CS3- 300 J- ^^«f •'^co, O , ^^ . f« / A Comprehensive Review of the Commercial Clam Industries in the United States Washington, D.C. March 1977 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service j^WMOS^j.^ A Comprehensive Review of the Commercial Clam Industries in the United States Conducted in cooperation with, and under contract to, The National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. by Theodore P. Ritchie DEL-SG-26-76 The views and recommendations contained in this report are not necessarily those of The National Marine Fisheries Service The Delaware Sea Grant Program College of Marine Studies University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 19971 and College of Marine Studies Lewes, Delaware 19959 a 1^5 o ,Cl [O U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Robert M. White, Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Robert W. Schoning, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.60 Stock Number 003-020-00132-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CONTRIBUTORS i Suininary 1 1 . INTRODUCTION 3 1.1. Pro j ec t Background 3 1.1.1. University of Delaware College of Marine Studies 3 1.1.2. Clam Industry Consultants 3 1.2. United States Clam Industry Background 3 1-3. Evolution of Clam Processing : 5 2 . THE HARD CLAM INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES 7 2.1. Introduction 7 2.1.1. Brief History 7 2.1.2. Current Status 8 2.1.3. Expected Future 9 2.2. Water Quality in Harvesting Areas 9 2.2.1. Pollution Problems 9 2.2.1.1. Industrial 10 2.2.1.2. Domestic 10 2.2.1.3. Agricultural and Wildlife 11 2.2.1.4. Oil and Chemical Spills 11 2.2.1.5. Biotoxins 12 2.2.2. Climatic Problems 12 2.3. Resource Availability 12 2.3.1. Biological Problems 12 2.3.1.1. Brood Stocks 13 2.3.1.2. Recruitment 13 2.3.1.3. Predation and Disease 13 2.3.2. Re source Management Problems 14 2.3.2.1. Stock Assessment 1'^ 2.3.2.2. Harvesting Pressure 14 2.4. Harvesting and Transporting 15 2.4.1. Inclement Weather 15 2.4.2. Harvesting Methods 15 2.4.3. Regulations 15 2.4.4. Transportation 16 2.5. Processing 16 2.5.1. Product Description 16 2.5.2. Storage Problems 16 2.5.3. Shucked Meat Problems 17 2.5.4. Waste Disposal Problems 17 2.5. Marketing 18 2.6.1. General Trends 18 2.5.2. Seasonal Problems 18 2.6.3. Consumption Problems 18 111 Table of Contents (Cont'd) PAGE 2 . 7 Major Industry Problems 19 2.8 Needs 19 2 . 9 Hard Clam Industry References 20 3. THE SURF CLAM INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES 22 3.1. Introduction 22 3.1.1. Brief History 22 3.1.2. Current Status 23 3.1.3. Expected Future 24 3.2. Water Quality in Harvesting Areas 24 3.2.1. Pollution Problems 24 3.2.1.1. Industrial and Domestic 25 3.2.1.2. Biotoxins 25 3.2.1.3. Climatic Problems 25 3.3. Resource Availability 26 3.3.1. Biological Problems 26 3.3.1.1. Brood Stocks and Recruitment 26 3.3.1.2. Predation and Disease 26 3.3.2. Resource Management Problems 27 3.3.2.1. Stock Assessments 27 3.3.2.2. Harvesting Pressure 27 3.4. Harvesting and Transporting 28 3.4.1. Inclement Weather 28 3.4.2. Harvesting Methods 28 3.4.3. Regulations 28 3.4.4. Transportation 29 3.5. Processing 29 3.5.1. Procurement 29 3.5.2. Storage 30 3.5.3. Shucking Problems 30 3.5.4. Meat Separation 30 3.5.5. Undesirable Material Problems 31 3.5.5. Processing Waste Disposal Problems 31 3.5.7. Labor Problems 31 3.6. Marketing 32 3.7. Major Surf Clam Industry Problems 32 3.8. Needs 32 3.9. Surf Clam Industry References 33 4 . THE SOFT SHELL CLAM INDUSTRY 35 4.1. Introduction 35 4.1.1. Brief History 35 4.1.2. Current Status 36 4.1.3. Expected Future of the Industry 36 4.2. Water Quality in Harvesting Areas 37 4.2.1. Pollution Problems 37 IV Table of Contents (Cont'd) PAGE ,1.1. ,1.2. ,1.3. ,1.4. 1.5. 2. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2, 2. 2, 3. 3. 4.3. 4.3. 4.3. 4.3. 4.3.2, 4.3.2, 4.4. 4.4.1. 4.4.2. 4.4.3. 4.4.4. 4.5. 4.5.1. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. Figure 1. Figure 2 , Table 1. Table 2. Figure 3 , Figure 4 , 5. 5.1. 5.1.1. 5.1.2. 5.1.3. 5.2. 5.2.1. Industrial Pollutants 37 Domestic 37 Agricultural and Wildlife 38 Oil and Chemical Spills 38 Biotoxins 38 Climatic Problems 38 Resource Availability 38 Biological Problems 39 Brood Stocks 39 Recruitment 39 Predation and Diseases 39 Resource Management Problems ^0 Stock Assessments 40 Harvesting Pressure 40 Harvesting and Transportation 40 Inclement Weather 40 Harvesting Methods 41 Regulations 41 Transportation 41 Processing 41 Shucking 42 Marketing 43 Major Industry Problems 43 Needs 43 Soft Shell Clam Industry References A3 Total U.S. Commercial Clam Meat Landings and Total Exvessel Values - 1950-1975 45 Total U.S. Commercial Clam Meat Landings and Total Surf Clam Meat Landings - 1950-1975 46 U.S. Landings and Value of Clams by Major Species, 1966-75 47 Summary of Regional U.S. Commercial Clam Meat Landing and Exvessel Values, 1971-75 48 Total U.S. Soft Shell Clam and Hard Clam Meat Landings and Exvessel Values - 1950-1975 49 Total U.S. Surf Clam Meat Landings and Exvessel Values - 1950-1975 50 THE OCEAN QUAHOG INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES 51 Introduction 51 Brief History of the Industry 51 Current Status of the Industry 51 Expected Future of the Ocean Quahog Industry 51 Water Quality in Harvesting Area 52 Pollution Problems 52 Table of Contents (Cont'd) PAGE 5.3. Resource Availability 52 5.4. Harvesting and Transporting 53 5.5. Processing 53 5.5. Marketing 53 5.7. Major Industry Problems 54 5.8. Recommendations 54 5.9. Ocean Quahog Industry References 54 6 . EAST COAST RAZOR CLAMS 55 5.1. East Coast Razor Clam References 55 7 . THE SUNRAY VENUS CL7VM 56 7,1. Sunray Venus Clam References 56 8. THE BRACKISH WATER CLAM RANGIA 58 8.1. The Brackish Water Clam Rangia References 58 9 . SURVEY OF PACIFIC COAST CLAM FISHERIES 60 9.1. CALIFORNIA 60 9.1.1. Brief History of California Clam Resources 60 9.1.2. Current Status of California Clam Resources 61 9.1.3. Expected Future of the Commercial Clam Harvest 62 9.1.4. California Clam Resource References 62 9.2. OREGON 63 9.2.1. Brief History of Oregon Clam Resources 63 9.2.2. Current Status of Oregon Clam Resources 64 9.2.3. Expected Future of Oregon Clam Region 65 9.2.4. Oregon Clam Resource References 66 9.3. WASHINGTON 67 9.3.1. Razor Clam ( Siliqua patula ) Industry in Washington.... 68 9.3.1.1. Brief History of the Razor Clam Industry in Washington 68 9.3.1.2. Current Status of the Razor Clam Industry in Washington 70 9.3.1.3. Expected Future of the Razor Clam Industry in Washington 71 9.3.2. Puget Sound Clam Fisheries 74 9.3.2.1. Native Littleneck Clam ( Protothaca staminea ) Industry in Washington 74 9.3.2.1.1. Brief History of Native Littleneck Clam Industry 74 9.3.2.1.2. Current Status of Native Littleneck Clam Industry 75 9.3.2.1.3. Future of the Native Littleneck Clam Industry 77 9.3.2.2. Butter Clam Industry in Washington 80 9.3.2.2.1. History of the Butter Clam Industry in Washington 81 9.3.2.2.2. Current Status of the Butter Clam Industry 81 9.3.2.2.3. Future of the Butter Clam Industry 81 9.3.2.3. Horse Clam ( Tresus nuttalli and T , copax ) 82 9.3.2,3.1. History of the Horse Clam Industry 82 VI Table of Contents (Cont'd) PAGE 9.3.2.3.2, 9.3.2.3.3. 9.3.2.4. 9.3.2.4.1, 9.3.2.4.2. 9.3.2.4.3. 9.3.2.5. 9.3.2.5, 9.3.2.5, 9.3.2.6, 9.3.2.6, 2.6, 2.6, 3. 4. 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 Table 3. Table 4. Figure 5, Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. 9.4. 9.4.1. 9.4.2. 9.4.3. 9.4.4. Current Status of the Horse Clam Industry 83 Future of the Horse Clam Industry 83 Manila Clam ( Venerupis japonica ) Industry 83 History of the Manila Clam Industry 83 Current Status of the Manila Clam Industry 84 Future of the Manila Clam Industry 84 Geoduck ( Panope generosa ) Industry 87 History of the Geoduck Industry 87 Current Status of the Geoduck Industry 88 Soft Shell Clam Industry 91 History of the Soft Shell Clam Industry 91 Current Status of the Soft Clam Industry 91 Future of the Soft Clam Industry 91 Puget Sound Recreational Fishery 92 Washington Clam Resource References 93 Summary of Washington's Commercial Hard Shell Clam Production 94 Summary of Razor Clam Catch by Season for the Quinault Indian River Reservation 95 Summary of Commercial and Sport Razor Clam Catch and Sport Effort for 1946-1968 96 Summary of Washington's Commercial Littleneck Clam Production by Gear 97 Summary of Washington's Commercial Butter Clam Production by Gear 98 Summary of Recreational Fisheries for Shellfish in Washington 99 ALASKA 100 Brief History of the Razor Clam ( Siliqua patula) Industry in Alaska 101 Current Status of the Razor Clam Industry 102 Expected Future of the Razor Clam Industry 102 Alaskan Clam Resource References 106 Vll CONTRIBUTORS Dr. Lee Anderson College of Marine Studies University of Delaware Newark, Delaware Mr. Charles Bearden South Carolina Marine Resource Division Office of Conservation and Management Charleston, South Carolina Mr. Georges Bockstael R. I . Department of Marine Resources Providence, Rhode Island Dr. A. F. Chestnut University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences Morehead City, North Carolina Dr. Kenneth Chew College of Fisheries University of Washington Seattle, Washington Mr. Richard W. Cole Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Fish and Wildlife Dover, Delaware Mr. Robert L. Dow Marine Dept. of Marine Resources Augusta, Maine Mr. R. B. MacMillan N. Y. State Dept. of Environmental Conservation State University of New York Stony Brook, New York Dr. J. L. McHugh State University of New York Stony Brook, New York Marine Research, Inc. Falmouth, Massachusetts Dr. R. W. Menzel Department of Oceanography Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida viii CONTRIBUTORS Mr. Hugh J. Porter University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences Morehead City, North Carolina Dr. Kent S. Price College of Marine Studies University of Delaware Lewes, Delaware Mr. Ronald Rinaldo Maryland Department of Natural Resources Annapolis, Maryland Timothy D. S chink College of Fisheries University of Washington Seattle, Washington Mr. Roy Scott Maryland Department of Natural Resources Annapolis, Maryland Dr. Ivar Strand University of Maryland College Park, Maryland Mr. Michael W. Street North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Morehead City, North Carolina Mr. Teruo Sugihara Center for Caostal and Enviromental Studies Rutgers University Piscataway, New Jersey IX SUMMARY The Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 require a com- prehensive review of the commercial clam Industry In the United States. During the past ten years (1966-1975) four types of clams accounted for 99 percent of the volume and 98 percent of the exvessel value of the entire commercial clam Industry In the United States. The commercial industries associated with four major clam species (hard, surf, soft and ocean quahog) are reviewed in this report. Reviews of additional clam species and associated minor industries located along the Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific and Alaskan Coasts of the United States are also Included in this report. The hard clam ( Mercenaria sp.) has the most extensive distribution, and the industry associated with hard clam harvesting has the highest employment and also the highest total exvessel value of all commercial clam industries in the United States. Mercenaria sp. resources occur close to shore along the east coast of the United States, and water pollution is a major problem in their continued utilization. Hard clams are often consumed raw and any public health incident associated with their consumption threatens the economic viability of the industry. The industry associated with harvesting and processing the surf clam ( Splsula solidlsslma ) has been responsible for handling the largest volume of clam meats in the United States. Surf clams occur offshore along the east coast of the United States and nearly all surf clams are processed into prepared clam products. The harvesting, processing, and marketing sectors of the surf clam industry are integrated, modern, and effective. Surf clams are harvested from near oceanic quality water and pollution has not had an industry impact except for a recent develop- ment of anoxic water conditions and the closure of harvesting sites around ocean dumpsites. The entire surf clam resource has been reduced primarily by over harvesting and poor harvesting techniques. The major industry problem is the declining availability of the surf clam resource. The soft shell clam ( Mya arenaria ) Industry is the third largest commercial clam industry in terms of volume and exvessel value. Soft clam resources occur inshore along the east coast of the United States, and water pollution is one of the major industry problems. Soft clams are marketed in the shell as steamers and shucked meats are marketed for chowders and fried clams. The major industry problem is the lack of a consistent, dependable, and sustainable supply of soft clams. The relative abundance of soft clams is directly related to environmental conditions that cannot be controlled. The industry associated with harvesting and processing the ocean quahog ( Arctica Islandica ) is responsible for handling the fourth largest volume of clam meats. Ocean quahogs occur offshore along the east coast of the United States and the resource is underutilized. Ocean quahogs are harvested from near oceanic quality water, and water pollution problems are similar to those for surf clams. The industry is integrated and modern. The major industry problem has been a very strong flavor, dark color, and relatively small foot size of ocean quahog meats. Ocean quahog meats are increasingly being utilized as surf clam meat substitutes and the industry is expanding. The harvesting and processing of the east coast razor clam ( Ensis directus ) is incidental to other clam species and of minor importance. A small commercial industry was associated with harvesting and pro- cessing the sunray venus clam ( Macrocallista nimbosa ) on the northwest coast of Florida from 1967 through 1973. The resource is not abundant, and extensive future production is unlikely. In North Carolina, a small commercial industry was associated with harvesting and processing the brackish water clam ( Rangia cuneata ) from 1966 through 1972. The industry expired when the major Rangia harvesting area was closed because of pollution. The potential for a future industry exists in North Carolina and other states. Commercial utilization of Rangia resources would require restrictive harvesting regulations, research into processing and revision of state laws. The Pacific Coast clam fishery accounts for only 1 percent of the annual U.S. clam landings. Washington is responsible for 95 percent of the Pacific Coast clam landings. California and Oregon are notably lacking in suitable clam habitat. In both states, the recreational demand for clams exceeds production potential. The conmiercial and recreational clam industries are described. Alaska has an extensive coastline and abundant clam resources, but commercial harvesting of Alaskan clam resources is restricted by the uncertainty of paralytic shellfish poisoning and expensive labor costs. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Project Background Section 16(a) of the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments requires that the Secretary of Commerce shall; (1) undertake a comprehensive review of all aspects of the molluscan shellfish industry, including, but not limited to, the harvesting, processing, and transportation of such shellfish; and (2) evaluate the impact of federal law concerning water quality on the molluscan shellfish industry. The Secretary of Commerce shall, not later than April 30, 1977, submit a report to Congress of the findings, comments, and recommendations (if any) which result from such review and evaluation. 1.1.1. University of Delaware College of Marine Studies The College of Marine Studies (CMS) was established in 1970 to focus the University's existing marine programs and to develop new areas of expertise. The CMS is a professional graduate school offering the degrees of master of science, master of arts and doctor of philosophy. 1.1.2. Clam Industry Consultants To assemble a comprehensive review of the clam industry in the United States, individual reports were required for each of the major and minor commercial clam species. To obtain the required information, persons knowledgeable of the commercial clam industry within each clam producing state or region were requested to furnish up-to-date information on their respective commercial clam fisheries. Consultants were expected to solicit pertinent information from all industry segments as well as local state and federal conservation and health agencies. Copies of the reports prepared by the various clam industry consultants are on file at the College of Marine Studies Library in Lewes, Delaware, and also appear as references of the respective species or states. 1.2. U.S. Clam Industry Background In the United States, at least fourteen different species of clam are commercially harvested and sold as food. Clams are landed in commercial quantities in eighteen states. In addition to the reported commercial clam catch, significant quantities of clams are also harvested annually by non-commercial individuals who utilize clams for food and recreational activity. The total United States commercial clam catch in 1975 amounted to approximately 113.2 million pounds of clam meats (51.3 thousand metric tons of clam meats). The exvessel value (dockside value), or more explicitly the amount of money that commercial clam harvesters were paid for the 1975 United States clam catch amounted to approximately 43.7 million dollars. Total United States clam meat landings have averaged 103.5 million pounds per year, and total exvessel values have averaged 36.8 million dollars per year during the five year period 1971-1975. Approximately 24,710 clam fishermen and 14,582 boats were involved in clam harvesting during 1975, in addition to 3775 persons employed on- shore in 130 clam processing plants. Clam harvesting emplo5nnent has averaged 20,106 persons and 11,711 vessels during the past five years. Emplojmient in onshore processing has averaged 3415 in 125 plants during the same time period. The wholesale value of all processed clam products amounted to 106.8 million dollars in 1975, and has averaged 83.9 million dollars each year during 1971-1975. The quantity and value of commercial clam landings during the past 26 years is presented in Figure 1 which shows relatively stable volumes and values from 1950 to 1962. Volume and value increases which began in 1963 continued until 1964 because of greatly increased harvesting of surf clams. In 1975, the commercial clam catch was approximately seven percent less than the record volume landed in 1974, and the decrease is attributed to a 9.0 percent reduction in surf clam landings. During the past 18 years, surf clams have been responsible for a large portion of all commercial clam landings (Figure 2). Estimates of the total United States commercial clam catch for 1976, indicate a significant decrease in total volume, possibly more than 40 percent. The reduction in total volume of clams that will be landed in 1976 is again attributed to significantly reduced landings of surf clams. Although the volume of the 1975 clam catch was lower than the record volume of 1974, the exvessel value of the 1975 clam catch was 5.5 percent higher than the previous record value reported in 1974. Although more than 14 different species of clams are commercially harvested throughout the United States, the meats of only four major clam species have accounted for 99 percent of total volume and exvessel value during the past 10 years (Table 1). The fishery for hard clams ( Mercenaria sp.) and additional Pacific Coast species (Section 9) has been responsible for approximately 17 percent of the total volume and 53 percent of the total exvessel value during the past 10 years. The surf clam ( Spisula solidissima ) fishery has accounted for approximately 69 percent of the total volume and 25 percent of the total exvessel value during the past 10 years. The fishery for the third major species, the soft shell clam ( Mya arenaria) accounted for about 12 percent of the total volume and 20 percent of the total exvessel value during the past 10 years. The fishery for the fourth major species, the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) has accounted for one percent of the volume and less than one percent of the exvessel value. Several Pacific Coast clam species are responsible for one percent of the volume and one and one-half percent of the exvessel valtte. All Pacific Coast clam species and associated industries are reviewed in Section 9. The four major clam species occur primarily along the Atlantic Coast. A summary of regional clam landings is presented in Table 2. 1.3. Evolution of Clam Processing In the United States, large-scale utilization of clams for human food did not begin until canneries became established during the early 1900's. Prior to that time, and even until the early 1940' s, clams were generally sold fresh and were available only in areas relatively close to harvesting sources. However, in 1913, the pack of Pacific Coast razor clams (Siliqua patula ) amounted to 2.7 million one-pound cans; and in 1925, peak production occurred with 4.4 million pounds packed from 11 million pounds of unshucked clams. Landings of razor clams along the Pacific Coast declined steadily after 1925, directly in relation to stock depletions. Landing quotas and limited seasons were imposed on the commercial fishery. During the 1940' s, the Dungeness crab fishery expanded; since razor clams are the preferred bait, increased demand was placed on the already declining supply. Finally, in the early 1950' s, inexpensive canned surf clams captured the remaining market for canned razor clams. Razor clams, being harvested by hand and therefore expensive, could not compete with the low raw product cost of mechanically-harvested surf clams, the greater meat yield, and the greater relative availability. In 1913, another clam-canning industry was established on the west coast of Florida in the vicinity of the Ten Thousand Islands. This fishery was based on the mechanical harvesting and canning of the southern quahog or hard clam, Mercenaria campechiensis . The harvesting area of 150 square miles was reported as the largest clam bed in the United States, and a 1943 survey reported an estimated abundance of one bushel of clams per six yards dredged. Although more than 1.1 million pounds (meat weight) were harvested in 1932, landings gradually decreased until the canneries closed in 1947, and no commercial landings have been reported since 1972. Shortages of meat during and immediately after World War II created increased demand for clams. Inshore clam species, including hard, soft, and razor clams, were traditionally harvested by hand and expensive, but improved employment opportunities and a general increase in living standards enabled consumers to purchase large quantities of them. Prior to the war, clams were marketed fresh, canned, or as ingredients in chowders, New prepared clam products were developed during the war, especially in the New England area. The soft clam was used extensively for frying. Ocean quahogs, although not suitable for frying, and generally inferior in color and flavor to surf clams, were also harvested and processed during and immediately after the war. 5 In the early postwar years, production of hard clams increased and consumers were able to purchase quantities of the expensive small-size clams that are mostly consumed from the shell. Producers were able to sell large clams to manufacturers of prepared clam products. Although some manufacturers considered surf clams inferior to hard clams, the increasing availability and low cost of surf clams favored their use. Eventually, processors of clam products began to use surf clams ex- clusively, and the hard clam chowder market ceased to exist. Surf clams soon began to replace ocean quahogs, soft clams, and canned razor clams. The abundant surf clams could be used for frying and did not have the grit and shell sometimes encountered in soft clams. Gradually they became the main meat ingredient in nearly all prepared clam products. The surf clam industry is now confronted with serious problems because of recent significant decreases in surf clam landings and indeed in total commercial clam landings. Industries associated with harvesting and processing clams are encountering major problems that threaten their economic viability. In this report, the major clam industries are reviewed and needs are outlined for the alleviation of industry problems. 2. THE HARD CLAM INDUSTRY 2.1. Introduction The hard clam Industry Is the largest commercial clam Industry in the United States. Approximately 17,000 fishermen and 13,300 vessels are engaged in the industry. Hard clams are found in all 16 clam producing states, and hard clam resources generally occur close to shore in protected and relatively shallow bays. Commercial quantities of hard clams can be harvested with inexpensive harvesting implements (Section 2.4.2) and license fees and other requirements are minimal. In many states, hard clams can be harvested only by hand or hand-held implements. In general, the hard clam industry is not highly capitalized because most harvesting gear is inexpensive. The mechanical harvesting of hard clams requires a considerably larger capital investment. Atlantic Coast landings of the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria account for 96.5 percent of all hard clam landings. M. campechiensis and a subspecies M. mercenaria texana occur along the Gulf coast of Florida, but there have been no recent commercial landings of these species. Additional hard clam species landed along the Pacific Coast and primarily from the state of Washington, account for the remaining 3.5 percent of hard clam landing volumes. The Pacific hard clam species are reviewed separately (Section 9) and M. mercenaria will be reviewed in this section. 2.1.1. Brief History The commercial fishery for hard clams is one of the oldest in the United States. Hard clams, Mercenaria sp . , are found in most high salinity bays, inlets, and sounds along the Atlantic Coast. The historical center of the industry has been southern New England and Long Island. The hard clam industry has existed since colonial times and there is ample evidence that earlier, American Indians had utilized hard clams for food and trade. Although early commercial catch records are not entirely reliable, they do indicate that considerable volumes of hard clams were harvested during the depression period of the 1930's. During periods of recession or high unemplojTnent, more persons appear to utilize hard clam resources as a source of income that requires little or no capital investment. Meat shortages immediately after the war helped to increase the marketability of hard clams. The 1947 landings of 21.5 million pounds appear to be the largest yearly volume. At that time, and for a few years thereafter, the large size clams could be sold to industrial clam meat processors. The small size hard clams are more desirable than the larger sizes, and, consequently, more expensive. The small size clams were marketed to be consumed from the shell, either raw, steamed or broiled. The volume and exvessel value of hard clam landings during the past 26 years is presented in Figure 3. Near record landings occurred in 1950, net total hard clam landing volumes have averaged 15.6 million pounds 7 (7071.5 metric tons) during the past 10 years. The exvessel value of hard clams has increased during the past 11 years. 2.1.2. Current Status Commercial hard clam harvesters were paid 21.7 million dollars for the 14.8 million pounds of hard clam meats landed in 1975. The total average exvessel value of all hard clam meat landings was 146.2 cents per pound. Exvessel values ranged from 81.5 cents per pound for the meats of hard clams landed on the Pacific Coast, to 159.2 cents per pound for Mercenaria sp . meats landed along the mid Atlantic Coast. Hard clams are landed and sold in the shell generally by the bushel measure, but quite often by the actual number of a particular trade size grade of clams. The in-shell volumes have been converted to pound values by the use of conversion factors, The demand for the small size hard clam is high and supplies are limited. The demand for chowder size hard clams has been low because shucked hard clam meat has been more expensive than surf clam meat. Nearly all major industrial clam meat processors have exclusively utilized surf clam meats until just recently. Water pollution is a major industry problem. Hard clams are consumed raw and any public health illness related to hard clam consumption affects the marketability of hard clams. A considerable portion of the hard clam resource cannot be harvested because of domestic and/or industrial pollution. Increasing volumes of treated effluents and untreated storm water runoff are entering estuaries and there is some question as to the ability of pollution abatement programs keeping pace with the situation. Full and part time commercial and recreational clamming is increasing. There is some concern that overfishing has occurred or is occurring in some areas. Fishery resource managers need information that is vital to successful management. Enforcement of existing hard clam harvesting regulations is not adequate. The areas that are currently closed to hard clam harvesting because of bacterial contamination are extensive and continuous surveillance of these areas is almost impossible. Pollution is a major industry problem and a potential public health problem. A considerable portion of all hard clam resources in the United States cannot be harvested because of domestic and/or industrial pollution. The basic structure of the hard clam industry may be characterized as a part-time fishery. Almost all of the harvesting is done by fishermen from other fisheries during slack times or off seasons. Most of them work independently with at best an oral agreement to sell to specific processors or distributors. The majority of landings are sold in the shell with little processing for chowder. There do not appear to be any economic barriers of entry either to the harvesting or the clam buying sectors of the industry. Indeed, one of the problems may be the ease with which retired people or people who want a second income can obtain the necessary equipment and skills to begin fishing. 