvest- limited. This region ranks first in the Nation in both total acres of classified estuarine shellfish- growing waters and total acres of prohibited shellfish-growing wa- ters. Estuarine Shellfish-Growing Wa- ters. The Gulf of Mexico region extends from the southern tip of Florida, west to the Texas-Mexico border. Estuaries in the region are generally the shallowest in the Nation, have the largest amount of water surface area (1 1 ,764 square miles), receive the greatest freshwater inflow, and are the least influenced by tidal circulation. The Gulf of Mexico contains the most classified shellfish- growing waters (7.1 million acres) in the Nation, and was the largest oyster-producing region. The region also contains more than half of the Nation's coastal wetlands (16,600 square miles), and is generally the least susceptible to pollution retention. Gulf of Mexico estuarine drainage areas (EDAs) are strongly affected by hurricanes and rainfall, creating extremes in circulation, salinity, and upstream influences in the estuaries (NOAA, 1990). Therefore, the region contains 73 percent (1 .2 million acres) of the Nation's conditionally approved shellfish-growing waters. Appendix C identifies the estuaries in the region and summarizes the status of shell- fish-growing waters in each. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1985-1990. Approved shellfishing areas in the region declined from 54 percent of classified waters in 1985 to 48 percent in 1990. Over 3.7 million acres now are classified as harvest-limited. In addition, almost 147,000 acres were removed from the Register data base. Declines in approved acreage oc- curred in Florida and Texas, while Mississippi and Louisiana gained approved acreage. Alabama had no change in approved acreage, but added 17,000 acres, all classified as prohibited. Table 13 shows classifica- tions by state for 1985 and 1990. Fourteen of the 32 estuaries had net downgrades in classification while eight had upgrades. Ten estuaries had no net change in classification. Approved acreage outside estuaries in NOAA's NEI increased by 14,000 acres. Particularly significant were the reclassifications from conditionally Table 1 3. Distribution of Gulf of Mexico Classified Estuarine Waters, 1985 and 1990 / S Percent Classified $ 1 s> / 1 / .£ / o / •^ / £ / <£ / / State 85 90 85 90 85 90 85 90 FL 28 15 33 35 39 43 5 AL 16 15 24 28 60 57 MS 35 64 25 15 40 8 1 13 LA 52 56 24 35 13 10 11 TX 80 56 20 37 <1 7 Total 54 48 24 34 17 16 6 2 35 Gulf of Mexico Table 14. Gulf of Mexico Pollution Sources Affecting Harvest-Limited Acreage, 1990 ab Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Point Sources Sewage Treat Plants 394 45 86 27 27 17 265 18 201 24 Combined Sewers 7 1 204 14 Direct Discharge 2 <1 5 2 912 60 1 <1 Industry 205 24 39 25 218 14 60 7 Nonpoint Sources Septic Systems 697 80 15 10 580 38 471 56 Urban Runoff 466 54 32 20 643 43 135 16 Agricultural Runoff 4 <1 18 6 59 4 220 26 Wildlife 528 61 41 13 8 5 415 28 123 15 Boats 64 7 1 <1 94 60 225 15 123 15 Upstream Sources Sewage Treat Plants 131 15 2 1 3 2 1,038 69 Combined Sewer 7 <1 3 <1 13 <1 114 3 Urban Runoff 7 <1 211 67 3 2 562 37 10 1 Agricultural Runoff 211 67 3 <1 221 26 Wildlife 141 16 3 <1 66 8 a. Acres are times 1 ,000; % is percent of all harvest-limited acreage in state. b. Since the same percentage of a shellfish area can be affected by more than one source, the percentages shown above cannot be added. They will not sum to 100. approved to approved made by both Mississippi and Louisiana in Missis- sippi Sound. Mississippi completed sanitary surveys which enabled the State to open 124,000 acres, and Louisiana increased sampling efforts in the estuary, allowing the reclassifi- cation of 71 ,000 acres. Significant declines in approved waters occurred in Choctawhatchee Bay (53,000 acres), Pensacola Bay (43,000 acres), Mississippi Delta Region (7,000 acres), Brazos River (4,000 acres), Matagorda Bay (32,000 acres), San Antonio Bay (69,000 acres), and Upper Laguna Madre (226,000 acres). Most of the region's classification changes were a result of management decisions based on increased sanitary survey and sampling activities. This expansion allowed Florida and Texas to increase their conditionally ap- proved waters by 245,000 acres. Although Mississippi and Louisiana increased approved shellfish-growing waters, administrative limitations resulted in a 240,000 acre decrease in 36 Gulf of Mexico conditionally approved waters in these states. Pollution Sources Affecting Shell- fish-Growing Waters. Pollution sources affecting the region's shell- fish-growing waters reflect urbaniza- tion and industrialization around port cities, and the suburban and rural land uses which characterize about 95 percent of the region's estuarine drainage areas (NOAA, 1990). Nonpoint and upstream sources of pollution affect more harvest-limited shellfish-growing waters in the Gulf of Mexico than in any other region. Table 14 shows major categories of pollution sources affecting harvest- limited waters in the region. Data on pollution sources aggregated by estuary are given in Appendix D. Among nonpoint sources, septic systems affect the most (48 percent) harvest-limited shellfish-growing waters. This is indicative of the many small communities in the region. Direct urban runoff affects 35 percent of the harvest-limited shellfish-growing waters and upstream urban runoff affects 22 percent, attributable to urbanization, high freshwater inflow, and low tidal influence. In addition, wildlife affects 30 percent of harvest- limited waters. NOAA estimates that over 80 percent of fecal coliform loads in the Gulf of Mexico are from nonpoint sources (Office of Technol- ogy Assessment, 1987). Although nonpoint pollution affects the most harvest-limited waters, estuarine drainage areas in the Gulf of Mexico contain the greatest number of point sources among the regions, over 3,700, or 41 percent of the Nation's total. Point sources of pollution affect only about 14 percent of harvest- limited waters regionwide. Over half of the point sources are industrial facilities, many associated with the petrochemical industry and thus are concentrated around port cities. Galveston Bay, for example, contains 747 industrial point sources, the largest concentration in any estuary nationwide. Galveston Bay also contains 566 sewage treatment plants, 45 percent of the regional total. Sewage treatment plants affect 27 percent of the region's harvest-limited waters, but are a major factor only in the most developed estuaries (about a third), such as Tampa Bay, Mobile Bay, Mississippi Sound, the Missis- sippi Delta Region, and Galveston Bay. Direct discharges are a major pollution factor, affecting 25 percent of harvest-limited waters. These are located primarily in sparsely populated areas of Louisiana, where small camps accommodate hunting and fishing activities. Although most of the region's estuar- ies are rural, only eight percent of the harvest-limited shellfish-growing waters were affected by agricultural runoff. The amount of harvest-limited shellfish-growing waters affected by agricultural runoff is not expected to change greatly over the next five years, although urban, industrial and recreational sources of pollution are expected to increase. Between 1970 and 1990 the region's coastal popula- tion increased by 30 percent, and is 37 Gulf of Mexico Figure 1 0. Gulf of Mexico Commercial Shellfish Landings for Selected Species, 1985-1989 FLORIDA ALABAMA MISSISSIPPI LOUISIANA TEXAS Million Pounds 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 20" £15- LU £io : o -/ 5" l"" ~~^1 j 0.8" wo.6- < do.4- 0.2" "~ p_ r . Wo c ommert -lal han est Wo i ommer :ial han est Noc ommer •ial han est No commeri •ial han est 1.2" co Q. o do.8- < o CO 0.4" Noc ommercial han est No commer :ial han rest Noc ommer :ial han est No commer •ial harvest 6' LO _l HI W A co 4 D 2 2" N, i ommer :ial han t'^t Not ommer ;ial han est No •ommer :ial harvest Noc "ommer :ial han est No c ommer :ial han rest expected to increase another 26 percent in the next 20 years (NOAA, 1990). Associated development will place further stresses on the quality and quantity of shellfish-growing waters in the Gulf. Landings Despite a 50 percent decline in oyster landings since 1985, the Gulf of Mexico has consistently led the Nation in oyster harvesting. By the end of 1 990 further declines made the Gulf the Nation's second largest oyster- producing region, following the Pacific. However, during this period clam and mussel harvest has been the lowest among the regions. The exception is Florida where calico scallop landings have increased. Figure 10 shows landings in millions of pounds of 38 Gulf of Mexico meats for the principal harvested species for the five states in the region. Landings by State. Florida's oyster landings decreased from over four million pounds in 1 985 to less than 1 .5 million pounds in 1989. Clam land- ings also decreased from 215,000 pounds in 1985 to 18,000 pounds in 1 989. In contrast to the State's east coast, where scallop landings de- clined, Gulf Coast landings increased from 5,000 pounds in 1 986 to over 1 .5 million pounds in 1989. Declines have been attributed to over-harvesting and increases in harvest-limited waters affected by pollution sources associ- ated with coastal development. From Charlotte Harbor south, estuarine waters are used primarily for recre- ational harvest, and many of these waters were placed in the NSNP classification. In Pensacola Bay, Dermo infected and destroyed the oyster population as a result of higher drought-related salinities. The oyster harvest in Alabama dropped from 1 .3 million pounds in 1 985 to 1 0,000 pounds in 1 989. Although a significant spat set was reported in 1989, most of Mobile Bay remains closed for conservation purposes and as a result of local and upstream pollution. However, the main reason for large declines is Dermo, which returns to the Bay between hurricanes or major storm years when salinities increase. There also are indications that pollution and hypoxia may reduce the oyster's resistance to such diseases (Ander- son, 1988). Consequently, natural harvesting on public reefs gradually is giving way to aquaculture, relaying, and private leases. In Mississippi, oyster landings de- creased from over one million pounds in 1 985 to 1 00,000 pounds in 1 989. Weather cycles have had effects similar to those in Alabama, resulting in periods of high salinity and Dermo. Oyster reefs in some waters, such as Biloxi Bay, have survived these cyclical events. However, many of these waters are closed due to coliform contamination from shoreline activities. Only a small part of Biloxi Bay's productive reefs are now classified as restricted and are available only for the relay of oysters. Louisiana was the major oyster- producing state in the U.S. during the period. Over 14 million pounds of oysters were harvested in 1985, and the harvest increased to 22 million pounds in 1988. However, in 1989 oyster landings in Louisiana de- creased to just over 8.7 million pounds. Declines in landings are attributed to disease, habitat loss and declines in approved waters. Ap- proved waters often are located in areas of high salinity where diseases such as Dermo and predators such as the oyster drill cause high mortality. The