8 The distributors believe that substantially greater quantities could be sold without affecting the price significantly. They see relative scarcity of the product as the primary problem. This is particularly evident in the winter months when prices rise because the northern clam output declines. There is some seasonal deterioration in the quality of hard clams in early summer, but it is not considered to be a major problem. The best quality clams are landed in the winter. A census of recreational fishing is incomplete and its extent varies between areas. Procurement of recreational catch data should be considered to be a major problem. All of the problems associated with multiple-use management are present in this fishery. How should the resource be allocated between commercial or recreational fishermen? How can recreational fishing be measured or regulated when it occurs at many places by very large numbers who take a relatively small amount per person but whose total effect can be massive? The answers to these questions are especially hard to answer when the stocks are essentially fully utilized. 2.1.3. Expected Future The greatest threats to the continued existence of the hard clam industry in the United States appear to be water pollution, declining resource availability, and inadequate enforcement of existing sanitary harvesting regulations. Total hard clam landings in the United States have remained essentially stable during the past 22 years, while exvessel values have increased. Total landings might increase if more effort is applied to hard clam mariculture. Total landings can be increased through the use of de- puration or by relaying stocks into approved areas. Increased handling will increase prices. 2.2. Water Quality In Harvesting Areas 2.2.1. Pollution Problems Water pollution threatens the hard clam industry in many ways. Most hard clam resources are located in shallow near-shore areas where pollution sources are most numerous. Hard clams are sessile organisms and cannot avoid adverse environmental conditions over prolonged periods. Although the larger size hard clams are processed into chowders and other clam products, nearly all of the smaller size hard clams are consumed from the shell, either in raw form or lightly steamed. In fact, small hard clams ( Mercenaria sp.) appear to be the only major clam species in the United States that is consumed raw. Under the existing National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), molluscan shellfish can be harvested only from approved or conditionally approved shellfish harvesting areas. The approval of shellfish harvesting areas is based on the bacteriologic quality of the water in the harvesting area. The NSSP guidelines for approved harvesting areas require that the median value of total coliforms not exceed 70 MPN/lOO ml and not more than 10 percent of the samples exceed 230 MPN/lOO ml. Nearly all pollutants threaten the hard clam industry by increasing public health hazards. The immediate availability of the resource is reduced because hard clams cannot be harvested from non-approved areas. The long term availability of the resource is also threatened by pollution because some pollutants may be detrimental to the survival of larval, juvenile and even adult hard clams. 2.2.1.1. Industrial . The principal industrial pollutants of known concern to the hard clam industry are pesticides, PCB's and heavy metals. Most hard clam harvesting areas currently closed because of industrial pollutants are also impacted by domestic pollutants. The long term accumulation of industrial pollutants in Raritan Bay in New Jersey and Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island have resulted in the permanent closure of large portions in most of these bays. Industrial pollutants are not only a hard clam industry problem, but they are also an increasingly significant public health problem. 2.2.1.2. Domestic . Increasing water pollution from domestic sources is a major problem confronting the hard clam industry. Some appreciation of the relative size of some of the areas that are closed to hard clam harvest- ing can be seen in information recently obtained from the state of New York. New York is the major hard clam producing state and has accounted for about 49 percent of the volume and 63 percent of the exvessel value of all hard clams landed in the past 10 years. New York reports a total of 575,000 acres of underwater land potentially productive for shellfish. Approximately 25 percent (about 143,350 acres) is now closed to shellfishing because of poor water quality. Additional closures, primarily due to domestic pollutants, are currently under consideration in New York. The total water area that is approved for hard clam harvesting is irrelevant unless hard clams occur in commercial quantities throughout the entire approved harvesting area. Hard clam harvesting areas are not precisely defined, as are most oyster harvesting areas, and average effective closure rates are more difficult to obtain. Sewage outfalls are the major point sources of domestic pollution. Effluents from municipally treated and untreated sources are directly responsible for the closure of large areas. Additional closures of hard clam harvesting areas are necessary because of the required establishement of buffer zones around point pollution sources as a safety factor. Seaside towns and cities are experiencing an increasingly large summer influx of visitors. The related massive growth of recreational boating has created waste disposal problems. All recreational boats are not equipped with waste holding tanks and many marinas lack facilities for disposing of such wastes. The summer influx of visitors and recreational 10 boating has become a significant public health problem to the hard clam industry because the major portion of harvesting occurs during the warmer months of the year. MacMillan (1975) has illustrated the impact of summer influx by citing an increase in fecal coliform levels in hard clams from 50 MPN to 9200 MPN per 100 g. in dry weather at one location during a summer weekend . Because of poor watershed management, the volume of storm water runoff has increased directly in relation to new seaside residential areas, shopping mall parking lots, etc. Storm water has been found to contain high coliform counts and also high concentrations of lead and zinc. The lead is presumed to come from gasoline and the zinc from tires. Zinc is toxic to the larvae of most molluscan bivalves. Chlorine is used extensively to reduce bacterial levels in sewage treatment plant effluents. There is recent scientific evidence that high chlorine concentrations can increase mortality In the larval stages of marine organisms (Strand, 1976). Chlorine can also combine with the hydro- carbons producing chlorinated hydrocarbons and this has been reported as a problem associated with the drinking water in New Orleans (Anonymous, 1972). 2.2,1.3. Agricultural and wildlife . There is some degree of pollution associated with drainage from agricultural land. Pesticides and herbicides used on crops eventually enter streams, rivers, and bays through storm runoff. The ban on use of DDT has ameliorated the pesticide problem. The recent experience with mirex and kepone in Virginia has again brought attention to the fact that pesticides are recycled through the marine environment. The overall effects of herbicides on marine photoplankton is not clear. Coliform contributions from large concentrations of livestock and domestic fowl have been reported (Rinaldo and Scott, 1976). The significance of general wildlife pollutants is not understood. In some remote areas high coliform counts have been observed while no significant wildlife populations were observed. Large concentrations of migratory water fowl, particularly Canadian geese, have been reported to make significant coliform contributions in harvesting areas. 2.2.1.4. Oil and chemical spills . The principal hard clam areas are located in shallow nearshore areas where small coastal tankers and barges transport petroleum and chemical products through or close to production areas. The prospect of collisions, groundings, and spills are a constant threat to the resource. Petroleum and chemical products are a threat to the hard clam industry because they can affect survival and growth in all stages of the life cycle. Petroleum imparts off-flavors in hard clam meats making the product un- palatable and unsalable (Blumer, et al. , 1970; Anderson et al., 1974). Oil residues are possible carcinogens. 11 2.2.1.5. Blotoxins . Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is due to consump- tion or molluscan shellfish that have accumulated toxic dinof lagellates. Incidents of PSP have been reported from the Pacific and Alaskan Coasts, northern New England and Florida. Massive blooms of toxic and non- toxic dinof lagellates often color sea water and blooms are sometimes referred to as red-tides. Toxic dinof lagellate blooms are a public health hazard and also an industry problem. The industry problem is associated with prolonged and adverse publicity concerning red-tides and this affects the marketability of clams and most seafood (Marine Research, Inc., 1976). On the east coast, the first (PSP) harvesting area closures were made in Maine in 1958 (Dow, 1976). Before 1972, the bloom causing toxic dinof lagellate, Gonyaulax tamarensis , was reported only in waters of northern Maine. In 1972, a toxic red-tide did develop in other New England waters which extended as far south as Cape Cod. Hard clam production north of Cape Cod is insignificant and the major hard clam producing areas south of the Cape were unaffected by the bloom, but adverse publicity hindered the sale of hard clams and most seafood (Marine Research, Inc., 1976). Since 1972, all New England hard clam producing states have established monitoring programs to detect the presence of toxic dinof lagellates. The Pacific coastal states and Alaska have long had similar monitoring programs. Dinof lagellate blooms also occur in Florida primarily along the Gulf coast. The dinof lagellate that is responsible for red- tides in Florida is G_. brevis and not considered to be as toxic to humans as northern dinof lagellates . 2.2.2. Climatic Problems Climate and weather are responsible for a number of hard clam industry problems. Heavy rainfall over extended periods of time can overload sewage treatment facilities and the drainage capacity of entire watersheds. Severe storms sometime deposit hard clams on beaches or smother resources. 2.3. Resource Availability 2.3.1. Biological Problems Fluctuations in total United States hard clam landings have been attributed to economic as well as biological causes. Short term fluctuations are minimal because several age groups are included in the stocks. All States that commercially harvest hard clams report variations in natural abundance. The general life history of hard clams is understood. The minimal food requirements of larval, juvenile, and adult hard clams is generally known. The major predators, and the life history stages of clams at which these predators have the most impact, are reasonably well known (MacKenzie, 1976). The manner in which all this information interacts in the natural environment and causes fluctuations in hard clam abundance is not known. 12 2.3.1.1. Brood stocks . An adequate brood stock, capable of maintaining a fishery resource at full biological productivity, is one of the most impor- tant objectives of fishery research and management (McHugh, 1976). Because hard clam resources fluctuate so much from "natural causes," basic brood stock information is difficult to obtain. Large brood stocks are present in areas that are closed to harvesting for public health reasons. In fact, the clam populations in most closed areas are significantly larger than clam populations in open harvesting areas. In many areas where heavy fishing pressure occurs, the larger chowder size hard clams are not harvested because the larger clams, especially Mercenaria sp., have had little or no market value until recently. 2.3.1.2. Recruitment . Low level recruitment is generally attributed to environmental conditions that adversely affect the successful spawning and subsequent survival and growth of larval and juvenile clams. Reduced recruitment is also attributed to overharvesting that reduces total clam populations to levels that are incapable of significant reproduction. Most hard clam harvesting States report a low level recruitment of juvenile clams in areas that are harvested regularly. High level recruitment occurs occasionally, but when it does occur, one successful year class can sustain a sizable commercial fishery for a number of years. Hatchery techniques for the production of large volumes of juvenile hard clams are well established (Loosanoff and Davis, 1963). Several State universities and clam industry companies are currently engaged in research projects aimed at developing inexpensive methods of rearing large quantities of juvenile hard clams. Juvenile hard clams must be protected from predation for one or more years until they attain a size that affords protection from major predators (Castagna, 1970). 2.3.1.3. Predation and disease . MacKenzie (1976) identifies the principal invertebrate predators of hard clams ( Mercenaria sp.) as oyster drills ( Urosalpinx cinerea and Eupleura caudata ) , moon snails ( Polinices duplicata and Lunatia heros ) , whelks or conchs ( Busy con canaliculatum and B^. carlca ) , crabs ( Neopanope sayi . Cancer irroratus and Callinects sapidus ) , and the sea star ( Asterias forbesi ). Puffer fish, drum fish, skates, rays, and diving ducks also feed on hard clams. Predation rates vary and the smallest clams are most vulnerable. Eventually, as hard clams increase in si^e, they become less vulnerable to most predators except blue crabs, whelks, moon snails, drum fish and rays. Other than Chlamydia (Otto, pers. comm.) no specific hard clam diseases have been reported. Several mass mortalities of hard clams have occurred, but causal agents have not been identified. Bacterial disease has cause mortality of Mercenaria larvae in the laboratory (Tubiash, 1965). 