most productive reefs are in conditionally approved waters where pollution brought in by heavy rains and high river stages closes waters to harvesting for extended periods. Much of the harvest involves trans- planting seed oysters from restricted public seed waters to approved private growing waters, where they 39 Gulf of Mexico complete the growth cycle. The process is labor-intensive, and mortality is almost 50 percent. Oyster landings in Texas decreased from 5.1 million pounds in 1985 to two million pounds in 1989, harvested from 1 .2 million acres of approved and conditionally approved shellfish- growing waters. In most cases, Texas classifications are influenced by rainfall and upstream pollution. The oyster harvest has been affected greatly by salinity extremes resulting from drought, hurricanes, storms and upstream rainfall events. The hy- persaline conditions that dominated most of the waters between 1 985 and 1990 led to widespread Dermo infections. Galveston Bay suffered additional declines from heavy rains in 1989, followed by an oil spill adjacent to Redfish Bar, the most productive reef in the State. However, a good setting of spat now has been ob- served in many parts of the Bay. State agencies are working on a plan to alter upstream dam releases to help stabilize salinities in eastern Texas estuaries. Matagorda and San Antonio bays, which had less salinity extremes during the period, had minor harvest increases. In 1986, a red tide infestation curtailed harvest and reduced some stock. The State has since initiated a biotoxin monitoring plan. 40 Gulf of Mexico While declining in number, classic oyster-dredging boats in the Gulf waters of Louisiana still harvest half of the Nation's oysters. -^ Courtesy of Dorothy Leonard, NOAA 41 Pacific Figure 1 1 . Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1990 Estuarine Drainage Area Boundary Classified Shellfish Growing Waters (294 Areas) 42 Pacific In the Pacific region, 428,000 acres of estuarine waters were classified for shellfish harvest in 1990 (Figure 1 1). Thirty-three percent were approved and 67 percent harvest- limited. This region has the least classified estuarine waters and the smallest percentage of approved waters in the Nation. In addition, 216,000 acres were classified in Alaska and Hawaii, of which 198,000 were approved. Estuarine Shellfish-Growing Wa- ters. The Pacific region extends from California's Tijuana estuary to Puget Sound. Estuaries in the region are small compared to others nationwide. Over half have water surface areas of less than five square miles. Except for San Francisco Bay, Columbia River, and Puget Sound, most of these small estuaries also are shal- low, and their circulation is dominated by riverine influences (NOAA, 1990). Consequently, habitat for intertidal molluscan shellfish is limited, and most of the harvest is from aquacul- ture. The Pacific region has the second lowest amount of total coastal wetlands in the Nation (NOAA, 1 991 b). These smaller estuaries are also highly sensitive to the effects of pollution (NOAA, 1990). For example, declines in water quality in Southern California resulting from urbanization have restricted most harvest in the State to the classified shellfishing areas north of San Francisco Bay. Appendix C identifies the estuaries in the region and summarizes the status of shellfish-growing waters in each. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters, 1985-1990. Approved estuarine shellfish-growing waters (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) de- clined from 42 to 33 percent of classified waters between 1985 and 1990, a downgrade of almost 20,000 acres. Of the total 428,000 classified acres in the region, about 275,000 (67 percent) acres are now classified as harvest-limited. An additional 35,000 acres of shellfish-growing waters were classified (all as restricted) during the period. Declines in approved shellfish-growing waters occurred in Washington and Oregon. Although California in- creased its approved waters by 1 ,000 acres, it also increased prohibited waters by 20,000 acres. This oc- curred primarily in response to an increase in applications for aquacul- ture leases. Table 15. Distribution of Pacific Classified Estuarine Waters, 1985 and 1990 / ^ Percent Classified J? J 1 / £ 1 Or > / State 85 90 85 90 85 90 85 90 CA 2 2 86 88 11 9 1 1 OR 35 22 36 35 30 42 2 WA 61 50 20 22 19 18 11 AK nd 100 nd nd nd HI nd nd 100 nd nd Total 42 53 40 31 18 11 1 5 Abreviation 3: nd, r 10 da a 43 Pacific Table 16. Pacific Pollution Sources Affecting Harvest-Limited Acreage, 1990 a,b California Oregon Washi ngton Alaska i Hawaii Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Point Sources Sewage Treat Plants 16 13 5 18 53 40 1 6 Combined Sewers Direct Discharge 6 21 Industry 86 68 37 28 6 33 Nonpoint Sources Septic Systems 11 9 9 32 37 28 Urban Runoff 26 20 12 43 54 41 18 100 Agricultural Runoff 18 14 8 29 15 11 Wildlife 18 14 4 3 17 94 Boats 25 20 6 21 10 8 6 33 Upstream Sources Sewage Treat Plants 2 7 43 33 Combined Sewer Urban Runoff 43 33 Agricultural Runoff Wildlife a. Acres are times 1 ,000; % is percent of all harvest-limited acreage in state. b. Since the same percentage of a shellfish area can be affected by more than one source, the percentages shown above cannot be added. They will not sum to 100. Declines occurred in five of the 20 estuaries with classified shellfish- growing waters. An increase in approved waters occurred in Drakes Estero as additional acres were placed into production. Particularly significant are the declines in ap- proved waters in Yaquina Bay and Skagit Bay, where 5,400 acres were reclassified as restricted. Of the Region's three largest estuaries (San Francisco Bay, Columbia River, and Puget Sound) only Puget Sound had approved shellfish-growing waters. These continued to decline. For example, urban runoff and shoreline development caused downgrades in Oakland Bay (820 acres) and Lynch Cove (630 acres). Willapa Bay, the most productive shellfishing area in the region, also experienced declines as a result of increasing shoreline development. Over 2,000 acres have been reclassified from approved to restricted. As in other regions, most of the changes in classification were a result of management decisions based on increased sanitary survey and sam- pling activities. 44 Pacific Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters in Alaska and Hawaii, 1990. There were 36 areas classified as approved in Alaska, totaling nearly 198,000 acres. Another 7,000 acres have production potential or already contain aquaculture operations. There are no harvest-limited waters. A growing industry based on aquacul- ture is producing oysters, mussels, and clams, a portion of which are shipped within Alaska. The wild harvesting of razor clams has also increased. In Hawaii, interest in oyster and clam culture has resulted in the classifica- tion of one acre as approved and 1 7 acres as conditionally approved. Over 18,000 acres remain prohibited as a result of pollution from urban, indus- trial, and boating sources. Pollution Sources Affecting Shell- fish-Growing Waters. Many of the pollution sources affecting Pacific shellfish-growing waters reflect expanding urbanization in the region. The region's population is expected to double between 1960 and 2010 to nearly 46 million, 77 percent of which will reside in coastal counties (Culliton etal., 1990). Table 16 shows the major categories of pollution sources affecting the harvest-limited waters in the region. Data on pollution sources aggregated by estuary are provided in Appendix D. Many urban centers in the Pacific region use ocean outfalls. Conse- quently, there are fewer than 1 ,000 point sources of pollution in estuarine drainage areas of the Pacific region, the second fewest among regions (NOAA, 1990). However, the Pacific region has the Nation's highest percentage (42 percent) of harvest- limited shellfish-growing waters affected by industry. Three-quarters of the industrial dischargers are located in Puget Sound, Columbia River, San Francisco Bay, and San Pedro Bay. Three of the largest point source dischargers are pulp and paper mills located along Columbia River. Of these large estuaries, only Puget Sound currently has commercial harvest. Sewage treatment plants affect 25 percent of the harvest-limited shell- fish-growing waters and are concen- trated in the San Pedro, Santa Monica, and San Francisco bays, Columbia River, and Puget Sound estuarine drainage areas. An addi- tional 1 6 percent are affected by sewage treatment plants located upstream. Many sewage treatment plants in Southern California have contributed to the removal of southern shellfish-growing waters from classifi- cation. One of the few harvests south of Drakes Estero in 1990 was from oil platform aquaculture projects in the Santa Barbara Channel. Urban runoff and faulty septic systems are also significant, affecting 36 and 19 percent of harvest-limited waters respectively. Agricultural runoff affects 1 3 percent of these waters and is particularly significant in Tillamook Bay because of extensive agricultural lands used primarily for dairy opera- tions. Over 23,000 cows contribute more than three million tons of ma- nure annually. 45 Pacific Figure 12. Pacific Commercial Shellfish Landings for Selected Species, 1985-1989 CALIFORNIA OREGON WASHINGTON ALASKA Million Pounds 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 1986 1987 1988 8 - C/5 1 6 - 1- co > 4 - O 4 2 - • 8 - w 6 - < _i O 4 - 2 - 0.6- w Q. o Zj 0.4- < O W 0.2- \ Nc commer :ial harve ;t \ , 0.4 - / C/5 — ' 0.3 - LU C/5 CO 30.2 - 2 0.1 - ^ Landings Overall commercial landings of molluscan shellfish in the region are the lowest in the Nation. However, Pacific oyster culture has grown steadily, followed by increased aquaculture in clams, mussels, and other species. The oyster culture began just after the turn of the cen- tury, and expanded to almost 1 1 million pounds by 1990. By the end of 1990, the region's oyster landings were the highest in the Nation. Recreational harvest of many natural stocks is still significant (NOAA, 1991a). Figure 12 shows landings in millions of pounds of meats for the principal harvested species by state in the region. 