13 2.3.2. Resource Management Problems It is extremely difficult to achieve effective management control over any natural marine resource. Marine resource management problems are con- siderably increased when the resource is essentially owned by the State or public and when the resource is or has been subjected to continuous commercial and/or recreational harvesting. In States that have designated subaqueous land to molluscan shellf isheries, clam harvesting grounds have usually been the area left after natural oyster beds and leased oyster grounds have been designated. Hard clam resource management regulations and existing laws pertaining to the utilization of hard clam resources in the major hard clam producing States have generally favored commercial utilization of the resource. New resource regulations are written with the consent of the harvesting industry (Cole, 1976) and in many cases, the industry existed prior to the establish- ment of resource management agencies. There is also split jurisdictional problems within States, especially in the New York and New England areas where the clam resources are the property of local towns or communities. When the resource is locally owned, the towns can and do establish their own regulation which may be in conflict with State regulations. There are also jurisdictional problems with subareas that have been legally leased to individuals. In New York, the regulation of hard clam harvesting is divided among town, county. State, and several federal agencies. 2.3.2.1. Stock assessment . In order to develop a resource management model, five basic types of information are essential: 1) The magnitude of the standing crop; 2) rate of renewal by growth; 3) rate of renewal by recruit- ment; 4) rate of removal by natural causes; and 5) rate of removal by harvesting (McHugh, 1976). The agencies responsible for managing hard clam resources generally lack such basic information. No consultants have report- ed Maximum Sustainable Yields (MSY's) for hard clam resources and it is doubtful if any of this information exists along the east coast. In many States, the total hard clam resource is insignificant in relation to other major fisheries and consequently little effort is expended to obtain the required information. Reliable data are difficult to obtain because most hard clam landings art underreported (McHugh, 1976) and there are only a few scattered estimates of recreational catch. 2.3.2.2. Harvesting pressure . Recreational effort is increasing in nearly all areas. Commercial effort is increasing only in areas where harvestable hard clam resources are still relatively abundant. In approved harvesting areas, productive hard clam grounds are generally declining, and seldom increase even when fishing pressure is eliminated. This is in sharp contrast to observed increases in hard clam populations in areas that are closed to harvesting because of domestic pollution. There is speculation that nutrient enrichment from moderate amounts of domestic pollution may contribute to 14 increases in polluted clam populations (McHugh, 1976). 2.4. Harvesting and Transporting 2.4.1. Inclement Weather Inclement weather hampers clam harvesting operations. In northern areas, winter ice in harbors and ice accumulation over clam harvesting grounds cause a significant decrease in hard clam landings. In all harvesting areas, severe winds often prevent clam harvesters from reaching clamming grounds and also from effectively using some harvesting gear. 2.4.2. Harvesting Methods Hard clam resources occur on public and leased grounds. Generally, hand methods alone are legal for harvesting clams on public beds. Hand harvesting methods include: spotting siphon holes, treading, hand raking, bull raking, and tonging. In some States, mechanical harvesting is allowed on leased ground and also on public grounds when water is too deep for hand methods of harvest. Mechanical methods include use of modified oyster dredges. Fall River dredges, hydraulic cage and hydraulic escalator dredges, and patent tongs. Hydraulic escalator dredging has proved to be efficient in harvesting hard clams, but this dredge causes serious damage to rooted marine vegeta- tion (Menzel, 1976). However, all dredging methods and most hand harvesting methods also damage rooted vegetation. Hand harvesting methods are consider- ed to be relatively inefficient. Despite the known inefficiency, most States report that their hard clam resources are currently being harvested at or very close to their estimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) . Harvesters are required to return the illegal size clams to the bottom of the harvesting area. The hard clam harvesters grade their catch into three or more trade sizes. The smallest, and most valuable, hard clams are referred to as littlenecks. Harvesters generally receive 3 or 4 cents each for littlenecks or from $30 to $40 per bushel (approximately 1,000 clams). The second most valuable size hard clam is called cherrystones. Cherrystones are larger than littlenecks, but still small enough to be consumed raw or steamed. Harvesters are paid 3 or 4 cents each for cherrystones. The hard clams that are larger than cherrystones are referred to as chowders and harvesters are paid 1 to 3 cents each, if they can find a buyer. 2.4.3. Regulations The hard clam industry has been more or less regulated by various agencies. The specific regulations for the hard clam industry vary with State, county, town, and federal agencies. Generally, the State or local town conservation agency has had management jurisdiction over the physical aspects of natural hard clam resources. Conservation agencies generally 15 issue commercial clam licenses, establish minimal size limits, legal harvest- ing methods, etc. The responsible State health agency, in compliance with NSSP criteria, has management jurisdiction over all sanitary aspects of the hard clam industry. A designated State agency (usually in cooperation with a State health department) establishes approved harvesting areas from which shellfish may be harvested for direct consumption. Sanitary methods of handling hard clams are also established. 2. A. 4. Transportation Harvested clams are transported by boat or truck to clam buyers. Clam buyers must have a State shellstock shippers permit and it is the responsi- bility of the clam buyer to purchase clams only from approved harvesting areas. Under State and NSSP guidelines, all transported hard clam shell- stock must be packaged and identified by the permit number of the clam buyer. Hard clams have good keeping qualities and in dry storage of A^C, clams will usually live from one to three weeks. If more product could be assured, the transportation costs per unit transported would undoubtedly fall. Here, as in many fisheries, limited quantities at numerous access points (piers) cause the transportation costs to be greater than necessary. It is not efficient for a truck to haul a one- half full load from five different piers. This problem relates more to the supply availability than to transportation problems, and the losses from this inefficiency may be relatively minor. 2.5. Processing 2.5.1. Product Description Hard clams and nearly all other clams in the United States are sold by the harvesters as shellstock. Nearly all of the small hard clams are sold for direct consumption. Relatively small quantities of the larger chowder size hard clams are actually shucked and processed into clam products. The exact volume of processed hard clam meats is not known, but considered to be relatively small because processors have exclusively utilized surf clam meats, Hard clams can be shucked by hand, or opened with heat. Since the volume of shucked hard clam meats is relatively small, the industry problems associated with hard clam processing are relatively minor. All hard clam shucking and processing plants are regulated by State health and NSSP guidelines. 2.5.2. Storage Problems There are few problems with storage. The exterior shell is quite clean prior to arrival at the processor and, since 90 percent of clams are sold intact, the interior cleaning problem is not significant. The occasional, small amount of sand in the clam is apparently acceptable to consumers. 16 The sorting of the clams is done by hand, although there are inexpensive sorters available. This provides work for employees that often do not have enough shucking or harvesting to occupy their time. It is deemed important to employ the workers as much as possible so that wage levels stay high enough to compete with other wage rates. Packaging of the product is not a problem. Most of the product leaves Virginia in burlap sacks and is rebagged by the retailer. No clams are canned or frozen in their shell. Identification of the product is not currently a problem. However, the Food and Drug Administration proposed new rules and regulations last year. These rules would require records to be kept throughout the market chain on exactly where shellfish were landed. The proposal has been dormant for some period now. If these regulations are imposed, identification would become a substantial problem to the indu&tcy. Having to section lots according to landing area would undoubtedly raise costs throughout the market, The larger, more efficient companies would be hurt the most since their large volume comes from a variety of landing areas. 2 . 5'. 3 . Shucked Meat Problems Hard clams are shucked by hand and sold in a fresh or frozen form in Virginia. Since the majority (90%) of trade is shell market trade, there is really not enough product flow to make mechanical processing economical. The only area for problems, thus, is in the hand shucking and washing operation. Many plants are diversified in oysters and hard clams and use laborers to shuck both products. 2.5.4. Waste Disposal Problems Waste disposal is considered only a minor problem for hard clams. Since most hard clams are transmitted out of State in shell form, very little disposal is necessary. For the processors that shuck hard clams, the shell can be given or sometimes sold as a base for driveways and roads. It is also a good oyster cultch. Most processors that shuck hard clams also shuck oysters, and it is believed that the EPA/State requirements for waste treatment can be met, at least in the short run, by static screening. In Virginia, labor problems are related to high absenteeism and competi- tion from the poultry industry. There are complaints that workers may miss two days a week, and this make controlling product flow difficult. When product (i.e., oysters and clams) is not available, the workers are able to find work in the poultry plants and often do not return to the clam processors. 17 2.6. Marketing 2.6.1. General Trends The marketing of the smaller littleneck and cherrystone size hard clams is not considered to be a problem at the present time because demand current- ly exceeds supply in most areas. There does not appear to be any indication of declining demand or consumption of hard clams. It is likely, however, that unless management of the hard clam fisheries is not substantially im- proved, consumption might decline because the supply might be reduced. Any incident that potentially endangers the public health of hard clam consumers will have a marked influence on the marketability of all hard clams. Infectious hepatitis, typhoid, or any illness attributed to the consumption of hard clams can cause economic chaos that will have long lasting effects. Unfortunately, techniques do not exist for the complete and direct study of viral agents in clams. The marketing of the larger chowder size Mercenaria has always been a problem. The recent and continuing significant increase in the exvessel value of surf clams may improve the marketability of chowder size hard clams. 2.6.2. Seasonal Problems The market is somewhat seasonal in that prices are normally higher in winter months than in summer months. For the firm that is diversified in hard clam and oyster processing, this is a dilemma. Oysters are most available in the winter months when the price for clams is greatest. This means processing capacity is fully utilized in the winter and sometimes idle in the summer. This has caused some processors to diversify further into surf clam products to maintain summer operation of the plants. There is a near complete lack of advertising in the industry. Market channels are known by tradition, and processed product in a fast food form is untried. These two factors make advertising unattractive to the firm. There are apparently good profits as firms are not attempting innovative processed forms and advertising. One major concern is the encroachment that surf clams have made into the chowder clam market, at least in the Virginia area. Because of the dark gonads in hard clams, they may be used in Manhattan-style chowder. The enormous increases in Virginia surf clam volumes have glutted the chowder clam market and lowered exvessel price of hard clams significantly. In fact, few chowder-sized hard clams are now harvested. To the degree clammers must be selective in their landings, they will work in areas with smaller-sized clams . 2.6.3. Consumption Problems In a consumer survey of two Virginia metropolitan areas consumers identified lower prices, availability of more fresh products, and water 18 pollution control as the major ways of encouraging seafood consumption. It may be logical to infer from this information that consumers do not buy sea- food products (including clams) because they are upset with seafood prices, availability in the market and water quality in growing areas. Recently, the shotgun effects throughout the nation of the closure of the James River due to the presence of kepone have demonstrated another common problem in the industry. Anytime that New England or Florida are hit by red-tide problems, clammers and processors along the whole coast are hurt through adverse publicity. Consumer demand for clams, in general, drops and prices fall. 2.7. Major Industry Problems Problems associated with domestic and industrial water pollution appear to be the major threat to the continued existence of the hard clam resource. Several hundred thousand acres of existing or potentially productive harvest- ing grounds are closed because water quality does not meet federal and State sanitary standards. Additional closures are under consideration in New York and Delaware. These closed areas remove a significant part of the total resource from public use, and they constitute a potentially significant public health problem. The opportunity for illegal harvest exists because the number of closed areas and the total acreage closed in each State is usually far greater than any State's ability to maintain 24-hour law enforcement surveillance on closed areas. Closed areas are posted and commercial harvesters are required to know where the closed areas are located, Recreational clammers and visitors are not always informed about the exact closure lines. Pollution abatement, improved public information and law enforcement could reduce this major problem. With the reduction in approved harvesting areas, the fishing pressure has increased and there are signs of declining resource availability in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Most States freely admit that they lack the information resources and attitude required for successful management of hard clam resources. Nearly all hard clam landings are due to the harvesting of naturally occurring stocks. Until recently, there has been little effort in aquaculture for production of hard clams. 