46 Pacific Landings by Major Bays. Mono Bay was one of the State's leading produc- ers of Pacific oysters until the 1970s. However, increasing sewage contami- nation reduced landings to 179,000 pounds in 1979, and to 18,000 pounds in 1984. The harvest declined further to 12,000 pounds in 1985, and finally to zero in 1 990. Drakes Estero is now the southernmost major source of oysters in the region, producing over 700,000 pounds annually. Humboldt Bay oyster landings dropped from 1 .5 million pounds in 1962 to about 500,000 pounds in 1988. The primary reason was increasing restrictions imposed following rainfall, when fecal coliform levels exceeded standards. However, the State and local industry developed an innovative cooperative management program which will reduce closures. Tillamook Bay oyster production declined dramatically from 588,000 pounds in 1968 to 300,000 pounds in 1985, where it has stabilized. The primary reason for this decline was runoff from agricultural activities, especially dairy farm operations. Recently, clean-up efforts by local farmers and municipalities have improved the quality. An annual oyster harvest of about five million pounds from Willapa Bay represents about half of Washington's production. This harvest is almost 20 percent of the Nation's oyster produc- tion, making this estuary the most productive per acre of surface water in the Nation. At the same time, shell- fish-growing water closures in Willapa Bay in 1990 resulted from increases in human activities, including clear- cutting of timber. As a result, many local conservation initiatives have been undertaken. Puget Sound leads the region's landings with over 13 million pounds annually. Subtidal scallop and mussel harvests increased, while intertidal oyster and clam harvests remained steady. To maintain this production, Washington committed significant resources to monitoring the pollution effects caused by rapid population growth as well as the increasing problem of nonpoint pollution in the area. Consequently, the amount of management funds per acre is higher for Puget Sound than for any other estuary in the Nation. Landings by State. The production of oysters in California increased from 1 .2 million pounds in 1 985 to 1 .5 million pounds in 1989, primarily from aquaculture in Drakes Estero, and Humboldt and Tomales bays. At the turn of the century, San Francisco Bay led the State in oyster production. However, exploitation, pollution, high mortality rates, and poor reproduction ended commercial harvest by 1939. Landings of clams (40,000 to 440,000 pounds) and mussels (150,000 to 335,000 pounds) are highly variable across the State. One of the most successful mussel culture operations takes place on oil platforms in Santa Barbara Channel. However, most harvest, other than oysters, is by recreational fishermen. The responsi- bility for protection of recreational shellfish-growing waters and fisher- men is left to local governments. 47 Pacific Oregon oyster landings remained steady at about 400,000 pounds between 1985 and 1989. Similarly, annual mussel landings remained at 50,000 pounds. Clam landings declined from 99,000 to 64,000 pounds. Marine biotoxic plankton blooms reduced the scallop harvest from 205,000 pounds to zero. Washington is the largest producer of shellfish in the region, harvesting over 18 million pounds in 1989. Harvests of oysters, clams, scallops, and mussels have all increased. Four species of scallops were harvested, more than in any other state in the Nation. Scallop harvest increased from 51 ,000 pounds in 1 985 to 307,000 pounds in 1989. Alaska was once a major producer of razor clams. After reaching a peak of 16 million pounds in 1916, over- harvesting, paralytic shellfish poison- ing, and market conditions eliminated commercial landings by 1961. After receiving approval for its Shellfish Sanitation Program in 1975, Alaska began to rebuild its shellfishing industry. Species currently harvested include razor clams, littleneck clams, and geoducks. However, overall landings declined from 1.1 million pounds in 1985 to about 700,000 pounds in 1989. An aquaculture- based oyster industry had its first landings (106,000 pounds) in 1989. Local growers are beginning to explore the aquaculture potential in Alaska's high-quality classified shellfish-growing waters. 48 Pacific Good water quality allows Pacific aquaculturists to produce nearly half of the Nation's oysters. Courtesy of Dorothy Leonard, NOAA 49 Concluding Comments This report has described declines in estuarine water quality, de- creases in the acreage of approved molluscan shellfish waters, and continuing declines in the Nation's shellfish harvests. Although declines in any given year are not especially dramatic, an almost inexorable trend that threatens to destroy the harvest of wild or natural shellfish continues through- out the Nation's coastal areas. The six percent decline in approved shellfish-growing waters from 1985 to 1990 (736,000 acres) was accompa- nied by a 1 .2 million acre increase in prohibited waters. These changes were primarily the result of expanding coastal development, represented by increases in harvest- limited acreage (1.2 mil- lion acres) affected by urban runoff, faulty septic systems, marina develop- ment, and buffer zones around sewage treatment A notable example of the impact of coastal development on shellfish- growing waters is the increase in harvest-limited waters (about 50 percent) affected by pollution associ- ated with recreational boating. In- creases in recreational boating in many coastal areas have resulted in a proliferation of marinas, many of which do not have facilities to collect or process sewage. Many marinas are located in or near productive shellfish-growing areas, as are the housing and other facilities related to such development. Consequently, in 1990 pollution from boating and marinas affected more than 25 percent of the harvest-limited shell- fish-growing waters in half of the shellfish-producing states. According to molluscan An i ncreasing Role for she f.sh growers "The real Aquaculture , Dedines battle is to mitigate the n . . .... . impacts of humans. No in a PP roved shellfish- clean water, no oysters." growing waters have (Fitzgerald, 1989). I been paralleled by declines in the harvests plants. The rate of decline in ap- proved acreage is highest in the most productive estuaries such as Chesa- peake Bay, the Mississippi Delta Re- gion estuaries, and Puget Sound. The coastal drainage areas affecting these estuaries already receive some of the heaviest pollution loads in the U.S., a condition that is not likely to change as development continues. NOAA previously reported that between 1960 and 2010, the coastal population will grow from 80 million to more than 127 million, an increase of almost 60 percent (Culliton et al., 1990). of wild or natural stocks of molluscan shellfish. A continued decline in the water quality of productive estuaries in combination with the problems of over-harvesting and disease, may eventually eliminate the natural harvest of shellfish. Successful aquaculture operations in estuaries such as Willapa Bay have shown that sustained production can be achieved. However, aquaculture requires access to both high quality water and a nearby land base. In addition, successful aquaculture 50 Concluding Comments requires exclusive use of parcels of land and water, often competing with other uses such as swimming, boat- ing, fishing, and navigation. Although well-established in a few estuaries, aquaculture is not yet encouraged by many existing laws and regula- tions governing private access to public lands and approved shellfish-growing waters (South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, 1989). Without increases in aquaculture it is likely that harvests of estuarine molluscan shellfish will continue to decline, as they did in the 1990 statistical year according to the most recent data from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Beyond 1990. Although reporting on the classifications of shellfish-growing waters began with the 1966 Register, / Shellfish program manage- ment resources were reduced in half of the Nation's shellfish-producing states between 1 985 and 1990. data have only been collected and analyzed on pollution sources, land- ings, and state shellfish programs since 1985. Thus, the inferences on relationships between classification, pollution sources, and harvest are based most heavily on a five-year period between 1985 and 1990. Data y collection for the 1 995 Register will begin in late 1994. If trends reported in the 1990 Register continue, the 1995 Register will reveal further declines in approved and conditionally approved shellfish-growing waters, and in harvests of wild stocks. Continued declines in the resources necessary for states to monitor, classify, and manage waters may reduce further the Nation's ability to sustain wild and natural stocks of molluscan shellfish by 1995. 51 References Anderson, R.S. 1988. Effects of anthropogenic agents on bivalve cellular and humoral defense mecha- nisms. In: Disease processes in marine bivalve molluscs. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 18: 283-242. Andrews, J.D. and S.M. Ray. 1988. Management strategies to control the disease caused by Perkinsus marinus . American Fisheries Society. Special Publication. 18:257-264. Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 43 pp. Carlton, J.T. 1991. European winkles, Japanese oysters, and zebra mussels: Perspectives on the introduction of exotic mollusks on the east coast of North America. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual shellfish biology seminar. Milford, CT: National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, p. 9. Andrews, J.D. 1990. The oyster industry, its plight and its revival on natural beds. Unpublished paper. Gloucester Point, VA: Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. 7 pp. Bender M.E. and R.J. Huggett. 1988. Contamininat effects on Chesapeake Bay shellfish. In: Contaminant prob- lems and management of living Chesapeake Bay resources. Philadel- phia, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of Science. P. 373. Blake, N.J. and G.E. Roderick. 1983. Correlation of coliform bacteria with Vibrios in Apalachicola Bay. In: Apalachicola oyster industry: Confer- ence proceedings. Gainesvile, FL: Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, pp. 17-19. Broutman, M.A. and D.L. Leonard. 1 988. National estuarine inventory: The quality of shellfish growing waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Centers for Disease Control. 1989. Foodborne surveillance data for all pathogens in fish/shellfish for years 1973-1987. Atlanta, GA: Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Chesapeake Executive Council. 1989. Chesapeake Bay oyster management plan. Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report. 28 pp. Cole, R. 1990a. Renewal of shellfish resources in Delaware. Unpublished paper. 1990 Interstate Seafood Seminar, Dewey Beach, DE: Fish and Wildlife Division, Delaware Depart- ment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Cole, R. 1990b. Commercial clamming in Delaware, 1989. Unpublished paper. Dover, DE: Fish and Wildlife Division, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 12 pp. 52 References Comps, M. 1988. Epizootic diseases of oysters associated with viral infec- tions. In: Disease processes in marine bivalve molluscs. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 18:23-37. Costagna, M. 1987. Mollusk culture for the Chesapeake Bay. In: Contaminant problems and management of living Chesapeake Bay resources. Philadel- phia, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of Science, p. 210. Culliton, T.J., M.A. Warren, T.R. Goodspeed, D.G. Remer, CM. Blackwell, and J.J. Mc Donough, III. 1 990. 50 years of population change along the Nation's coasts, 1960-2010. Coastal trends series, report no. 2. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 41 pp. DeMort, C.L. and A.Q. White (eds.).1 987. Growth impacts on coastal northeast Florida and Georgia. Proceedings of Fish Habitat Sympo- sium. Gainsville, FL: University of Florida Sea Grant College. 322 pp. Fisher, N. (ed.). 1989. The state of the Chesapeake Bay: Third biennial monitoring report. Data Analysis Workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Monitoring Subcommittee. 