2.8. Needs 1. Support the local pollution abatement programs developed to minimize impingement on beds of poor quality water. 2. Support of increased enforcement to reduce illegal harvest and sale of hard clams from areas closed due to poor quality water. 3. Development of assessment programs to provide inventories of the available stocks in each hard clam producing area. 19 4. Increase aquacultural effort and encourage use of the proven techniques. Available techniques to produce hard clams by aquaculture have been developed but are not widely used as an industry practice. 5. State resource management agencies should reevaluate existing clam regulations to obtain effective management control of the resources. 6. Resource management agencies should encourage hard clam aquaculture by leasing grounds for production which are not barren or marginally productive. 7. Encourage depuration and relaying of polluted clams. 8. Investigation of clam population dynamics in moderately polluted growing areas to develop a strategy for stock utilization, i.e., the feasibility of aquaculture. 2.9. Hard Clam Industry References Anderson, J. W. , J. M. Neff, B. A. Cox, H. E. Tatern, and G. M. Hightower. 1974. Characteristics of dispersions and water-soluble extracts of crude and refined oils and their toxicity to estuarine crustaceans and fish. Mar. Biol. 27: 75-88. Anonymous, 1972. Industrial Pollution of the Lower Mississippi River in Louisiana U.S.E.P.A., Region VI, Dallas Surveillance and Analysis April 1972. Bearden, C. M. 1976. Report on the hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in South Carolina. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-41. Blumer, M. , G. Souza and J. Sass . 1970. Hydrocarbon pollution of edible shellfish by an oil spill. Mar. Biol. 5: 195-202. Bockstael, G. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in Rhode Island. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-9. Castagna, M. A. 1970. Hard clam culture method developed at VIMS. Marine Resources Advisory Series, No. 4. Virginia Institute of ^larine Sciences, Gloucester Point, Va. 3 p. Cole, R. W. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in Delaware. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-9. Dow, R. L. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in Maine. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-15. 20 Jensen, A. C. 1974. Managing shellfish resources under Increasing pollution loads. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst., 26th Ann. Sess.: 173-180. Loosanoff, V. L. and H. C. Davis. 1963. Rearing of bivalve mollusks. Advances in Marine Biology. Vol. 1. Academic Press. London and New York. 136 p. MacKenzie, C. L. 1976. The effect of predators on hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria , populations. Manuscript to be submitted for publication. 26 ras. p. NMFS Lab, Milford, Conn. MacMillan, R. B. 1975. Public health significance of shellfish management. IN: Proc. Workshop Shellf. Mgmt. Progr. in N. Y. Sea Grant Inst. Albany: 16-24. Marine Research, Inc. 1976. A summary of the clam industry in Massachusetts. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-38. McHugh, J. L. and R. B. MacMillan. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in New York State. Un- published manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-57. Menzel, W. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the quahog clam (Mercenaria spp . ) industry in Florida. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-20. Rinaldo, R. and R. Scott. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in Maryland. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-10. Strand, Ivar. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in Maryland. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-14. Street, Michael W. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in North Carolina. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-26. Sugihara, T. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry in New Jersey. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-19. Tubiash, H. S. , P. E. Chanley and E. Leifson. 1965. Bacillary neurosis, a disease of larval and juvenile bivalve molluscs. I. Ecology and epizootiology. J. Bacteriol. 90: 1036-1044. 21 3. THE SURF CLAM INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES 3.1. Introduction In terms of total volume of clams landed annually, the industry associated with harvesting and processing the surf clam ( Spisula solidissima ) is the most significant commercial clam industry. The landing of surf clams has accounted for about 69 percent of the volume, and 25 percent of the exvessel value during the past 10 years. The volume and exvessel value of surf clam meat landings during the past 26 years is presented in Figure 4. There were approximately 400 fishermen and approximately 100 vessels actively engaged in the 1975 harvest of 87.0 million pounds of surf clam meats, valued at 12.6 million dollars. The fishery is concentrated off the coasts of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. 3.1.1. Brief History The surf clam industry began as a New England bait fishery around 1870 (Yancy and Welch, 1968). There are reports of American Indians roasting clams that washed ashore on Virginia beaches as early as 1634 (Parker^ 1972). Increased demand for food during World War II led to the use of surf clam meats for human consumption. An early constraint to increased human consumption was the inability of processors to remove sand from surf clam meats. This problem was solved in 1943 when processors developed an effective drum washer. Harvesting efficiency was improved with the development of the hydraulic jet cage dredge in 1945. Apparently, most of the surf clam industry entered the field of food processing around 1946. Hand methods of processing surf clams continued until the development of automatic shucking machines in the early 1970' s. The machines supplemented hand processing and catalyzed the harvesting, processing, and marketing sectors of the industry. Early surf clam landings began off New York and continued from 1945 through 1954. Surf clam meat was much cheaper and more readily obtainable than hard or soft clam meat, and surf clam meat had better marketing qualities than ocean quahog meat. The major producers of prepared clam products began to utilize surf clam meat exclusively, and the major surf clam processing companies began to increase their own production of prepared clam products. The surf clams harvested off New York yielded approximately 12 pounds of meats ner bushel. Of particular significance to the industry was the discovery of extensive and densely populated surf clam beds off the coast of New Jersey that yielded approximately 17 pounds of meat per bushel. Between 1961 and 1966, New Jersey landed 96 percent of all the States' surf clams (Yancy and Welchvl968). 22 Surf clam harvesting vessels have usually concentrated their efforts in one productive area until the catch rate declines. The vessels then move on to more productive surf clam grounds. The diminishing availability of surf clam beds off New Jersey resulted in a shifting of effort to Virginia in the early 1970 's, when Virginia surf clam meat landings rose from 1.6 million pounds in 1971, to 58.2 million pounds in 1974. Federally-funded resource surveys to evaluate distribution and abundance of the stock in the Middle Atlantic States began in 1964. 3.1.2. Current Status Landings of surf clam meats were down approximately 9 percent in 1975, and would have been considerably lower if approximately 18 million pounds of surf clams had not been harvested from inshore New Jersey waters. Current estimates indicate surf clam landings in 1976 will not exceed 45 million pounds. With the significant decrease in total surf clam resources, exvessel values for surf clams have increased from approximately $2.25 per bushel in October 1975, to approximately $11.00 per bushel in October 1976. The basic structure of the industry varies as one goes down the coast from north to south. In the New England States it is a very small fishery. For instance, the output in Rhode Island is hardly enough to support one man. In New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, it is a full-time fishery with large vessels with full-time crews and processing plants with full-time labor forces. As mentioned earlier, the industry does tend to move around in search of unutilized stocks. The need for such activity is, of course, necessitated by overuse of the unregulated stocks. Almost all of the output is processed, and the need for processors to guarantee a constant source of product has led to formal agreements with harvesters and in some cases the actual purchase of harvest equipment. At present, the industry is in a period of flux. Vessels moved from Virginia to New Jersey in early 1976. Expected productivity on the northern beds did not materialize, and many returned to Virginia. Un- fortunately, Virginia and New Jersey surf clam beds have been under intense fishing pressure now for four years, and the telltale signs of overfishing are showing - smaller clams and lower catch per unit effort. The landings for 1976 have not been compiled and released yet. but all expectations are that much smaller production will be shown. The record harvests of 1974 and 1975 will be felt for many years. Only an increase in price is keeping revenues from going up. Vessel productivity and clam size are two indicators that may fall substantially. Moreover, attempts at regulation of the industry have proven unsuccessful in achieving a consensus in the industry. The extended jurisdiction bill that formed a Mid-Atlantic Regional Council may provide the structure to achieve control; however, it will come substantially after the beds are depleted. There is scientific evidence of a decline in surf clam resource abundance (Chang, Ropes and Merrill, 1976) . In addition, massive surf clam 23 mortalities occurred off the New Jersey coast during the summer of 1976, in association with anoxic water conditions. Surf clam mortalities were attributed to low oxygen levels observed below the thermocline for an ex- tended period (Sharp, 1976). The low oxygen levels resulted from decay processes associated with a dinof lagellate bloom ( Ceratium tripos ) of unusual size and duration (U.S. Department of Commerce 1976) (Sharpjl976) . Of the estimated 207 thoiasand metric tons of surf clam meat off the New Jersey coast, at least 59 thousand metric tons, or 28.5 percent of the total surf clam resource in New Jersey was lost. This loss represented approximately 5 percent of the total surf clam resources along the Middle Atlantic Bight (Ropes 1976) . This loss may be even more significant in time because some scientists believe that reproduction of northern surf clam stocks may contribute to recruitment of surf clam stocks in southern areas (Sugihara, 1976) . There is some indication that the surf clam industry may have over- capitalized because industrial leaders believed surf clam stocks to be inexhaus table. At the present time, there are not enough surf clams available for processing demand. Processing plants are working at a reduced production level and some plants are closed when surf clams are unavailable. Nearly all harvesting vessels are increasing harvesting effort and a few vessels and processing plants have begun to utilize ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica , as an alternate resource. Major industry producers have been searching throughout the world and have thus far found no ideal alternative for surf clam meat, except for a potential fishery development in the Bering Sea. 3.1.3. Expected Future The expected future of surf clam resources and the surf clam industry is not bright. Surf clam stocks are low and harvesting effort is increasing^ as is harvesting cost. Ocean quahog meat is not an ideal substitute for surf clam meat but the surf clam industry is increasingly being forced into the utilization of ocean quahogs as an alternative source of inexpensive clam meat. 3.2. Water Quality in Harvesting Areas 3.2.1. Pollution Problems Surf clams inhabit a zone extending from the surf of ocean beaches out and along the continental shelf to depths of approximately 36 meters. Small surf clam populations are sometimes found in inlets and also in the more saline portions of coastal bays. At the northernmost range of the fishery, commercial quantities of surf clams are found close inshore. Further south, commercial quantities of surf clams are found progressively further offshore. Because nearly all commercial surf clam harvesting occurs offshore in relatively deep water of near oceanic quality, water 24 pollution was not considered to be a major industry problem until recently. 3.2.1.1. Industrial and domestic . New York reports that 120 square miles of harvesting area in the apex of the New York Bight is closed to surf clam harvesting because of industrial pollution. A similar area offshore from Delaware and Maryland is also closed to surf clam harvesting. These areas are subjected to ocean dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge. The closure of these large areas was not considered as a major industry problem while surf clam stocks were abundant. Now that surf clam stocks have been reduced, these closed areas have more significance to the industry. The industry is not appeased by reports that ocean dumping may be phased out by 1981. The enrichment of nearshore waters from ocean dumping and effluents from ocean outfalls is suspected to have had some influence on the prolonged dlnof lagellate bloom that occurred off the New Jersey coast during the summer of 1976. New Jersey reports that 90,800 acres of the total 230,400 acres of ocean water within the three mile limit is closed to surf clamming because of pollution (Sugiharaj 1976) . Due to the progressively offshore distribution of surf clam resources, and the lack of significant pollution sources, few Inshore areas are closed to surf clam harvesting southward along the Del- Mar-Va Peninsula. Potential pollution problems also exist offshore. Large east coast cities have traditionally used offshore sites for ocean dumping of sewage sludge, and industrial wastes. The recent oil industry activity in Baltimore Canyon and other offshore tracts is of some concern to the surf clam industry. It had been previously estimated that 80 percent of the total surf clam resource occurred in water depths ranging between 12 and 31 meters (Merrill and Ropes^ 1969) , and oil exploration and development will occur well below these depths. 