33 pp. Fitzgerald, R. 1989. The rise of the Pacific oyster. Seattle, WA: Seafood Leader. 9(4): 66-81. Food and Drug Administration. 1960. NSSP Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations, Part I. Washing- ton, DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 134 pp. Food and Drug Administration. 1967. The national shellfish register of classified estuarine waters. Davisville, Rl: Northeast Technical Services Unit. 34 pp. Ford, S.E. 1984. Chronic infections of Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) in the oyster Crassostrea virginica. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 45:94-1 07. Gulf South Research Institute. 1985. Pollution source survey: Terrebonne and Barataria bays, Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA. 32pp. Hargis, W.J. and D.S. Haven. 1988. The imperilled oyster industry of Virginia. Gloucester Point, VA: Virginia Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services. 130 pp. Haskin, H.H. and J.D. Andrews. 1988. Uncertainties and speculations about the life cycle of the eastern oyster pathogen Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX). American Fisheries Society. Special Publication. 18:5-22. Hofstetter, R. and S.M. Ray. 1988. Managing public oyster reefs: Texas experience. Journal of Shellfish Research. 7(3): 501-503. Kennedy, V.S. and L.L. Breisch. 1983. Sixteen decades of political manage- ment of the oyster fishery in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay. Journal 53 References of Environmental Management. 16:153-171. Leonard, D.L., M.A. Broutman, and K.E. Harkness. 1989. The quality of shellfish growing waters on the east coast of the United States. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 54 pp. Leonard, D.L. and E.A. Slaughter. 1 990. The quality of shell fishing waters on the west coast of the United States. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, Strategic Assessment Branch. 54 pp. Macfarlane, S.L. 1991. Docks, boats and shellfish: Are they compatible? In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual shellfish biology seminar. Milford, CT: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, p. 18. National Academy of Sciences. 1991. Seafood safety. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. 361 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1 985. Fisheries of the United States, 1984. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. 111 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1 990. Fisheries of the United States, 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. 111 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1991a. Coastal wet- lands of the United States: An ac- counting of a valuable natural re- source. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, Strategic Assessment Branch. 59 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1991b. Recreational shell fishing in the United States: Addendum to the 1985 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associ- ated recreation. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 22 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1990. Estuaries of the United States: Vital statistics of a national resource base. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 79 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1989. National estua- rine inventory: Data atlas, volume 3: Coastal wetlands-New England region. Rockville, MD: National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 25 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1988. National estua- rine inventory: Data atlas, volume 4: Public recreation facilities in coastal areas. Rockville, MD: National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 156 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1987. National estua- rine inventory: Data atlas, volume 2: 54 References Land use characteristics. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 40 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1985. National estua- rine inventory: Data atlas, volume 1: Physical and hydrologic characteris- tics. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 103 pp. Newell, C.R., G. Moore, and K. Moore. 1 988. Red tide in South Carolina. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Depart- ment of Health and Environmental Control. 26 pp. Newell, C.R. and D.E. Campbell. 1990. Aspects of a mussel carrying model. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual shellfish biology seminar. Milford, CT: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration, National Marine Fisher- ies Service, p. 26. Nishitani, L. and K. Chew. 1988. PSP Toxins in Pacific coast states. Journal of Shellfish Research. 7(4):653-669. Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Wastes in the marine environ- ment. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. 312 pp. Pacheco, P. A., D.R.G. Farrow, T. Manuelides, and S.O. Rohmann. 1 989. The national coastal pollutant discharge inventory: Point source discharges in coastal areas ofAla- bama-A summary by estuarine watershed for 1987. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 34 pp. Pacheco, P.A., D.R.G. Farrow, T. Manuelides, and S.O. Rohmann. 1 989. The national coastal pollutant discharge inventory: Point source discharges in coastal areas of Missis- sippi-A summary by estuarine water- shed for 1987. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, Strategic Assessment Branch. 32 pp. Pacheco, P. A., D.R.G. Farrow, T. Manuelides, S.O. Rohmann, J. McLeod, and M.J. Katz. 1990. The national coastal pollutant discharge inventory: Point source discharges in coastal areas of Texas-A summary by estuarine watershed for 1987. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 71 pp. Parker, H.S. 1991 . The northeastern regional aquaculture center: An overview. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual shellfish biology seminar. Milford, CT: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, p. 22. Price, D.W. 1990. California's paralytic shellfish poisoning prevention pro- gram, 1927-89. Sacramento, CA: Environmental Management Branch, California Department of Health Services. 36 pp. Rask, K. 1991. Unexplained oyster mortalities in New England: 1989- 1990. In: Proceedings of the eleventh 55 References annual shellfish biology seminar. Milford, CT: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, p. 1 1 . Richards, G.P. 1985. Outbreaks of shellfish-associated enteric virus Nines in the U.S. : Requisite for development of viral guidelines. Journal of Food Protection. 48(9): 815-823. Shumway, S.E., S. Sherman-Caswell, and J.W. Hurst. 1988. Paralytic shell- fish poisoning in Maine: Monitoring a monster. Journal of Shellfish Re- search: 7 '(4) : 643-652. Siewicki, T.C. 1988. Shellfish-associ- ated illnesses and their control. Unpub- lished paper. Charleston, SC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, National Marine Fisheries Service. 13 pp. Sinderman, C.J. 1976. Effects of coastal pollution on fish and fisheries with particular reference to the Middle Atlantic Bight. Lawrence, KS: American Society of Limnology and Oceanogra- phy. In: Proceedings of Symposium on the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and the New York Bight. 2:281-301 . South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1988. Statewide water quality assessment. Columbia, SC: Bureau of Water Pollution Control, pp. 69-94. South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium. 1989. Aquaculture. Charleston, SC: Coastal Heritage. 4(2). 1 2 pp. Strategic Assessment Branch. 1989. National estuarine inventory supple- ment 3: Physical and hydrologic characteristics-The Mississippi Delta system estuaries. Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 17 pp. Tester, P. A., P.K. Fowler, and J.T. Turner. 1989. Gulf Stream transport of the toxic red tide dinoflagellate Ptvchodiscus b re vis from Florida to North Carolina. Beaufort, NC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, National Marine Fisheries Service. 10 pp. Virginia Sea Grant College Program. 1 990. A plan addressing the restora- tion of the American oyster industry. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. 64 pp. Welsh. B.L. 1991. Dissolved oxygen regimes and shellfish recruitment. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual shellfish biology seminar. Milford, CT: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, p. 8. Wenczel, P. 1991. Long Island Bay scallop reseeding efforts: Life after the brown tide. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual shellfish biology seminar. Milford, CT: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, p. 20. 56 References Personal Communications S. Barker, Maine Department of Marine Resources, West Boothbay Harbor, ME. R. Benton, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Moorhead City, NC. C.E. Bryan, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. V. Burrell, Marine Resources Research Institute, Charleston, SC. L. Byrd, Alabama Department of Public Health, Mobile, AL. T. Candies, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Baton Rouge, LA. D. Cannon, Oregon Department of Human Resources, Office of Environ- ment and Health Systems, Portland, OR. J. Cirino, Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation, Gulfport, MS. R. Cole, Delaware Department of Health, Dover, DE. R. Collins, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. B. Croonenberghs, Division of Shellfish Sanitation, Virginia State Department of Health, Richmond, VA. C. deQuillfeldt, New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook, NY. P. DiStefano, Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. R. Dugas, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Baton Rouge, LA. W. Eisele, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Leeds Point, NJ. S. Ford, H.H. Haskin, Shellfish Re- search Laboratory, Port Norris, NJ. A. Ganz, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Wakefield, Rl. K. Hansgen, Environmental Manage- ment Branch, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, CA. B. Hastback, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook, NY. D. Heil, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL. K. Hemphill, Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources, New Orleans, LA. M. Hickey, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sandwich, MA. R. Howell, Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, Dover, DE. J. Hurst, Maine Department of Marine Resources, West Boothbay Harbor, ME. T. Johnson, Johnson Oyster Company, Inverness, CA. 57 References J. Joseph, New Jersey Department of P. Raiche, New Hampshire Depart- Environmental Protection, Leeds Point, ment of Health and Human Services, NJ. Concord, NH. C. Judy, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. J. Lilja, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA. C. Lunsford, Virginia Water Control Board, Richmond, VA. B. Marcotte, Maine Department of Marine Resources, West Boothbay Harbor, ME. M. Marshall, North Carolina Shellfish Program, Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. J. McGurk, Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia, WA. J. Migliore, State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Manage- ment, Division