3.2.1.2. Biotoxins . Paralytic shellfish poisoning has been reported north of Cape Cod and surf clam stocks extend into this area. Toxic dinof lagellate blooms are not considered to be a surf clam industry problem at the present time because all major surf clam harvesting areas are still well south of the Cape. Publicity about red tides could reduce the marketability of surf clams and most seafood (Marine Research, Inc.il976). Dinof lagellate blooms do occur within surf clam harvesting areas but thus far no toxic species have been involved in blooms that have developed in the present surf clam harvesting areas. 3.2.1.3. Climatic problems . Storms can and have caused massive surf clam mortalities to occur by depositing large quantities of clams on ocean beaches. Ropes et^ al . (1969) cited an observation made over 50 years ago which estimated that 5 million adult surf clams per linear mile were 25 stranded on Rockaway Beach, Long Island, New York, after unusually severe storms. According to Merrill (Sugihare, 1976) , these occurrences are probably not significant over a period of time because the incidents are locally scattered and probably involve only a small part of the inshore surf clam resource. It is interesting to note that previously, storms deposited surf clams on Virginia beaches at frequencies of once every 5 years. There have been no reports on beached surf clams in Virginia during the past 12 years (Strand, 1976), and there is speculation that increased fishing pressure may be responsible. Water temperature is known to affect reproduction cycles (Ropes. 1968) and possibly accounts for part of the shell size difference between offshore and inshore populations (Starypan, 1976) . 3.3. Resource Availability The most recent and complete report on surf clam resource availability is provided by Chang, Ropes and Merrill (1976). The estimated population size of surf clam resources in the Middle Atlantic Bight has declined steadily since 1970 and is now considered to be at a record low. 3.3.1. Biological Problems 3.3.1.1. Brood stocks and recruitment . Chang et al. (1976) estimated that surf clam population remained relatively constant between 1965 and 1970 at a level around 1100 thousand metric tons of clam meat. It then began to decline and eventually reached a level of around 245 thousand metric tons of surf clam meat in 1975. A major cause in the decline in total surf clam resources has been the extremely effective fishing pressure that has been recently exerted on the resource. Harvesting has reduced the estimated spawning stock and recruitment size of the surf clam resource to 53 thousand metric tons in 1975. This is a significant decline from the estimated level of 228 thousand metric tons reported for 1971. 3.3.1.2. Predation and disease . Moon snails are probably important predators of surf clams, Lunatia heros in deeper waters and Polinices duplicata nearer shore. Bottom feeding fish, crabs and shore birds also consume surf clams (Ropes et al.,1969). No diseases of surf clams are known. A parasite, ( Proboscidoasaccus enigmaticus ) of uncertain taxonomic position has been found in the related European surf clam species Spisula solida (Yancy and Welch, 1968). Nematode infestations have been found in the Middle Atlantic surf clam population, but are deemed not to be a public health hazard. 26 3.3.2. Resource Management Problems The surf clam fishery actually evolved outside the jurisdictional limits of most State regulatory agencies. Therefore, until just recently the harvesting sector of the surf clam industry has never been subjected to State or federal regulations that tend to be restrictive. In sharp contrast to the much older and traditional inshore clam and oyster fishery, the offshore surf clam fishery had no legal restraints to prevent them from developing effective harvesting methods. The resource management problems stem directly from commercial fishing, as there is no recreational fishery. The principal problems have been management without an adequate information base and a poorly defined management regime. Inadequate stock assessments and economic information left the loosely knit federal and State authorities with unsubstantiated argvanents for strict regulations. Moreover, the informal "State-federal program" had no legislative basis on which to induce industry participants to compromise. A consensus between State, federal and industry groups was necessary to achieve management objectives. The consensus has not been reached. Despite the growing evidence of stock depletion, new large vessels are entering the fishery. There is much concern that continued un- restricted exploitation will deplete surf clam beds still further. It is hoped that the newly established Mid-Atlantic Regional Council can provide the necessary forum to obtain rational management of the stocks. A necessary forum objective includes not only strong management goals but also a budget that can provide the needed biological and economic information base. In the relatively short time period of only 30 years, the surf clam industry has managed to solve the harvesting, processing, and marketing problems that continue to restrict inshore molluscan fisheries. 3.3.2.1. Stock assessments . When the fishery began, most State regulatory agencies lacked facilities for making surf clam stock assessment. Through a cooperative State/Federal surf clam management program, the resources within the 3 mile inshore jurisdictions of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia were surveyed in 1974. New Jersey has continued to survey its inshore resources because of intense fishing activity. The assessment of the resources beyond the 3 mile limit has been surveyed by the Federal government (Ropes, 1975) . 3.3.2.2. Harvesting pressure . Effective surf clam harvesting pressure has been enhanced since 1969, when stern dredgers began to enter the fleet, The trend has been toward larger vessels that handle larger dredges and sometimes more than one dredge. The increase in the exvessel value of surf clams has encouraged some smaller and older harvesting vessels to reenter the fishery. 27 3.4. Harvesting and Transporting 3,4.1. Inclement Weather As an offshore fishery, severe weather conditions often interfere with harvesting operations. In New Jersey, bad weather has limited surf clam harvesting to 180, plus or minus 20 days, per year (Sugihara, 1976) . With larger and more modern vessels, the ability to keep dredging gear on the bottom is the major factor in bad weather harvesting but distance from shore, fast-moving weather fronts, over-aggressive captains and occasional poor communication have contributed to a loss of five Eastern Shore surf clam vessels in the last three years. This is an industry problem because it raises insurance rates, wages to the crew (to pay for risk element) and conservative attitudes toward winter harvesting. 3.4.2. Harvesting Methods Harvesting of surf clams occurs offshore from vessels using hydraulic jet cage dredges. This is an extremely effective method of harvesting surf clams. The effectiveness of the jet dredge and harvesting gear is known to cause damage to juvenile and adult surf clams, and efforts to improve harvesting gear in this respect have been recommended (Scott and Rinaldo, 1976) . There is speculation that the old smaller vessels are more efficient at landing surf clams and methodically working clam beds but that the offshore distance has made larger capacity and greater speed necessary vessel characteristics. Thus, the new vessels that are large and fast may have the competitive advantage. There are problems associated with deck loading surf clams during hot, sunny summer days. Clams are perishable and, by the time the vessel returns and is off-loaded, the quality of the clams is significantly reduced, There is economic pressure by the wholesalers and processors for better quality control, and harvesters have begun improving their on-board storage procedures. The deck storage of clams also creates stability problems for the vessels. In rough seas, the increase in topside weight reduces the righting moments of the vessels and can produce increased roll. This can lead to the large cages shifting and safety hazards to the crews. 3.4.3. Regulations Licensing of harvesting vessels or crew members is now generally required in most States. The State of New York has a minimum three- inch size limit for surf clams. New Jersey has recently begun to regulate surf clam harvesting within the three mile limit. In New Jersey water, surf clam harvesting vessels are limited to a single dredge with maximum cutting bar width of 60 inches. Some of the larger vessels have dredges with 120-inch cutting bars. In New Jersey, the inner mile is closed to 28 surf clam harvesting south of Great Bay and from May 1 to November 30 all New Jersey State waters are closed. There are no State regulations per- taining to surf clam harvesting within the State waters of Delware, Maryland or Virginia, and there are no offshore regulations. Designated State agencies under NSSP guidelines do prohibit the harvesting of surf clams from non-approved areas. 3.4.4. Transportation Handling of harvested surf clams is relatively modern and efficient. Although harvested clams were previously stored on board harvesting vessels in the shell in one bushel bags, nearly all surf clams are now stored in 32 bushel wire cage containers or 20 bushel drums. Cage containers can be unloaded at processing plant docks or shipped by truck from any landing area. No harvesting vessels have refrigeration capacity at the present time but, because of the perishability of surf clams and because harvesting trip durations are being extended, refrigeration will be installed on many of the larger harvesting vessels in the near future. Surf clams will not remain alive for long periods of time. Except for very small quantities sold in the shell as bait, the entire surf clam catch is processed within one or two days after unloading from harvesting vessels. Surf clams are stored in the shell in refrigerated rooms at processing plants or shipped by refrigerated truck to processing plants. 3.5. Processing 3.5.1. Procurement Many of the larger surf clam processing firms have purchased their own harvesting vessels in order to obtain a continuous supply of raw product for processing. There are many privately owned surf clam harvesting vessels that now sell their catch to the processing plants that will pay the most money for their catch. There is stiff competition for surf clams among Eastern Shore processors and other buyers. This has led to exvessel prices rising from $2/bushel in 1972 to over $10/bushel currently. Processors, however, are able to pass these costs along to their purchasers, and profit margins are apparently satisfactory. There has been some complaint that deck storage lowers quality and, recently, that the newly-introduced large dredges damage the shells of landed and unlanded clams. The deck loading problem is partially overcome by prompt processing. If there is increased damage to clams from the large dredges, mortality to the unlanded clams increases, and there may be reduced yield from the landed clam. More investigation is necessary to determine the extent of damage, if any, from large dredges. 29 3.5.2. Storage Nearly all of the larger surf clam processing plants have provisions for refrigerated storage of harvested surf clams. Both small and larger processing plants generally process harvested surf clams almost immediately, 3.5.3. Shucking Problems The recent sharp decline in surf clam landings has created a situation in which the harvested supply is inadequate for processing demand. The reduction in landings has driven the exvessel value of surf clams up to three and four times the former exvessel value. Processors are faced with the problem of diminishing supplies of raw product that is only available at increasingly higher prices. The smaller supplies make it difficult to maintain a reliable labor force. The clam meat processing sector of the surf clam industry is, for the most part, both modern and efficient. Although surf clams are still hand shucked in a few small plants, most large plants use automated equipment. Most modern plants use ovens for opening surf clams and brine solutions for meat shell separation. Automated eviscerating, washing, chopping, and packing equipment is used extensively. The problems associated with this process relate mostly to the recently increased prices of fuels needed to produce heat for the process. Natural gas scarcities in the past have introduced problems to the industry in Virginia, but the supplies have been available. The deregulation of natural gas prices in the last year may have an impact on industry costs. The hot water process is a less efficient heat transfer system and will probably be replaced in the future by the gas-oven system. For the processors that hand shuck, the major problem is to have enough product on hand to keep the laborers consistently employed. Product flow is continuous from the input of clams in the shell at the beginning of the line to the output of canned and retorted clam products at the end of the processing line. The smaller clam processing plants generally produce shucked clam meats that are frozen in blocks, and sold to other plants that process these meats into a variety of surf clam products. 3.5.4. Meat Separation Much of the meat separation is mechanized, but there is still a considerable amount of hand separation on the Eastern Shore. At this stage, the major problems are the waste associated with the hand shucking operation and assurance of quality control in the mechanized process. Hammers and paddles break up much of the meat that is attached to the shell. In general, the meat separation process is not a problem. 30 3.5.5. Undesirable Material Problems The shell fragment problem tends to be prevalent in surf clam production, The fragility of the shells and the tremendous volume of processed product make the likelihood of producing a shell-free product quite small. The mechanical shuckers and hand shuckers do perform adequately, and it is not of overriding importance at this time. There is a potential problem associated with fresh water use to remove the fragments. Fresh water is a scarce resource on the Eastern Shore and will become much scarcer. Evisceration, or "pinching bellies"^, is accomplished both by hand and mechanical means in Virginia. There are only general problems associated with labor and fresh water use. The washing of meats is accomplished both in the separation phase (shaker) and later "blowing" phase. Again, there is considerable fresh water used in this process and, in the regions where processors are located, fresh water use will undoubtedly become either more expensive or regulated. The washing phase is also where the product is separated into "tongue" and "salvage. " After this stage, the product is generally either chopped, diced, cut into strips and frozen, or frozen in its raw product form. The packaging is not a problem, and the product is usually sent out of State for further processing into chowder, casseroles, or breaded strips. 