of Water Resources, Providence, Rl. K. Moore, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, SC. W. Outten, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. H. Pendell, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR. R. Perkins, Alabama Department of Health, Mobile, AL. S. Ray, Texas A&M University, Galveston, TX. D. Relyea, Flower and Son, Inc. Bayville, NY. G. Richards, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C. T. Rippen, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton, VA. S. Rippey, U.S. Food and Drug Admin- istration, Davisville, Rl. J. Seiforth, New Hampshire Depart- ment of Health and Human Services, Concord, NH. W. Sieling, Office of Seafood Market- ing, Maryland Department of Agricul- ture, Annapolis, MD. T. Smith, Pacific Oyster Growers Association, Seattle, WA. J. Speaker, Rhode Island Division of Water Resources, Providence, Rl. P. Stacy, Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Hartford, CT. K. Taberski, San Fransisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA. A. Taylor, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD. 58 References B. Thompson, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL. R. Thompson, Texas Department of Health, Austin, TX. F. Vang, South Carolina Water Re- sources Commission, Columbia, SC. J. Veazey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, St. Simons, GA. M. Voisin, Motivatit Seafoods, Houma, LA. J. Volk, Aquaculture Division, Con- necticut Department of Agriculture, Milford, CT. P. Wells, California Department of Health Services, Lompoc, CA. R. Wetherell, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Davisville, Rl. D. Whitaker, Massachusetts Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife, Sandwich, MA. L. Wiegardt, Jolly Roger Pacific Oyster Co., Ocean Park, WA. K. Wiles, Texas Department of Health, Austin, TX. C. Wiley, Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA. G. Ward, Center for Water Resources, H. Winter, Maine Department of Marine University of Texas, Austin, TX. Resources, West Boothbay Harbor, ME. 59 The fertilization process of the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Courtesy of Robert F. Sisson, National Geographic Society 60 Appendices A. The NEI Program 62 B. Classification by State 64 C. Classification by Estuary 67 D. Pollution Sources 83 E. Landings by State 93 F. State Shellfish Programs 97 G. Glossary 99 61 Appendix A: The NEI Program National Estuarine Inventory The goal of the National Estuarine Inventory (NEI) is to develop a com- prehensive framework for evaluating the health and status of the Nation's estuaries, and to bring estuaries into focus as a national resource base. The principal spatial unit for which all data are organized is the estuarine drainage area, or EDA, defined as that land and water component of an entire watershed that most directly affects an estuary (NOAA, 1985). EDA bound- aries coincide, where possible, with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Cataloging Units within which the head of tide of an estuary falls. These data are being used to make comparisons, rankings, statisti- cal correlations, and other analyses related to resource use, environmental quality, and economic values among estuaries. The cornerstone of the NEI is the National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas, Volume 1: Physical and Hydrologic Characteristics (NOAA, 1 985). This atlas identifies 92 of the most important estuaries of the conterminous U.S. and presents information through maps and tables. These estuaries represent approxi- mately 90 percent of the estuarine water surface area and 90 percent of the freshwater inflow to marine waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Volume 2, Land Use Characteristics, presents area estimates for seven categories and 24 subcategories of land use, as well as population estimates for 1970 and 1980 (NOAA, 1987). Land use estimates come from the USGS Land Use and Land Cover Program and are compiled for three spatial units: (1) estuarine drainage area; (2) USGS hydrologic cataloging unit; and (3) counties intersecting EDAs. Population estimates are compiled for EDAs only. Volume 3, Coastal Wetlands -New England Region (NOAA, 1 989) presents wetlands acreage estimates for 12 wetland types in 16 EDAs and 42 counties from Maine to Connecti- cut. The data are a subset of those presented in this report. Computer- generated color maps of selected EDAs are also presented. Volume 4, Public Recreation Facilities in Coastal Areas (NOAA, 1988), presents data for Federal, State, and local recreation facilities in 327 counties bordering tidally influenced water and 25 estuary groups. A total of 1 ,589 public agencies that owned and/or managed outdoor recreation sites and facilities in coastal areas provided data for the inventory. Other NOAA projects contributing data and information to the NEI include the Estuarine Living Marine Resources program, the quality of shellfish- growing waters and related projects, the National Coastal Pollutant Dis- charge Inventory, and the Outdoor Resource Economics program. The NEI represents the most consistent and comprehensive set of data describing the Nation's estuarine resource base. 62 Appendix A: The NEI Program Additional Activities A number of additional NEI activities are now under way or planned. Based on the review of Volume 1 of the NEI by estuarine scientists and State and Federal resource manag- ers, several areas have been identi- fied for improvement in future editions. New Estuaries Added. New estuar- ies of local or regional importance have been added. Eight estuaries in Oregon have been added due to their biological importance to coastal fisheries. Five new EDAs have been delineated to represent the original Mississippi Delta Region because of a need for increased resolution. A limited number of additions to other portions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico regions have also been made. A new NOAA report, Estuaries of the United States, Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base, updates the NEI. The report provides information on an expanded number of EDAs (102), including physical and hydro- logic features, natural resources, economic activities, and pollution susceptibility. These EDAs and the counties falling within their boundaries are the units for which all NEI data are now collected. The wetlands data presented in Appendix D are orga- nized according to this framework. Improved Salinity Resolution. Another recommendation was to improve the resolution of the salinity regimes mapped for each estuary. Based on a study of Mobile Bay to determine if bottom and surface salinities could be mapped in zones of five parts per thousand increments for periods of high and low flow, an effort to compile data for EDAs along the Gulf Coast is now nearing completion. This detailed depiction will character- ize the effects of freshwater inflow, tides, and wind on salinity patterns more completely than the three average annual salinity zones de- scribed in Volume I of the NEI. Other Projects. A project focusing on the agricultural use of 28 selected pesticides on 71 crops in 78 EDAs was completed in 1989. Future NEI volumes on additional topics are also planned. For example, a project to characterize the distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in estuaries began in 1985. To date, information has been compiled on 103 species in 83 estuaries on the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic coasts, and information is currently being compiled for 62 species in 34 North Atlantic estuaries. 63 Appendix B: Classification by State -=s S* goQC>c\iin£Or--fc , =>o^oc>oooOO C r )CNjr ^ 00 coC> •5~S m^ioio Co.- -* r- ^ <* 3 ,<2 O 1- r- co co 8= D Q) "D -= s ° O S v ^ K b>«N.N; V CM ^ -J N ^f 00 N »• Z£ r ifl >~ o m » 1") t- CM CM ScDjs'S ro 'o N 2oS!!SOw i fi^N(io2io^mLnco«!o Q) r *\.r *^ *-T " " i#c ii-r to*: o w I— CO i^ ^ u i «; oo m co co tN ci , ~ *» t^ t-" ,-" l*f ^i- c £ lr >c-or--r--o>S- ,f > ?: o o T "„ T ^ cm^^-o^t ^ t\i o m * ^ l-~ *~ T- *« i-~ i-~ T-" IO *Cf gmioQwoSS^SjS^'o^ino^ScocnifiNgo; S ro o> coto^Nti^coT-cDcoco^^in^^ftoin ^ r; •■— ^ 1— ■""* n - co CD ^~ xj j= o t"- 2 00 « cm cm t- *- ■^T-^-or~-'~ u ^-^m-^rto>ioS ^1 t- *» w t- ^ ,- co «> g ro CD w "O c Or^oo cr >c>i-»--Oo'sr->-T-cM < ^ Q ocDcor«-N.Q m t- *~ ■* v cm ^ *- co *- *- c5 T" « «| -g j= to CD ■^ o> -0 T— *- a. •<— CO r^.l s «Ooi-Ti-o^' , ^OT-r^cDCOco 01 N K CO o> c _o +* XJ c in Y— X CO r T^ 1" CD i_ O < O ■0 d> co CO in CD CO co CO o> > T— *y in Q. CO Q. < m CO 0) CM cm CD (0 T3 C 0) >- H c O '** a> CO co CO CD ■Q Hh w C Co CD c a> jg CO CO UJ v co cm ^ V ' w ? ? a> ^ N ftl g a) o CD c o oc\jc\ocnO>Ocg.^co^^' , ^o C o CO(£)I v_|v.o cm co cm ^ co-^i-r- CN C\| |E 2 1 cd oo^QoOCa-^ocOi-oCDQcooT-cMCviO £2? CM N OJ oocoococM c iJcncoooO c:i coco o Q O) W i- CM CO p Oi-OOOOO cooocmcm cm co co "* ^r ■r-" ^-" «f "» rr T~ CO i* CO o K CM CM T~ o O o o C3 o Q ,— ^- ro o 1- o *- c CO q> c ?» < CO o c J V) CO fc o UJ o Z flliit iliS-g f-l§ E - llill roo m 2 ^ <0 r ° - cjOqj m2 ill £ ffl CD^x- «r SCC023 Q^>2 cd xi 64 Appendix B: Classification by State ~-->S°' ,- ocno0 cvjC\Jooc\JtD ? £ co co £! °K ■= 2 ° o en »- cd fc Is 00 <* QPO ScDcnooooooOco^'^-^rr^io'O S CO N ID O ^ 3 CT> h~ 00 CT> CT> Cn 2> "D^CMCM-^0vJO>CJ> O") CO ^ 00 00 O O — ^ I CM* CN CVT CO t-' K "^ cos O CO — in S^r^-coi-Os ■* m n w w t S ^ w w i- t- (o oo co n ^t co co ffl -- t- h- ?r ^f ■» - * CM CN 2 « 0. CO O cn 73 CD O) CD CO CM O CD o ■<- o CO r^ CN CM o CO CD N co CM en O} o CO ^ T— r^ a) n r> N Tt ^J- CD CO CM CO CO co CO g to cu "O c en CN f^ o CO o r^ o o CO co o (U CD O t Lf) o as CD CO en o o ■* V LO O o O CM CO oo CO ?2 CD CD CO CO CO & , , Q) ■ JD *- c CD tz o o^ o en en r*. CD O CO en Ol o ^f .,_ ^1- h- r^ CO f* 5 tsl c t CD ?~ ^ ■* CM co CM co co LO 1"" 10 E o o T— t*t SI o ■*■« o "5 ^ c CU Q) X CO cu o o m CO en co co oo O CO CN 00 CO o CM CO £ i^ o CO ^ N. *" »- CD en sz O ~ CO CM 1 ■* u E 2 < SZ TD o o en CM CM oo o ,_ ^. o r*~ 1^- i^ LO co «* s «3 O 5 en oo ■* -* en O) IT) LO r^ 00 in CO CO = TO 0) > o CO cs CM- CM CO co" co" £ CD CO CD c in 1 S CO CL • s O) < io CO en CO ,— ■^ o CO CD o 00 r^ co o LD CN F^ 2 I "^~ o o lo ^ en O) CO in in Tt 1^. CD CO CJ) CO 00 CM o CN o CN CM 1 r~- ■* CD co" CO CO c £ O) 0) II 1- "5 "5 *^ V O) c g o l- l- i-i o "to CO co cu ca ■*— CO c o 03 c "o CO o .c: H — ' CO c "5 TO O 3 CO o CO o c < 3 cu C C § (0 -Q o ■c CO CO E CO Q. CO CO CO CO co CO X cu cu c § CO 8J g 03 ^ LLI O O CD i-' c\T c\J co" co~ 'T CT> 00 Q ^ ^ "1 ^ ld ■* a) O ^ T~ (O (O Ifl O) CD co S CO N. *~ en CO o o CN CM »» CO cr> F^ CO •* en a V s cm in CM CO I*) CD co" CO CO" CM r- o co CM >» T" K <» T— Lf> ▼- o >* "» o CO O} CD O r- T- o> "* oo o r- ^t t- CT) O CM en m in CD cm ■*> co co co co T- o 0) m CO CD CM CM O o o o o CM cm O co CO CO *-* c o o CM C\j O in CO o ,— CO ?5 o ,_ ra CD CD *~ V — *~ ^ V r» Is. r>~ c ^ in o o T- o 4* o b 1— c X o o in CO CD CM C\j o ■1 — 1 CM CO o o o r-- g O CM CD c/> *"■ «* 0) T— L. o < O CD CD CM C\j t— oo o 00 o co CO V CO o V CO CO £2 v g en s > T— '- CO CO CO O) cm" i o Ih T- in O. 00 Q. < m CO CD CM CM i— V ■* 00 •<* o o CO 8 v 5 co £ £ o ■— „ 0) U) £ O *" E 2 . g 2 cu -D " c "5 c CD 0) g a> c o & o (0 w c o m O) 0) cu S TO g II 2 I il O oc ro c S) '<= S o i- CO x- = « « CO Lu O o **• s " c o ra c o ra .E co x: ^ to co CO CO <: < -*— cu C C CO 3 Uj a? o ■c g O TO £ 2 w to £ LU O 66 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary North Atlantic New Hampshire Estuarine Drainage Areas Passamaquoddy Bay Englishman Bay Narraguagus Bay Blue Hill Bay Penobscot Bay Muscongus Bay Sheepscot Bay Casco Bay Saco Bay Great Bay Merrimack River Massachusetts Bay 72a Boston Bay 13 Cape Cod Bay Note: Sub-estuaries are in Italics. 