3.5.6. Processing Waste Disposal Problems Wastes from surf clam processing plants consist of shells and shell fragments, sand, processing wash water and viscera. Shell waste is disposed of in landfill areas, and dried for fill in drywells, driveways, etc. Surf clam shells are sometimes used as oyster cultch. Viscera are disposed of in sanitary landfill areas, and they are also liquefied prior to transfer to treatment facilities. Processing wash water is either treated by processing plants or disposed of in municipal treatment systems. In areas where municipal waste treatment is not available, the screen- ing of processing waste discharges must meet standards in the 1972 Amended Water Quality Act for 1977. Generally, the goal of near zero effluent discharge will require substantial investment by plants that must treat their own effluents. 3.5.7. Labor Problems Each laborer is paid by the product he or she produces. Labor generally becomes a problem when there is little product to process. This has been the reason some oyster shuckers have diversified into surf clams. At other times, there are complaints of high absenteeism in the laborers. The increased mechanization trend has, to a large extent, reduced the reliance on a large labor force. This trend will probably continue as 31 offshore oil development and general economic growth on the Eastern Shore continue to increase the competition for the labor force. 3.6. Marketing The market demands for surf clam products are high. During the mid 1960's, the marketing problem was oversupply, and caused exvessel values to decrease. Exvessel values are three to four times higher in 1976 than 1975. Surf clam processors have passed increased costs on to consumers thus far, but processors generally feel that they cannot continue to do so, since it will decrease demand. Other clam resources are being sought as alternatives. Surf clam meats are processed into such a variety of clam products that the identity of surf clam meats is lost. Consequently, there is no informa- tion available specifically on the consumption of only surf clam meats. Howeve;r> some indication of surf clam demand and consumption can be obtained from analysis of aggregate consumption data for all species of clams in the United States. The aggregate consumption of all clams in the United States rose from 72.3 million pounds of meat in 1965 to 114.4 million pounds of meat in 1975. During this same time period. United States per capita consumption of all clam species rose from .38 pounds of meat to .54 pounds. The total meat landings of hard clams and soft shell clams did not increase during this same time period. The increase in United States aggregate and per capita clam consumption may be due to consumption of surf clam meats. 3.7. Major Surf Clam Industry Problems The major surf clam industry problem is the declining availability of surf clam resources. Analysis of landing and catch data shows significant overharvesting of the resource has occurred (Chang et al., 1976) (Starypan, 1976) . The ability of the resource to recover from the effects of over- harvesting is questionable. Clam mortalities associated with anoxic water that occurred off New Jersey during the summer of 1976 (Sharp, 1976) further impair recovery potential. The surf clam industry needs to establish a sound, long-term resource management program. Increased harvesting effort is being applied to surviving surf clam populations, and effective management of remaining surf clam resources should be undertaken immediately. The harvesting and process- ing sectors of the industry are over capitalized in relation to the amount of the remaining surf clam resource. 3.8. Needs 1. Action should be taken by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Management Councils to attain the intended goals of maintaining the health of the 32 resource and industry dependent thereon. Through a State/Federal surf clam management program, regional schemes to limit entry of vessels in the fishery and allocation of the available resource on a sustainable yield basis have been developed. A system of vessel logbooks to collect data on fishing locations, catch and effort has been proposed but not implemented. The State of New Jersey has enacted regulations to limit fishing but only on inshore resources; other States have taken little or no recent action. 2. Actions to reverse the effects of the recent mortality of surf clams off New Jersey would include: a) pollution abatement to control or eliminate ocean dumping, resulting in better quality water and increased resource availability; b) biological studies leading to recovery of the resource by reseeding and transplanting strategies. 3. Continued support of State/Federal surf clam management programs to effect coordination of research and management efforts between agencies involved with the resource. 3.9. Surf Clam Industry References Bockstael, G. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the surf clam ( Spisula solidissima ) industry in Rhode Island. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-6. Chang, S., J. W. Ropes and A. S. Merrill. 1976. An evaluation of the surf clam population and fishery in the Middle Atlantic Bight. Unpublished manuscript. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, New Jersey, pp. 1-41. Cole, R. W. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the surf clam ( Spisula solidissima ) industry in Delaware. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-8. McHugh, J. L. and R. E. MacMillan. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the surf clam ( Spisula solidissima ) industry in New York State. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware. pp. 1-31. Merrill, A. S. and J. W. Ropes. 1969. The general distribution of surf clam and ocean quahog. Proc. Natl. Shellf. Assn. 59: 40-45. Parker, P. S. 1971. History and development of surf clam harvesting gear. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report 364. Poole, J. C. 1975. Notes on investigations pertaining to molluscan shell- fish. IN: Proc. Workshop Shellf. Mgmt. Progr. N. Y. State. N. Y. State Dept. Envir . Conserv. and N. Y. Sea Grant Inst., Albany: 28-31. Ropes, J. W. 1968. Reproductive cycle of the surf clam, Spisula solidissima , in offshore New Jersey. Biol. Bull. 135:349-365. 33 Ropes, J. W. 1976. Trip report - September 9-14, 1976. U.S. Dept of Commerce. Ropes, J. W. , J. L. Chamberlin and A. S. Merrill. 1969. Surf clam industry. IN: The Encyclopedia of Marine Resources. Ropes, J. W., A. S. Merrill and G. E. Ward. 1975. The Atlantic Coast surf clam fishery— 1973. Marine Fish. Riv. 37(12): 31-34. Scott, R. and R. Rinaldo. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the surf clam ( Spisula solidissima ) industry in Maryland. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-16. Sharp, J. H. (ed.). 1976. Anoxia on the Middle Atlantic Shelf during the summer of 1976. Report of a workshop held in Washington, D.C. on October 15 and 16, 1976. Office for the International Decade of Ocean Exploration, National Science Foundation, pp. 1-22. Starypan, G. 1976. Abundance, size distribution, and early growth of Spisiila solidissima in the inshore waters of the south Jersey coast. M. S. Thesis, Rutgers University. Strand, Ivar. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the surf clam ( Spisula solidissima ) industry in Virginia. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware. pp. 1-15. Sugihara, T. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the surf clam ( Spisula solidissima ) industry in New Jersey. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-19. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1976. Surf clam mortality rises off New Jersey. U.S. Dept. Commerce News. NOAA 76-226. Yancy, M. and W. R. Welch. 1968. The Atlantic Coast surf clam. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 288. 34 4. THE SOFT SHELL CLAM INDUSTRY 4.1. Introduction The East Coast industry associated with harvesting and processing the soft shell clam ( Mya arenarla) is currently the third largest commercial clam industry in the United States. Soft shell clam meats have historically contributed to approximately 12 percent of the volume and approximately 20 percent of the exvessel value of all commercially harvested clams during the past 10 years. The volume and exvessel value of soft shell clam landings during the past 26 years is presented in Figure 3. There were approximately 7000 fishermen and approximately 1000 boats and vessels actively engaged in the 1975 harvest of 9.2 million pounds of soft clam meats. The exvessel value of the 1975 soft clam catch was 8.7 million dollars. Although five east coast States report commercial soft clam landings, the States of Maine, Massachusetts, and Maryland have landed approximately 92 percent of total United States soft clam landings during the past 10 years. 4.1.1. Brief History In the New England area, soft clams have been utilized since colonial days, primarily as a source of food, when other types of food were not readily available. Commercialization of soft clam resources began around 1850 when soft clams were dug, shucked, and salted in barrels and sold as bait for the Grand Banks fisheries (Belding 1930). During the late 1800* s, trawling for finfish lessened the importance of soft clams as bait. Landing records indicate that the most recent maximum landings of approximately 16.5 million pounds of meats occurred in 1937, 1939, and 1940. Increased human consumption began in New England during the war when steamed and fried soft clams became popular food items. The New England supply of soft clams could not meet industry demand and New England pro- cessors encouraged soft clam production in Maryland prior to 1951. The New England soft clam resource was most probably over harvested in 1948 and 1949 when about 10 million pounds of soft clam meats were landed annually. New England landings declined steadily after 1947 and reached a record low of about 2 million pounds in 1958. Maryland's extensive sub-tidal soft clam populations were not commercial- ly utilized until the hydraulic soft clam escalator dredge was developed in 1951. Maryland production increased rapidly and Maryland became the major supplier of soft clams to New England markets. The Maryland catch of soft clams exceeded the entire New England catch from 1956 to 1970. In the early 1970' s, the Maryland soft clam resources began to show signs of overfishing, and daily catch limits were reduced from 40 to 25 bushels per day. In 1972, severe flooding from tropical storm "Agnes" caused extensive mortalities in the existing soft clam resources in Maryland, and the industry was closed 35 for one year. Maryland landings In 1975 were around one million pounds while New England landings were around 7.5 million pounds. The possibility of paralytic shellfish poisoning became an industry problem in the New England area in 1972 when an extensive bloom developed. All soft clam harvesting areas north of Cape Cod were closed to harvesting in 1972 and subsequent but less extensive blooms have occurred from 1974 through 1976. 4.1.2. Current Status Total landings of soft clams are decreasing while exvessel values are increasing. Total soft clam landings during 1975 were only 9.2 million pounds of meats, a little less than the 1974 landings of 9.6 million pounds. Exvessel value for soft clam meats in 1975 increased 7 percent over values reported for 1974. Soft clam landings for the first six months of 1976 are about 12 percent higher in volume than comparative volumes reported in 1975. The exvessel value of soft clams has risen 41 percent during the first six months of 1976. Limited supplies of all clam resources are the major factors involved in exvessel value increases for soft clams. The industry is composed primarily of independent harvesters and processors. There appear to be no formal ties or contracts between the two except in those cases where verification is necessary due to harvest from contaminated areas (in that case, harvesters must make arrangements for access to purification processing equipment). While there are no contract or company diggers, informal arrangements are necessary for the highly perishable product to be moved into processing channels as soon as possible. Gear restrictions keep the diggers from operating as efficiently as possible. They have the advantage of preserving the stock but it would be far better in terms of efficiency to reduce the number of diggers but allow those that remain to use efficient techniques. Although soft clams are the third most valuable type of clam, this value is produced by relatively small producers and sometimes this is a weak link in the system because harvesting is influenced by weather, season, other activity, competition, personal whim, and harvesters owe allegiance to no dealer. There is also considerable competition from recreational diggers in some areas and it is likely that their catch is significant. Where stocks are small and decreasing because of overharvesting and contamination of grounds, this competition can be quite significant. Management decisions to allocate the stock between the two uses must be made. 4.1.3. Expected Future of the Industry The future of the soft clam resources and industry is not favorable. 36 The resource occurs close to pollution sources and in the northern New England areas, the resource is exposed to toxic dinof lagellate blooms. The relative abundance of the resource is influenced by environmental factors that cannot be controlled and effective management is almost impossible. Demand for soft clams will increase but supply will probably remain low. A. 2. Water Quality in Harvesting Areas 4.2.1. Pollution Problems The water pollution problems that threaten the soft clam industry are similar to those previously reported for the hard clam ( Mercenaria sp.) industry. Soft clams are perhaps even more susceptible to sources of pollution than hard clams because a large portion of the New England soft clam resource occurs only in intertidal areas that are very close to shore and therefore, closer to existing or potential pollution sources. In some areas, commercial quantities of soft clam exist in low salinity water, and these areas are also closer to pollution sources from rivers and streams, Throughout the east coast of the United States, large areas of soft clam grounds are closed to harvesting because of water pollution. A significant portion of the resource is not available for harvest by the industry, and these large populations of polluted soft clams are also a potential public health hazard. (Sec. 2.2.1.2.) 4.2.1.1. Industrial pollutants . The major industrial pollutants adversely affecting soft clams have been heavy metals, petroleum oils, and pesticides. In Maine, process water from an intertidal heavy metal mine was associated with increases in heavy metal concentrations in soft clams. The increases ranged from a doubling of cadmium levels, to a twenty fold increase in chromium levels. Copper and lead increased eleven fold, and zinc increased by a factor of ten during the 1967-1972 life of the mine. The population of soft clams in the effected area also declined (Dow 1976) . Petroleum oils have also caused damage to soft clam populations. Soft clams exposed to oil have shown a decline in growth rate from 40 to 60 percent. Soft clam mortalities, as a result of some oil fractions, have been 100 percent. (Dow 1976) Soft clams have been observed to concentrate pesticides, but thus far there have been no reports of soft clam mortalities due to pesticides. The accumulation of pesticides creates a potential public health problem and possibly affects the resource. 