67 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary o r-. o o CO 1 CO CM O CO C\J co CM co CO CM o o o CO CD CO co co CO co CD ir> LD CM ■* CD CD CO £ CM LO o o o T — i r»- lo CM CO t- CD Or °» m Q CO o co 1 .^ 00 m CO co ■o o> CO -5t M" i — co co 0) O) CM ^■^^ > !"■ o o o Q. Q. o tn Tf ^r CO ,— If) in r» t— < CO co CD CO r^ Ti- ro CD co X *~ 0) a> i_ u < h- CO O T o ■o S co lr^or^-ocMi---cMco lo i ■* r^ W co CD 2? CO OIONOINNCDOI CM CO CO CO CD > CT) t- O *~ ccs Q. a !2 LDincotD'-^NroooLn I co i co to co o> < wcoo50)0)0)0)intooo(M cm cncncoio 3 CD o CD Oo^fCMcoo^-^-t^-^-^cMmOocnW w 2 O CM i- t- .^ i— i- .£ "S *- 2 i - 2oNiflwo)0)*o)^io CO -i— i— i— CD O o CO in C ■O Sr^cO-^^OKCDCMCO^-CMCMKoOCOCM I s - ,_ a> S vcdcmco cncMcncomg •- T- w ^ en £ * , ~ O Scdcm-^co^cmcocmcmocmcm^cococo h- ^ n" & CMcxj^^^ II ™ £ CO TO o o o ¥ I ^^^'^^'^^s E 1 " * 1 <2 co I -r— I i roi-c^T-'-Cvi^T-^ ICMh- co S O V V 1- CO r- co 2 a> I *~ I I "* t- I ▼- t- I I I I i- CM O J- c o 2 ■" -s — t- »* 03 C S"^"^""^ ICOCXJCAJCNJ I I I I I i- i- © « O t- *V "5 r- m > u coLn^icolCMCOjgajo t- -r- CM Tr^SfS O CO TOO o c CO +-> < £ > +- 03 1— 3 o z CO HI cam >>cc>> fgco >, o ° "" JS >s CD m CO I « . m CO — ' w- ^^ w . . m . . — c/jrr — ml^cr- 1 - a-ccoiQQ-Szi-S^^-^zj^-o 5 I" § » S I « ^ 8 & 8 ?t5 I S I , 5 £ o s z mcni2(D=rB!fflS|fflO[tit o ro^ Q.UJZCQCL^CX)Oi750^S (: DOO Z Z<2 68 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary Middle Atlantic Rhode Island Connecticut Estuarine Drainage Areas 1 Buzzards Bay 2 Narragansett Bay 3 Gardiners Bay 4 Long Island Sound 4a Connecticut River 5 Great South Bay 6 Hudson River/Raritan Bay 7 Barnegat Bay 8 New Jersey Inland Bays 9 Delaware Bay 10 Delaware Inland Bays 11 Chincoteague Bay 12 Chesapeake Bay 72a Patuxent River 12b Potomac River 12c Rappahannock River 126 York River 12e James River 12f Chester River 12g Choptank River 12h Tangier/Pocomoke Soun6s Note: Sub-estuanes are in italics. 69 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary 2 mn(\iNono'f'-(Dmt\i(D i oo co 2? ^ co i-o^o^tntMO t~ o^lQr^C\JC\ltDoC\JO-*-'-r^COC\J^r I co to 99 co ■^ocoo^roo-^co t- 7 S w n oo n i r-~ i id oi "t m oo ^ i c\i \t © 2 m (D en co cr> in oo o *- Q. Q- 12 in co co M- i oo | id en n ^ co co i 1 ^^ < §} CT> CO 0> CO CO iniDCOCOCDffl OJCO o W'-cO'j-Ln'-wNNncn'-co I co oo (J N ^f W CO CMOCOCOOJ-'-OO toco OJ '-•'-•'- O t- CM m- t- CO C\i co o 1- w N CO CO O) '- B o> CD'-lOWCONNCOOICDin I CO K C\JO CMCMCOLDCMi-OCO CO K ■^ t- t- CM *t i- I s - C\i o Ni-wcocoN^oco^nT-w | c\j 2 m CM CM CO t- t- t- O vco 0. '2a>LncMr^cor^LnooLn'^-i-(M i oo i 92 CM o CO CO i- t- CO V *tf T3 2 I^12cmi-OIt-^|NN|^.P) a en ^ co ^ v cm v co ^ ■»- S O) O T- COCOv co M cm V v cm ^ ■»- DC en ■= O ,_ -i- ,_ < co i- r-_ oj 0) la. u < ' c CO en o S m « § CO LU CO CO CO in CO CO m u "D m >, >* l_ qj i> or "5 ,c_> o CD c c co c m >, CO CD w CO CO CD 0> w c CO en CO >> CO CO CO t CD c 3 o CO CO CO CD _c o CO cc CD > ir c o CO CD 05 0) CO c CD c/> CD ~ 3 >. CO CO CD co 5 CJ c ro c CD ro CO CD Z3 cn CO o O CO CO CD .*: CO CD Q. ro C/3 CD CD if c CD CD if O CO E N N U) CO CD "O 5 co ro c 3 o ~\ 01 CO o o i 3 ro CD CD CD 1c .£_ CO o CD Z O CJ O X CO Z Q a O U U. U. c < CO^^-D^-.ScO^CQJrDi-^cfCf? * - I HS8S i ** *« § 8" I It CO DC 70 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary c o (J^ o o o x (0 CD i- u < o "■^ c < 0) o o> _l X o» --5 in 00 O) TJ o CD O) > o> O *~ >_ Q. Q. in < 00 o en o> -B— r m CO *■» o 1- m 00 en T- TJ O O) CD en s T ~ o m 00 Q. o> TJ (1) o en Oi O T— i_ ** CO m CD 00 DC en *" to c o o *■* TJ W c CO o en o o TJ en CD O) > ^ O k. Q. Q. in < 00 en T— >. L. CO 3 *— CO 111 c\j co t- O • I co c\j en N cm N en 00 N N. 00 O O 00 C\j CM K £! O) N O) Ol 00 "* *- CO C\J C\j CO CO *0 CD co cp ^a- c\j c\j «a- in IT) ^t C\| >■ og CO *- V Co 00 t— to t~ cn m CM CM CO CM I c\i co co N c\j r«- CM *~ CO I I C\j ■>- CM co co co co in co CM co co' m CM CM CO CM CO CO CO co in CM CO ^ -^ O O l~: O 7— CO CM CO CM 00 ** o 1"" O ,_ 00 o «» *j- «T ^ 15 o H o *^ co c +* CIS o 1- < "co CD c TJ o tj ~- CO S z o CD i_ CO t/5 CD CO to CD .Q Z> CO o cr> o CO o o o ■^r LD CO "O c CO in oo en CO CD O CO o o o C\J "D _oj TO o o (/) c o CB o _co o CD > o "a CD 2 S? CI CO i CD C h o 05 E Z CD CO CD > o a CO c g o a> o 77 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary South Atlantic J& Estuarine Drainage Areas 1 Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds 10 Savannah River 1a Pamlico Pungo Rivers 11 Ossabaw Sound 1b Neuse River 12 St. Catherines/Sapelo Sounds 2 Bogue Sound 13 Altamaha River 3 New River 14 St. Andrew/St. Simons Sounds 4 Cape Fear River 15 St. Marys River/Cumberland Sound 5 Winyah Bay 16 St. Johns River 6 North Santee/South Santee Rivers 17 Indian River 7 Charleston Harbor 18 Biscayne Bay 8 9 St. Helena Sound Broad River Note: Sub-estuaries are in italics. 72 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary o o o O 0> _l O) X in CO O) r* T3 O > o Im O en Q. Q. in < CO >8 ^ o o> en ^_ ^~ n 4— o 1- in CO en ^ o ^o en 0) en ^ JQ JO m o CO 0. en s 4-* o en en o ^ w (A CC m CO en 15 o c en g en *^ ^ ■D C m O CO o en o •o en en > ^ o fat Q. Q. < m CO en oo cm cd o co r^- cd o CM t~ tj -3" ^ CO 00 00 O "tf T- M- Tj o i^ co oo to o mmKiN'-NN'-o^inmmiDo T-»(i"t^fflcO'-o r--i^-como oooo-^or^-ooi- CD CD CD CD CD | CD CO t- i- CO CM K lo CO ICOCOCD | ID W Ifi W ^ | co oo to m co -r- oo oi t\i w >- "t CD 00 O \j- m to t- CO >.OinWN(D'J(DnCMO'JCM CDCDCMCMCMCOC0t-i-^-i-'3-t- OCDnNMlD^i-(\lT-O^W >.iDWCMwnc\i(DT-n'-'t'- C V ^O I s * O) ■* O LO CO N ^ O) P) O) co CM CO C\J T- >J^(D(O0)C0CD^O)lfiO)C)'-nC\l CO Co 00 ' — t- »" CM V CM -i- CM I I I I I X ^ CM ^ r- t- V V I I I I I I I I I I I CD t- c en J c\i v v v g 8 - f) M 3t i i V, ^ « " CM V V I I I •^- co co o co co CM \j- CD O^ CM O "*fr IV CM Tfr to ^f en en cm CO i- CM cd co o co cm CO ■>- 00 I co co oo cm m LO CO CO CM o CM u < c CO 3 O CO "O c o P i— > DC CO CO o CO Ql CD o i. fa_ a. o DC o C 1 1 C o D ro 3 I co p_ ro E CD if CD CO 3 "a c o CO CD > ir 5 CD > ro CD LL CD ro CD JZ ro >, r ro CO CO ro CO .a ro X c o to ro o CO ro c X > CC .c ro c c ro > u o CO 5 ro ro CO CO l?j C. °k_ JZ ro O > cr ro _c ro E ro V) 01 CD n ro £ _c , ; ro CO .,_; tu < a. <2 CD z O z O CO CQ CO O CO < 73 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary o CO _l cn X m CO O) T— ■o > o O a. Q. IT) < CO ^8 T— O <7> O) mmm ^— CD +* o t- m CO en T- ■o o en a> en S3 E m o CO Lb 0. en T3 o en en O f *c CO 0) DC m CO en ro o c en o en "■*-» T- 5 c w o CO o en o T3 en O en > ^~ O Im Q. Q. < m CO en V >> i_ ra 3 *-» V) Hi co i i- cd i r-. en h- CD 00 00 Tt CM CO cd I ■>- co i r- m i- CO CO CD LO CM CO CO l-T- ^ I cd cm i oo m cn o CO i- CO ^t N (O CD CD o I ^r co I co g co <£ cd in ^ 5 m 2 o CO o o cd I 1* cd i in m co o LD CD O Q CM q CO T3 C CO ^f CM CD CO o h- en CO CM CM CO m CO CD in w n uj *■« i^ CO CM CO ^ CM qJ b CO o o o fv T3 CD B r- I N I I I r- CD i- O CM t- | ■■- CM C _ : CM CM o u O I l- CM © o (0 "o 2; T3 CO < S j o E « 55 > > o CD CD > CD CO co c 5 o c 3 5 < S -o ro O tS ^j ^j ^ -o (/) ill W C0 CO .E 74 1 CO y— CO LO f- CD 1 co m cn ^r |v CO 1 co o CO xi- *t m ^— en CM l«- 1 m m CO o o CM CO CO CM CO 1 CO o h- CM CO m CD CM 1 LD CM h- CO ^r" CM ID co" 1 co O CM o CO 1 ~ *T 1 1 m (O T— CO CO 1 o en T- CO ^ IV T ~ m 1 LO CM CM CM CO CO <* 1 CD CO r^ cn CO o CO CM o 1 LO < V- ra CO c o CD 2 1- CD c < ro CO CD sz c o o CO 3 o CO CD 6 to z co ■•— i o (0 CO o CD c zi CO o 0) CO > », 4_> C5 o (D _> u CD o U) o m cd 1_ n co Z o ^ c - UJ ^*— 1 CD sz. "O CO CD c E u z J, CD CO 0) CO > CD CO > o o _j CO T t_ •£ CO c o o .c: CO CO ■> o 0) n CD o O < 2: Appendix C: Classification by Estuary Gulf of Mexico TO "O a> m re re CO >> re m > > re m ^ m ffl 00 o w c cz (B TO r m i; m ~v 03 u (i ( ) re rr- re o r in _i CQ _i a) re < r c re 3 CL o C 03 re o Q m t/J .> CO < U J 0j _J hi to o to r~- IT) 01 o re , a c3 CM C\J C\J CM CO '.-. CO — >c, < .>. r m <0 ~l m LL1 O U) CO O 70 i_ TO n I 0) CD •> c a> a> u c re rr re m t: 03 co re 03 re m o3 r u l_ rr, r O c o c/1 TO co C O TO a> co m 0) C/3 ffl 03 r o Trj LL C/3 o (/> re r < > to re > N 0) U) re m o re CC re m -> CO h- < U a) CJ m NoooiOT-rjcoi-ir) •■-■■-t-CVJCMCMCNCMCM (A TO co TO r i: >, a> 13 te- co i C) en CO LL) o m >, CO 03 c u c- O < ) CD re ro CO m CO 5. CL -C o CO TO -? O ni n (-1 TO CO u re TO cd en a. < o o to r ■g 3 CO C13 n , * -i_ m .> re o *- C\J (-•-i -T m CD to CO TO c TO "D c ro en o .c h- c TO C re C/3 o .c h- c (13 h- JC C o CL re CD 03 o o DC b CD CD ■C CO y 1. co, 03 ■C re o CO n ffl u r 'o O U rr. cc CO CO rn 03 03 rr m 03 03 l L o m r C3 C/3 C3 ffl ffl CO F 5 ro TO m i o. CO 1— CO < PJ C) Tf in K) ID N CO Ol 75 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary o O) .J X o» £ in CO en T" •n O) o en A- I - Q. O m < CO en -4> s " o en O) — T— CO +■* o H m CO en ^ o ■o en 0) en ♦s JQ o m CO n en T3 o en en o T™ i- (/> CD in CO en o CO en c en o ■- *— > T3 C m CO u en O o ■a en 0) en > ■*« o 1_ o n in < CO en I |C0o t £ , IO < Ma>°0OOOOOOCT>Kc ) t- cd in o^^coooooooco-t-g I I looiouncor^ooincDooT-cno oo o^rcncoooi-Lnoor^T-c, I ICMI^Tl | CO .* CM | | I I | I 'T CO | CO ■* CO ^ t- CD CQ I lol I I iLnr^coi im^ri i cj> \t- i o m t- co ^r oj co I I ■* r-- o icocoococ\jcomor---'-cDcoK CO i- CM (MCncDW'JlDNCD^T-T-Cj^ *- t- t- CM to C\J M" I icocoo icoojr^-'d-cM^-cor--i^-i-ooK CM CM CM (\IN(Ot\l^lD(CO)T-rT-QC\| i- t- CM CO C\| ""* id n u) |OLor^-r^coK t- CO CM -sf I s - T-nCMl£lT- V^f»-C\| 1- ^ I I nN I OWONO(OO^SrNcjS\t CM ^T CM CO t-CMi-IOt-VOOt^'^ iillllllgr-lllllir-.il I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CM I co CO CO I I I icoicocoLnLnc\JoocDi-^r--T- i co t- co t- n n m ^f ^- co cm t- la. U < O a "x a> 3 o 76 CO T3 CO [_ CO co _CO CO *~. T3 CO c 01 CD if CO CD "O C CO ZJ o JZ CO ZJ o 1- cz H _cz >, CO CD i CD O O JO CO CD CD u m ir CO CD co CD CO 03 CD CD CD JZ o co m >-, c ZJ o CO CD CO ■r Lb CO co CD 03 c CD \- .C Z3 X £ o CO CO -c CO CO o o CD ro o CO CO >> CO CD CO Q. F CD CD C c CO 5 CD CD o CO co o o JZ o co 05 5 CD TO C < 03 ro o o CO o o CO CO c CO CD o TO 1_ CO CD JD !5 '5. Q. CO CO CO l: S> o CQ CD o c o CL CD y CO o o o CJ j_ (0 03 m 3 CL a_ _,_: JZ CD o 03 m 111 u. C/3 ^ LL u o CO \- CO < < CO CJ CL CL -> -> -J ~j Appendix C: Classification by Estuary o O) _1 X O) CO O) , ~ o > O O) O) i_ ^~ a o in < CO O) s '" o O) en ^H ^™ CD *■* o 1- in CO en r-^ocMCMCMCMO-^co^tinr^CMcoincooo cm h»- ocM^coi^ocDcocMcoi-cMincocncD m co OCM^COr-o^CM-r- t- CM ^ CO N ^ CO 00 I CO CO 03 00 I (D'ftDlflncONloNN CO CO o r^ co ■>- cm n-r-NcocoN'Jci oo *t co t- i (o co co m i ronoinwiDaicooio ^ o> cr> r^ co ■<- cm ■^r^oocncor^-cDoo'i-comcD 0. t= tj § 5$cm"od^ (D -" w ""'-^wo g K CD fl) O) CO CM CM CM ^ ci CO •"S *" cm" ^f o := en .c .„ en oScntDuocoinocn^t-cMotD-i-LnLncocococnh- *- C o TO X en i o co p *ss en i- ^ co o i- o •z I s - A) CO I CO CO 5 S en co co ro co CD c — OcoiCMcnr-cnlcoiO'^-i I I | I cm co i- '« ragjeo t- n s i- ■* ooco r^ in i*» cd 5 ™ - *■. «l b .2 T- 1- CO 32 o c 12 co I -^ en cm I I I I I ■* I I I i l^h-CM § cOoocMoor^. ^«tco *t 00 CO D C O 3) u > tN c J ^ ' "» co co . co ♦S O O) l^fCONCO llfiT-OOJffiffi'-OlWO- fl -g C -ocncM 1-cncMCM tt or^i^ocnoo ?~> m cm -i- r^ co-^-ooo-i-cn •■- co o OC ' 1— - -. ~ flj O?o i- CM -i- t- CM CM i- 7- ^r -- to ^ c « - • », I *- W £ I o . . CD *^ CD -^ 9> ? I "D ?*. JP = O O 5 CO JS w q < O T3 >. w c CO >, 3 m cu o LU CO CD c i "co o CD CD CD > E E ir t; CD CO '5. CD 0) ai >. O Q. CO w CO CO c: o CO CO CO o \n CO r 3 CD ,i=CD^ ^.«CD^-*=co 00 5 gM5H5S|a>o^§ i ->-. CO * m 0) > i n a c/) CO CD o > N m CO I 1 £ 6 c? c^ c? 5 t I , tocDcncooe: ccco - =- e ~ coccdoO) cn o T m i- a Q. < m 00 cn o Q-> I I I O I I IOO.OO C0O|O| | CO CO cn o oo'oo w o o co m I *" ^o in 0^00 1 1 1 1 1 1 |OOioo cno|0| 1 n ^f en oo'oo (Moo r-^^t- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r^ 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1- n. t- ^r 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l t- 1 1 1 1 1 h- CO o cn I I I lO I I 1- N 7- I N U) cor-itoi l^-CD en 7- 7- o t- 1- 10 CO I I I I I I I CM t- I r~ If) CO CD I CD I It-CD en t- co t- t- I I LO I |t-t-t-|cDLo I ■»- I CM I I n N t- 1- CO T- [ I I I l I !■»—--— icoio I I I cvj 1 1 exj co v t- co r- "5oilllliill*-|li I t- 1 1 1 1 1 1- oj en v o ,_ "J 00 I I I I I I I I T~ I I I I 1- I I I I I I o O ■n cn tu en •*-» T^ n .c n 10 -_ 00 Q. cn tu 5 JScn 1 1 1 11 1 1- 1 t- ■ 1 t- 10 in h» 1- c cn v .2 r " "■^ £cOIIII|||t-||t-| i- lO I lO I I CD I o cn o u Q a < cn CA I I I I I I I I I I I I CM I I I I I y- CM cn 2; «« g- 2 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I exj 1 I I I I co co C3 i~ c5 1 X CO .CO DQ CO 5^ >> CO CD O O CO c u < 3 co CQ >, co CD to to co CD CO CO CD -c 3 3 CO CO CO CQ CD > CD CD > '*-*' 00 O CO O CQ CQ 'c >, co V> CQ cr > CO CQ ir LU co cn CD CD c CD CO .5 CO CD 5^ CD CO CO CO 2 c CD 5 CO LU CO CO CD CD > T3 O n ir CD 3 cn CO CO CO 3 CO c CD Q c CO co co CL c CO 1 CO CD ■c CO c B c CO a) c •c LL c CO CL. c CO CD .*: CO CO E LX "CD E 3 CO E CO CO CL E Q- IU F CO is CO coco!- oooo^-co O i- O "* C\j C\j CO m CO o> i- i- *- ,_ T3 O 0) i i I loicniLnicotocoocoeo K > en o^-cnmrv-^cocD ~ O *- i- CO i- oo O 9-S I INrNlNISl^OlKI CM ■•— - (A £ fr > Jr. CO J'ffirrCCj'XlC'iJ 8 I li&sSiiltlSi'Ils °- LLI C/D<>C/)Zr-ZO^O 0.1 CO O H E ca Q-oo i icDcooiooir^-iocD-r-cocNjcj) - CO cd CO 3 g I ItlCVJOCOCNJOOCO-r-co^OOCO £ £ cncDCD-r-coCMin? _ en <* i- XI ■S »*- CO o »~ i^WW^i-CMCnCM 100^C\|^T-p)<0 I en co to j= ^ to w *- o c CD ■0§ I I CM | ICOCMWCONN^K'JION O I * ^ 2§CMCMCvl-ICO-|CO£Cvj^N|gN I i- »~ *1 co co o o o CNj" - o "*- P5illiilllc\iiif-opi©g N Si en v c\j co OC ? ^ c if) £ laiieviili^lllejeM^^ijgp « © 2 «a s a i- od O ^ "* O) r- .£ 2 o _§ i i i icvjicxjiini^cocoi en co S, c a! en coco cooacoo > 1- "^ ""V C CO o o y o C. i- to := c a O < en co co ^ «o o -^ . . CD ^» I -o > O *" S -6 O C 3 O .E X) - 3 8 en P (A 0) < CO >> ^ iS .5 ^ ~». ° ~P £ c n CO JZ Z p, [ _i en i I "5 o 05 -C _ C V) o c (0 CO o c ■> ^. o CD +•» O M n o z < z 80 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary Alaska and Hawaii ^-ee* -c^ .W o° ^P HAWAII Alaska Shellfish-Growing Areas 1 Southeast 2 Yakutat 3 Prince William Sound 4 Cook Inlet 5 Kodiak 81 Appendix C: Classification by Estuary o co CO _l i" X in S5 00 o^ CO ■o o a> CO > CO o i.. a a. w < CO CO ^5 o CO MM CO CO T~ -*— o 1- m 00 CO T- O ■o CO o> CO *»« T— !q j: o m Im 00 a. CO ■a o co CO ** CO o T— *lt CO m CD CO cr CO o 75 CO c CO _o T"* V- ■B e m o 00 o CO co ^-—^ o o o C3 T3 CD > CO CO v— o X CO Q. Q. < in CO CO a> i_ a < **^ wwmm co 5 CO X ■D C CO CO CO £ X. < CO 7i> CO « < 55 I I l l l I o o o £ O CO I I I I I O I O t- o O I O O O I O I O CO O OOO O O CO g z CD > I I I I I I O I O CO -n CO «- C >v S o "O c d TO i i i i i o i o in § a CN O en CD -<= LU - ") _ (O ~ CO t- O tz c O 2 'ra I I I I I O co CO N ro 2 = ° | | | | | © | O K £ - CM 2 O T- CJ XI CO ro CD o — o o o o o *"" o 1 o o 1 o 1 CO co o 1 o co o 1 o l o l o l o 1 CO t- l O 1 2 o i- (0 -C to CO < cc CD < < cc 5 CO I c o "5 0) r- I I I O | O t- 2 co c I I I I I O I O CM -„ £0 g c ca LO CD | | | | | © | O to CD ~ m *™ cS 10 c e O CD CO TO IS. i- CO UJ N CD CO M C "O -1) I I I I I I O I O CM g jffi -- -g 2 < -q .- c o g o a? s e 1- co •- ■ ° T- .. J) O C i "S *~ S ~ 2 E o ■D cS 9" S, CD O^ot-S^^co CD CO n , -^ ^ m^- «S°2™ J2 O CO "C O O ±= m5 S^oS < X Z < -z. co 52 Appendix D: Pollution Sources < E ro o a 2 CO 3 a 3 o £llllllllllllllllog>*r > CO c CM 3 O DC I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I CM *- I m 1 1 o CM CO in 2 3 o CC I co T— CO CO ^ ^ f ) o QC I— < U) O CM CM £ O 2 2 c TO H I I I I I I I I I I CM I I l|CN, "^S^ W CO O i- rr c/) O l I I I I I ^ £ I l^^c^^^S^cQ?'! 03 T- CO *~ CL LU CO _l _ I I I I I I I I It-f-T— IOWf.. m CO ■£ 1 a a? i i l l l l l l i iii |,r -^" u, ' r "2^Q o < o CM .£ "O n o £{ V0O t- t- V V V ,- 0) CM CM CO ^ CO CO ^3 CM~ q Q S I I I |C\|r-(D |i-T-r(\|(Oi-nr(ON»3 Z V V VCM^ti^O °- 53 to a c9 i i i i ■>- i i i i i i i i -- i i° , - tD "S^ •- O v v ^ , ~c : S E S 5 O CT3 O ° 2 j! -i^ w V CM CO C-> TO O co co o O c I I O)^lfiCOfflWCMO)„.'-'-0O CO ffllO c ,-CM ooCMKc\jCOCDO)COi5o) o o £L 1- *t CO o (f) ^ ^" X , >, c "D CO CO c_> o CD *- 3 c < c ha u CO E CO E c- 4-> CO CO co i_ 3 CO :^ o z +* co U) Cfl txl co 0. c LU co CM CM Q- c cm" H 'To CD O E -o co Q> ro f rj o) o> Q> jr CO CO — CD ■ - o o co a - < < 5 =5 >< co l; r ♦: a. , o E B £ fc cOrncO •— i5 co 5 p ♦! cl = S|i!c88£|j§8&:E| = 3 = S zcocl^coowo^^oooOZo^z d- < S3 Appendix D: Pollution Sources _i o 1 1 CM 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 £ 1 O 1 | 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 IT < E CO a> O o r» 1 03 1 1 -3- T_ 1 1 1 1 en 1 1 1 l DC ,_ '" - T ~ 1_ Z> "(0 Q. 3 o CO o 0- 1- co 1 1 1 1 CO CO 1 1 1 CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 V 1 1 1 l 1 o O) CD CD CO CD co ■*r CM co 1 ■st- CM CO 1- i — •sT CM T— 1 — V co T — m -i 00 CM 00 1 CD 1 1 CD ID 1 1 co 1 t — i 1 1 — <: V CO CM V V ** c o a. c o 1 ., , CM 1 co "* 1 1 O ., , co 1 oo CM T— . < CO V V CO T— T — V o z o cc ,_ r~- ,_ CM 1 ,_ r^- CD CT> CT> en 1 o 1 ,__ T^ T— T CM ** m T T -i — ^r V V V 3 a UJ CO oo CM O , CT) r^- ID CO co •sr CD Q CM CM CM 1 a CD 1 en 1 1 CD 1 1 CO 1 1 T — i ■* — LO z V 1 ■*■< a <* 1 1 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 oo CM ^^ a. co o o cd O co C\J '— co " ; 3- V CO 1 1 in CM sr 1 r*» 1 co CD T — T" X > co 0) c < ■D >< 0) cc m _c: D O CO c3 CD CC •o c CO CO >, if (0 3 co CO C/3 co N N CO CD a w c 03 cc k_ CC CO w CD c 3 o CO "D c cc _w D) c if o Co c c DC > c o C/5 >> cc CO ro cd co c >1 CD (/> i CD -3 5 >, CC CO CD co CO T3 C CO c CD co CO CO CD CD CO Q) O O CO CO CD co CD CL CO w CD cc c CD 0) if u CO E o -*: o o c c CO ■c CO cd if i "55 3 CC CO o o k_ 3 cc CD CD CD !c sz i° p co p UJ CD z CD _J o CD X CO z Q Q O O CL Cl cc >- 84 Appendix D: Pollution Sources I I I I 00 cm en «* O — J t- CM CO c ^ CM 3 "cc O i i i I I f- o cm m 3 1 ' o < CO I I I I N IT! (<) ID OJ B => CO 3 O I I I I I in o cm cm LU V CO *~ CM CO W t- co CM C7> re i 8 (X < o & s ' ' ■ ' 3 • fe s I fc - 5 =». o in o (5Q^IC\i^rOinC0 q. lLCdV CO CD CO CM t- cd M , — CO T— f> CD « i- a. LU CO . |K----CO^CMCnCM^- i p is w s *^ 3 *- -o C c o Z „ _ . . _ . cd O oo ■»-■ i i O) in * in S C if) v in in in co w 3 »~ CO CO x: CM y) Q.^ioi'-co n r 1 n(o o a) Q Q Q CO i~ 1 i — . CD f CO r- CD 3 o z CO V V CM CM o cd 5 cd X3 c o 1 i 1 1 1 CO h- cd CD "D C Tj CD re ^ O a. I - E o CD CO ♦^ o CD c o o o 1 i l 1 1 CM CM 00 CM 00 CO CD d CO o CJ re o c © Cl * — i — . C\l C\J <* CO O) CO c f o 1- 00 LO «t m O) CO cc C!) c o co T-~ ID CM Q. cm" C re o ^™ CU X E o 42 k_ 1- l_ TD m re u c CD ■^ < 3 o CO S CD b' c > ""' Oj 2 u CD o *3 aj o 1- ■a a.' i re c/) cu re 3 w o E o o c E _j "<5 1 _i C/) _r < ■D cp cc c/i if if c ■2 o o Cl < a> ** V) > o 1- c ■ (A (1) > k» in c g TO '> o5 3 CO ro 3 ^ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O &II|t-||iO||||COIIIII w v (3U5v.-<- i t- | ir-Ti-ii-i-i-ajmiT-l g Tt V t- V CM c O O r- eft to i- t- I i i I t- t- t- | •*t | n}- | gi- eo •«- V i- cm v ro v 3 Q. cm rv i- cm en cm | t- O i- I t- t- t- CM ^* I ill W V^-V V CM i- co ^»-»N I^CO'-W |t-t- I I ICO r-- r- v o CO o CO CO < 3 o £2 CD ir o CO c o T3 > —' CO CD CD ro o o i. O >_ a. E CD *5 c ro < o if i ro O T3 ^_ T3 ro CO CO 1 CC g_ a5 o CJ> c CD if CD CO 3 T3 c o CD CD > DC ro ro CQ CO CO a3 ro X o 3 o CO ro c CD > CD > CC _c ro c c ro > C o CO ro ro CO CD i CD CD > DC ro CO CD E O CO 3 O CO E CD o CO CD D5 > ix 5 CD LL CD Q. ro c CD c ro CO to ro CD CD X ix T3 ro o ro O ro E ro c < ro (0 _Q ca •S2 O CD ro £ .c f ; ro CO ^_; +J, ^-> (/) LU < a. ^ CD z: O z: O CO m CO o CO < CO CO 86 I I I I £ * g « =g " CM c CO i o m a. => O o < o -j o) n 2 n 0- <* in i en co *t m co CM CO C\f I I I N O) i- S ID h» CM rr r> 1- O O -^roiin^^oco CM =3 o CC I I I i o o cm m 5 < a 3 O cos I I I I r- *" £2 £ a o en < I I I I O CM CM CO rr 5= O "~ *£ =3 0- I I I ,- O) i- 1^ i- c H CO CM CO CO co 5 o cr 3 C5 i m I co 1_ 01 c _l ** o _J >. Lr C/3 C CD > CD CD c 2 < CD > 1- 15 C/> CD > &- _£Z >, -C 1— c i- CQ o CO CO CD o CO o CO 3 -3 o 3 T 4-* T CO LU CO o in o CO CO z O o TO > CD 3 O C/) in wiaioi/ic? z? < 3 CO CD .O _Q O Appendix D: Pollution Sources 87 Appendix D: Pollution Sources _l i 1 1 1 1 I 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 I £ ■<*• V o DC i 1 l 1 1 1 1 I I i 1 1 1 1 1 ^ CM 1 1 ., 1 ^— ■J— V < OJ E 03 o - I-- CM co co 1^- * — ■* ,— ^* c o O Q. cc < i 1 l 1 l l 1 1 *tf 1 1 1 1 1 r^ 1— 1 1 1 00 1 c o 11 V ' r ~ z o cc i 1 I 1 en l CO CD CD 1 o CM LO l 1 CD 1 K CM r^ co CM CO i- T T ^r CD ^r co CM ^ 3 *"" ^ 0. LU i 1 1 1 CD l co CD CM •sl- 00 O) CD 1 CD Sf 1 co l CD CM T- CO C\l 5- CO CD ID 'v T CD to a i 1 CD r*» 1 1 CO I 1 oo CD 1 00 1 1 en 1 1 1 r~- z 1 CO 00 CO -«t Q i 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO 1 c D oo CM CO "5 a O to i 1 1 i 1 l 1 1 1 1 co 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l o ^^ o Q. o CD i— i 1 CD r*- ID l oo CO CD I oo ID ID CD 1 T CM 1 ^1- 1 r-- w ,— CO ,— ID ID CD ID V ' T ~ ^J- m- *— X to a> CO co CO i- c c T3 o CO CO c < CO _CO »-. o o o "O "O 03 CO to c CO cz CO if CQ ~o .c X a> «♦- o — CO 3 CO CO co zj o h- c a co Z3 o H CD co DQ 1_ o D3 CO X B CD cb -c CJ -fen CO ■c CO CO CO CD > CO v CO CD CD CD i~ CO CQ CO o o CO CD CD CD CD sz o ro sz 5 co CQ CO o >■* co CQ o T3 co CQ c Z) o to CD C o CO -c c o CD CD T3 C CO O CD > be Q. "5 co 1- _£Z h- i CD o ]5 CO CO o o o w CO co c Q- CO E 5 o CO CO o co CO c < o o o CO co c o CO CO CO CO CQ CD CL CD o CD co CO CO CO o (I) LU o LL o to o o CL O "CO o CO to CO => H to Q. < CL < to O CD CL CD CL if CO -J CO -J CQ ! 88 Appendix D: Pollution Sources I I CO I lOJIrfl I I I I I O CD t 3= CD i- CO o C\J CM g O i i i i i^c\j^roc\j| I I I i in cm cm in 75 CO y— v~ i- ^r co 3 o CC l- l- CO CO < E £ 2 l |Lnr-loi i l I I I l l ct> co cm co co - £ CE co - £ ^ 5 ^ ™ a (X => ~ < O lllll^-IIIIIIIIIJi^NCM W ^ co^ O ,- r- t- a E icajoicmi i i i i i i i i <^ ;? fi fe ir, s I - CO ^]- r» CO CO CM TO d DC to h> rt m co S o i- cm •»- o. w £ 8 a.' tu in o cm *r w *- co m cm 1- in >• c O 1- 1 1 '" en 1 co i CO CM CO 1 r^ I r^ CO m -i - CM en CO CO CO CO m CD 1 CO 1 1 1 i o Cvl 4-* c o tr < u a. c o CD 1 1 CM in ID CD CM h- 1 CO 1 1 1 l 1 o tr 3 1 1 1 '"" 1 en 00 CM T ~ <* CD CM CO 1 CO CO CM Q. LU CO C\J CM CO co V 1 en CM 1 CD in CD t^ h~ - 1 CO t- CO o> O O") T- Q CO ID z «) m m s « n n m n g 1 ^ co ro *" CM" o to co co m co « <£> ■* £J CO CD f>^ CO w T-" CM" T3 Q Q Q i l co l icncD^ri i i i l i- r: Si * & *° o Zt- ^t t- V O CM i- 2 t- cm m co £ *- 5 -d a> cu a i- -r- co ^t i i i- i i i i i i^ssr:* ^^ I o w 9 S N 5 ^ i "J ^^ O <" E a • CL o to ** o cp § $ I I co I I I ^ <° g <° d 8 O, O cm cm co « o r O tco^T-! i^cMocDooocoicri^-coh-cncoH qC/J ,- C\jCJ)CMq.(z - We're ^ CD O X | ^ <0 S) raff h ^ (1) 52 , n co co — m ro « S| a o % £ •£ < S3 1 ? cd £ -5<» « m5 5 O £ ■= E fc § * * . if S; ^ >< roco •■= ro cc o-=co.i= UJ >3 C O lu •— *^ ri r- X< m — > UJ — ' ■*» ^ js ? «i « - S-2ScajqS)<{ 2 3 a 3.c^ s - i P«o«Q ) CD O uj mi- a) i_ o < I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T- P||||U)II|t-i-|0O| I t- I I I CM fc ^ v CD | | I I I I I I CM y- I I I I I I I 1 I 2 o °- £E I I I I I I I I I I I I I »- t- r- | | | o < llllioii|t-i-ia>l l i- l l l r*. IU I I I I I I I I i- I I I I I CO LT> I I CO CO m I l i i i I n- ig l I I I I I „ Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m E D 'o a. to i i i i i i i o | | | | | I I I I t- I CM I | t- O) I I >l CO O 10 CO LH co 3 co CD >^ CO CO CD CO CO >< CO CD cc o CO CO o CO CD o o co o c 1 c o CD co CO m 1_ CD > CD en o cu CD o LU LU c >, CO c o O 10 o co cu rr > >-, jj CO c CO 3 en CD b m LU c o CO o a. 0) CD 0_ c m CO o 1 CO 55 •c CO o en co CD O i_ o >> CD a> c o c CO Ll_ 01 CO s c CD -Q CO LL c CO LU co CD co en CD co E o T3 o E 13 co E CO DC CD o co CO co o o O I- CO 1> z CO ^ LU CO o L0 a h- J_ X. LL 90 Appendix D: Pollution Sources lllllllllllll|IOg«* CM g 3 I cn < £ = v I I I I I I I I I I I I I in a. 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o CM CO m ro 3 3 o 1 CO | I I I CO m CO CO D) ->* <» T— ^ ^~ o *" O < ^llllllll O - it * « O ""*• to z o co CM l i i i i i i i loor^coiooicocoh-tD t— -i— CM "» S ' cn to LU in 3 O C rrcoi l-^l I iCMcor^m|(\^CMCMinh-g, = i- cm oi n oo n " co « CM' u UJ CM I I CM I I ICMlCMItAjCMQih-OintDcj CD m CM CM CO CD CO Q Q O cD is o Q l I I l l I 1- I i i i i , , icocMi-tocD.H D ' ' r; ^- .g <6 JD CD O t- E cn Q- O TO O ° 2 COIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOCMCOOco co o ""J" £ cm i I -i- I I l'>-lcor s ~-m|cftco^ , «ocn. > 1— co >, ll co -> ir CD > DC CO CO c CO CD CO CD CO cr Q. E CO CO 13 CO CD CO '5 C0 N I— a; _) CO < > CO ^ CO > O CD tj 5 ST — « 5 S S E id O 3 g-cqcDa-mScO-C ™ W E.2«C0=CD=CD Q. Hi •a T5 cog TO CD 0) CO CD CD > CO o c "to c ^' CO o E (0 o b _l i w? co§ to c o 03 en CD CO ni CO o CO to CO -•— cn 1- CD — CD u E 3 CO _C0 X co CO CO O o CD o o > CO X co c o > CO X TO > CD .Q CO CI 1 3 u -s- CO -5 CO 5? .Q n O £ O D_ -C co o Q. Z < z 91 Appendix D: Pollution Sources Q. o m c o rC °- O O o Q. I I I I I I I I I I O g> ** £.- CD CM 2 I I I I I I I II I O CM m TO < CO 3 I O I Sq; llllll I II I O CO CD go I => 5 *" - 3 O CO llllll I II I O CM CM jj.- O £ ° 3 I I i I I I I i !<=>£: CO " N 5 M» CO I I I I I I I CO CO CO lO CO c >- CD .O o 3 c a> o > rr Z> 0) 01 CO u 3 Q. co 03 LU O) TO CL c: LU O CO CO llllll I II I O CM «* in cm in ^ oo < SO 3 < s-cc iiiiii i ii i ° s> ^ ? o Z o OC co co o jn £ g_ a 2 _ i- t- O CO CO a) J i- co g> CM o o c CD n , ri no*- id CM .t a) o e 03 2^ 03 TO TO Q 3 ^ llllll I I CO tO CO £ O g" Q z ■ ■ ^ w ^5 5 O 03 g II I II |Oi-«D 03 03 0) 03 "a 03 CO llllll I II lOCMtO O O 2 CO llllll I I -- *" «> » Q-O^0^-n« < CO < < c> X (0 _1 O _i o (A H- ** H 03 c CD ~ > > j— (0 ro o (0 ^ X ** X TO X --5 CO Z -5 0) 03 <_ TO CO X3 CI) ^j b n IT) 3 re U o U) C o U TO ra 10 n 03 C 1 r *~ u [- u 03 n cn c re CL ^_, ,— Cl> i CO r 03 C) F iJ c TO h u 0) h- -ii iii re CI) o re 0) o 03 "o re CL co _T § re g CO I 03 c n ■a CO ^ m (0 t > CD re n < □ < TO 92 Appendix E: Landings by State CO CD CO o o m CO in o ^* O m CO CD m 00 o o CO co "5f CM CD O co CD co cd CM co in lO o CO CD CO CM co CO CO en r " 0) D) c ■o c r»- (0 CO _l CD Km T— CD V) >. ^-^ O O O CO on o o> 0) o _£Z t^ i- CD CO -r- O ^t in CM i- o ■r-' CM' CM* CO" T-"~ moom i-o^-ooor^cM cocomcMCO 1^- "vt-i- CDCM CO CM O i-CMCOinCM i- Oco O ffl ^_ CDCM t- CO r-" cm" cm' co" t-~ CD o o co CO CM CO in ■* i^ in o CD CD co' CM CM CO CD CD of co CM *t m CO CD o o co CO co CO o CO co co CM IN CD CD CO CD CM in o o co CM co co' o o CD in CD CO CO~ in co CD in 'd- co m O CN t- ^ C Jg cd o co m o^c»no)ix)(o ffl co co r^ oo en O en o CO in o "tf CD CO CD CO co CD co co I s - oo ■* *tf CD CD CD CD CO T CM CO >* co CO C\J CO CM CM in in in in o "2 ■* ^-cd cdcdcdcot-cmco -si- co co cm t CO CO ^t CD a> en >. £ I = "I cc 5 CO g CO C CO 1 CO 'c m ro < O i O sz CO o CC TJ i— Tl ^r o as CD CD lU 3 o O CD (J s tr O z Z Q ^ > o 1- O 03 z C7D O LL 93 Appendix E: Landings by State 00 O O O O 00 CD CO en CO CO en *" in O) c TJ h- CD C CO T CO O) _l T— E CO O CD m CD CD o o o o r*. CO O O O O CO O O O O CD CD o> o CD en CD o CM CO m CD CM 00 CO 1— CM o CD 5- en o <* CO co co CO CO CD o CM CM CD CM in co CO CD CD r*» C\J CT) IT) cn o o CO CD CD CM CD o 00 CO CO CO o CM CD en ._ LOOOOOlf) O) O! Ul ^t N CM J2 t- r- CM CD ID CO i- «* CO (^j fv, i- -r- ■*- CO I s ; t- CO co" ^t 1- CD O O CO O CM 00 CM CM CD CO O cn r^ ■>- o r^ oo ^t- unocoo^-«* 00 M" t-CDCDCM ^ ^f (J) t- en s cn 00 i- CM »- CO O O ,- i- CO CM 00 t- <£ ,- CO co co o m- •>— r^ o n m oi i n ic CO O t- ■■- CD CM in i- ■>* h~ < ^ r*« CT> C _i en m CD o co o h- ^f CD o CM CM O CM CM CM CO CM CM oo CD oo oo CM CD CD CT) 00 CO CO ID >« en CM O CD CD CM O CM CD co CT> CD CO CM CM in CM CM 00 CD CO r-- CM CO CD CO CM CO o CM ■* r ~ T ~ •* u-> CO CM co o h- 94 CO co CO i- CO O ^ -a CO O) co C co ^B CM 00 CM O) N CO CO If) CO ^ (fl Ol c r-- co co n co cn to n cm m i t- to coco cd r-r^ooiD i--^-^r<-oco c CD CO CO OCMf- t- CD 1-COg 03 i- t— i— t— CO O a> £ " — in CO on 5 O v "' -i- CD CM CD CT> tJ t- oo m « ^ (- ^ f^ •< CM I s - d) o Q_ X CO "O CD C cor--coco^ro cd ^f cm ^ in co m -3 ID O) N CD W CO CM O CM O) i CM N .; |- X CO CO CM t- ^ ^ r- CMnfCD< ID 0^| U- i— CM ^ T= ™ > 9 0) < "D eg ore *- 2 _ W <§ >» o - Z co ■Q a> o tU c S .. E mm x o_ «i o p <2 E ™ — — S ■^ CD m i- o CO ,— 00 CO CO «tf CO T— 1 — h- oo" v> ■i — T— D) C ^ *^N c CO o co r^ +■« (0 r > - co r^ T— c o co CO CM co CD oo" u _o '- 1— "—* «j <* ■'*« o o CO o ,— N ^t CM o CO CM 1 — CD o *» CO r*- r~ T" CO o' X *- y ~ CO ■D c 3 co o o CO in T- CD o o CO co CO h- a. CO CT> o" , ^-*' T" «D +- (0 ** (/) > CD i c/5 .Q o 'xl tz: CD '*- Hi CD (0 co go c CL E c ** < CD o c CD X CD ^ o .c C CD CD c D) ** 'co ro 03 0) O S -z. ^ o — 1 cc z H o o r^ ,_ o CO T T m CO o in CD cd «* r- T— •* C\J o CO oj r^ co o w i- m h- 00 "St CD <0 t- t- CM to cJ -=t co" oo CD oo CO CM CO CM <* ** T5 c C - ■*— • >, CO (fl CD < w o o CO CD CD \ m m n CD O CD c > 5 —> 5 CD CD 1_ 'c C7) T3 -C o CD CD CD CD i— CD 2 3 O O CD O S ^arozzci^> o o z to CD u. o to (- O CD £Z co c "o o ra I CD co "* r» m CO CM t^ T"" CO 2 oooooo -^ o co o in o 22 w CO r- CD o o O o en o ^r o r^ ^ h- *■" ^^> _l 00 i" i — r^ o co c c o Q. O en T— CD I s - en o" CD CD 5 u ro **■ i j o *^ CO CD o o CO m o o O in o o co o m o CO 00 ^ CM ^ 00 CO X o en CD co en c T- T ~ o" CM "O X CD CO o CL T3 CD c O m < o o O o o o in CO r^- in ■* fc " 00 o I — r-- en en CD en z CM CD 00 00 co" -Q CD CL CM ro (/5 cd D> CD > < C *- C (0 o JD *- Z < >. O _ 2 CD -Q «> o *-* CO Q CO E co O) c to c o 'x cu o CO T3 CO E CO Q. CO CO CO CO co "co co co CO o O o co 'c 1 ,52 c o O) o c CO co to o h- "co c o CO c g > CD E o o o 2 c cc -J cc "5 O o LL CO < CO 2 3 o _J X CD H To o l- CO Q. TO O CD O CO CO < "co o 1- CO z h 2 J3 o < -z- 96 Appendix F: State Shellfish Programs State Dollars per Acrea b Total Classified Acres per Sampling Station b 1985 1990 0.08 1985 413 1990 Maine 0.07 714 New Hampshire 0.22 1.66 619 481 Massachusetts 0.96 0.33 1,357 3,474 Rhode Island 0.22 2.03 567 567 Connecticut 0.24 1.05 1,057 888 New York 0.16 0.53 1,096 718 New Jersey 1.48 1.20 99 167 Delaware 0.26 0.25 1,679 1,686 Maryland 0.36 0.44 982 1,937 Virginia 0.34 0.38 414 788 North Carolina 0.10 0.27 863 1,610 South Carolina 1.45 1.39 750 775 Georgia 0.17 3.13 949 740 Florida 0.38 0.29 772 969 Alabama 0.01 0.31 4,597 4,818 Mississippi 0.06 0.48 3,608 3,122 Louisiana 0.19 0.18 4,797 4,243 Texas 0.16 0.17 4,113 2,751 California 2.65 2.71 13,750 2,150 Oregon 1.61 2.08 451 367 Washington 4.19 5.73 97 33 Alaska N/A N/A N/A 1,165 Hawaii N/A N/A N/A 2,250 Average 0.34 0.47 754 847 Abbreviations: N/A, Not Available. a. Dollar values are in constant 1989 values. b. Bold values indicate numbers lower than the median. 97 Appendix G: Glossary Approved Waters Shellfish may be harvested for direct marketing. Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters Shellfish-growing waters classified for commercial harvest. Coliform Bacteria Coliform bacteria are present in sewage and are used to indicate possible the presence of enteric pathogens of sewage origin. Fecal coliform bacteria are a subset of the total coliform bacteria group, and indicate specifically the presence of fecal material. Conditionally Approved Waters Shellfish-growing waters meet approved classification standards under predictable conditions. These waters are opened to harvest when water quality standards are met and are closed at other times. Depuration Shellfish from restricted areas are placed in tanks through which bacteria-free water is circulated, usually 48 hours before shellfish are removed for marketing. Enteric Pathogens Enteric Pathogens are human intestinal bacteria or viruses that cause gastroenteritis or hepatitis. Estuarine Drainage Area (EDA) An EDA is the land and water component of a watershed that drains directly into estuarine waters. Harvest-Limited Waters The sum of shellfish-growing waters classified as conditionally approved, restricted, and prohibited. Landings Landings refer to the quantity of shellfish harvested. National Shellfish Sanitation Program The NSSP is a cooperative program of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, shellfish-producing states, and the shellfish industry designed to control harvest and distribution of molluscan shellfish for human consumption. Offshore Waters The non-estuarine shellfish-growing waters that extend seaward to the three-mile limit are classified as offshore waters. Prohibited Waters Prohibited shellfish-growing waters may not be harvested for direct marketing. Until 1986, relaying was allowed in prohibited waters. Relay The transfer of shellfish is permitted from restricted waters to approved waters for natural cleansing, usually for a minimum of 14 days before harvest. 99 Appendix G: Glossary Restricted Waters The shellfish-growing waters may be harvested only if shellfish are relayed or depurated before direct marketing. Sanitary Survey The NSSP requires that a sanitary survey include the evalua- tion of all factors determining the classification of waters, including actual and potential pollution sources, hydrographic and meteorologic conditions, and coliform bacteria sampling results. Shellfish The Register includes only edible species of oysters, clams, scallops, and mussels. Shellfish Culture Culture includes the propagation, planting, cultivation, and harvest of shellfish. 100 Courtesy of James L. Amos, National Geographic Society v< *. s • V ■' %, A Iflfl, 1990 Natioi of Classified E A !JI