4.2.1.2. Domestic . Most of the areas that are closed to soft clam harvest- ing are closed because of domestic pollution. Maine reports that 72,000 acres of coastal shellfish growing area have been closed for many years because of domestic pollution. In Massachusetts, it is estimated that 64 percent of the potential soft shell clam harvesting area is closed because 37 of pollution. Most States report that large areas are closed to soft clam harvesting. Maryland reports that few soft clam harvesting areas are now closed because of domestic pollution. 4.2.1.3. Agricultural and wildlife . Agricultural pollution associated with livestock has been shown to be the major cause of pollution in some small tributaries in Maryland. Maryland also reports that large concentrations of waterfowl (Canadian Geese) can create pollution problems in localized areas. (Scott and Rinaldo, 1976). The significance of wildlife pollution is not understood. 4.2.1.4. Oil and chemical spills . With the exception of Maryland, most soft clam resources are intertidal and likely to be affected by oil and chemical spills. One highly productive soft clam area in Maine has been closed since 1971 because of contamination from #2 fuel oil and jet fuel (Dow 1976). 4.2.1.5. Biotoxins . The first paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) closures in Maine were made in 1958. Since that time, in eastern Maine, periodic closures as a result of seasonal increases in the levels of Gonyaulax tamarensis blooms have been made. A major bloom occurred in 1972 and smaller blooms occurred from 1974 through 1976. These red tide blooms have caused extensive economic damage to the soft clam industry and they are increasingly a potential public health hazard. Red tides that cause PSP seldom occur below Cape Cod. 4.2.2. Climatic Problems Soft clam populations have been devastated by tropical storms, hurricanes, and blizzards. Intertidal populations are more susceptible to physical disruption by storms. All populations are subject to damage from severe flooding and long standing quantities of fresh water. Periodic mortality in the Chesapeake and other areas appears to be related to weather extremes. 4.3. Resource Availability A portion of the soft clam resource is not available to the industry because of pollution. The relative abundance of soft clam resources is directly related to environmental factors that cannot be controlled. In the New England area, the green crab ( Carcinus maenas ) is the major soft clam predator. In the New England area, periodic increases in sea water temperature have led to a proliferation of the green crab population. Green crabs have been observed to reduce soft clam populations by 90 percent, 38 4.3.1. Biological Problems The biology and life history of the soft clam is well known. The major predators are also known, and the environmental factors that cause fluctua- tion in soft clam abundance is partially known. However, thus far aquacul- tural efforts have been totally unsuccessful. In Massachusetts, flats which once produced large numbers of clams may suddenly become barren, while others may be consistent producers year after year, as observed by Belding (1907; 1916; 1930). Why intense sets occur in certain areas and not in others that appear ecologically similar is not understood. Setting intensity in many of the traditionally productive clamming flats appears to have declined, and market-size clams have become more scarce. Whether the processes of reproduction and setting are being adverse- ly influenced by chemical or biological changes in the environment or by inadequate parent stocks is unclear. Efforts at restocking barren flats have been tried for more than 70 years (Belding, 1907). In some cases, resurfac- ing flats with spoil or other materials was followed by heavy sets, while in other instances no change occurred (Turner, 1948) . In summary, very little is known about inducing or obtaining good sets of soft-shell clams, or improving their natural habitat. 4.3.1.1. Brood stocks . In the New England area, and even in Maryland, the lack of adequate brood stocks is not likely to be the cause of major fluctuations in population abundance because a significant portion of the soft clam resource cannot be harvested for a variety of reasons. In the New England area some harvesters will not work in heavy cobble and shell areas. In Maryland, harvesters cannot work within several hundred yards from the shore line. Soft clams cannot be harvested from grossly polluted areas. 4.3.1.2. Recruitment . Inadequate juvenile survival appears to be one of the major factors involved in the relative abundance of soft clam populations, It is known that in Maine, the failure of juveniles (2-4 mm) to survive to commercial size is associated with predation by correspondingly small green crabs and that predation continues by larger crabs as surviving clams grow larger. It is also known that warm winter weather increases green crab populations. 4.3.1.3. Predation and Diseases. Crabs are the major predators of soft shell clams. The major crab predators are the green crab ( Carcinus maenas ), horsehoe crabs (Limulus sp.) blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus ) and various species of mud crabs. Predation by waterfowl, crabs and boring snails reduces populations of soft-shell clams to varying degrees depending on climatic condition and the abundance of the predator. The green crab ( Carcinides maenas ) is a voracious predator in New England waters (Marine Research, Inc., 1976). In the Gulf of Maine cycles of green crab abundance have roughly paralleled a 39 serious depletion of the clam resource. Its abundance in the waters of Massachusetts since 1940 has no doubt played a significant role in the decline of clam stocks there. Disease in soft clams does not appear to be a significant problem except in some localized areas. In Maine, during periods of considerable fresh water run-off, the resultant lowering of salinity is associated with elimina- tion of the digestive enzyme, B-amylase, which apparently prevents the soft clam from utilizing starchy foods. Surviving soft clams in jet fuel spill areas have developed gonadal tumors (Dow, 1976). Soft clam mortalities have been observed in association with stress conditions related to high tempera- ture and low salinity water. 4.3.2. Resource Management Problems Management of any wild or naturally occurring public resource is difficult. There are extremely complex problems associated with managing a commercially harvested marine bivalve resource that is essentially owned and utilized by the public. (Sec. 2.3.2.) As yet interest has been thwarted in developing a soft clam culture system. There has been interest in the installation of crab fences as was done in the 1950 's to protect the more important clam growing areas. Thus far, interest in this type of protective measure has been limited to a few coastal municipalities. Until such methods have been used rather extensive- ly or there is an appreciable decline in sea temperature, commercial operations of the industry are likely to decrease in New England. 4.3.2.1. Stock assessments . Fortunately, a large portion of commercially harvested soft clam populations are intertidal and when manpower has been available reasonably good stock assessments have been made in Maine and in Maryland. 4.3.2.2. Harvesting pressure . Since the area of approved soft clam harvest- ing has been considerably reduced by pollution, more commercial harvesting effort is being applied to the remaining open areas. The recreational and part-time harvesting effort is also increasing in relation to more leisure time. The increase in recreational boating has provided more people access to soft clamming areas. 4.4. Harvesting and Transportation 4.4.1. Inclement Weather Inclement weather including blizzards, flooding, ice, and severe winds, restricts harvesting efforts. In intertidal areas, ice accumulation on clam flats sometimes prohibits harvesting. Monthly variations in tide and length of day play an important role in soft clam harvesting. In Maryland, harvesting vessels cannot work when wind speeds increase above 20 knots. 40 4.4.2. Harvesting Methods In Intertldal areas, hand methods of digging clams are the only legal methods of harvest. Hoes, forks, and shovels are the implements generally employed in hand harvesting soft clams. In areas where mechanical harvesting is legal, soft clams can be effectively harvested by the hydraulic escalator dredge. Hand methods are considered to be inefficient and mechanical har- vesters are considered to be very efficient soft clam harvesting methods. Although considered inefficient, hand harvesting methods have effectively reduced natural soft clam populations in some areas to a point where clam removal surpasses recruitment. 4.4.3. Regulations The soft clam industry has been subjected to regulations that are similar to those imposed on the hard clam industry and for a similar length of time. As a public resource, the State conservation agency or local town generally has jurisdiction over the physical resource. The responsible State health agency and the NSSP regulate the sanitary aspects of the industry by the establishment of approved and restricted harvesting areas and sanitary handling of soft clams. Under strict State supervision and NSSP guidelines, soft clams can be harvested from restricted harvesting areas providing that they are depurated. Soft clam depuration plants exist in Maine, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. 4.4.4. Transportation Soft clams are usually sold in the shell by the bushel. Soft clam buyers pick up harvested soft clams from diggers at convenient locations. Transportation from collection sites may be by boat, car, or truck. Soft clam harvesters generally have no storage facilities and must deliver their harvest to a buyer or processor within a few hours after harvesting. In warm weather, transportation by refrigerated truck is necessary if long distances are involved. All shellstock in transit, one they have entered the certified dealer/processor level of trade, must be identified in accordance with State and NSSP Regulations. Receiver States may complain, warn, embargo, or confiscate improperly or untagged shipments. Shipments within the States have been detained until properly tagged. 4.5. Processing Removal of shellfish meats from the shell is another of the regulated shellfish activities that is controlled under the NSSP. Only processors meeting the requirements set forth by law and regulation may legally engage in this type of processing. Upon delivery to the processor, shellstock is refrigerated. According to the intended use of the product, shellstock may 41 be washed, sorted and/or packed for shipment prior to refrigerated storage. Shellstock is shipped in 1/2, 3/4, and 1 bushel containers. Soft clams are sold in the shell as steamers and meats are shucked as ingredients for chowders and fried clams. Soft clams are seldom consumed raw. Nearly all soft clams are shucked by hand and various thermal water shock methods are used to facilitate rapid hand opening. The viscera or belly usually is not removed, but the siphons are sometimes removed. 4.5.1. Shucking Steam has been used experimentally. However, a number of processors use a hot dip- thermal shock method to assist in opening of the valves. The process consists of immersion of a set volume (1/2 bu. max) in a wash tub sized container of water at a temperature of 212°F. Length of immersion is determined by the processor for each different lot of shellfish because of varying shellstock temperature, source, and condition. Rapid cool down following the hot dip is effected through dipping in cold water or use of a heavy volume spray. The shellfish react vigorously to the cold water, and in addition to the physiological change that results in easier shucking, the gut content is violently ejected to produce a cleaner meat with a lower bacterial content. This assumes that all handling and time practices are within acceptable limits. Otherwise, the process reduces quality. Hand work is utilized in the opening of all valves and removal of shellfish meats. Size variations, shell thickness, brittleness and length to thick- ness ratio have deterred development of automated shucking machines. Most shell fragments and other unwanted material are removed by blowing soaking, rinsing, and manually, or by a combination of these methods. Blowing consists of placing the meats in a large hopper-like piece of equipment that is partially filled with water, and then subjecting the whole to an agitation produced by air pumped into the bottom of the device. Heavy material drops to the bottom through a grating where it is collected. Soaking is accomp- lished in any container that will hold water and the shellfish meats. Agitation may be supplied by mechanical means or by running water. Rinsing, as the term implies, is the result of directing a spray of water, from any suitable nozzle, onto the shellfish meats. Some unwanted materials must be picked out by hand regardless of the water washing method used. All containers of shellfish meats packed for shipment or transport in the inter or intrastate trade must have permanently marked upon the container the processor's name and address, the certificate number under which the meats were shucked, the contents of the container and the volume or quantity. In addition, there must also be a code date placed upon the body of the container, from which it is possible to ascertain date of shucking and source of shellstock. Shellfish processing is a low prestige occupation, with minimum wage and a necessity for a high degree of dexterity. Many employees could not find other employment. Absenteeism and turnover are high. Welfare payments are competitive enough to remove many people from the labor market. 42 In many instances, shellstock shucking is a cottage- type industry with labor supplied by the immediate members of the family. In larger shucking operations, or where family is not available;, hiring of one or more employees is necessary. Such employees are usually male and turnover is often high. Because of the much smaller volume of processing wastes, soft clam processors do not usually have significant processing waste disposal problems, 4.6. Marketing Marketing of soft clam meats is not considered to be a problem be- cause demand usually exceeds supply. In the New England area, some consumer confidence in soft clams and other seafoods has been eroded by PSP publicity. 4.7. Major Industry Problem The major soft clam industry problem is the lack of a consistent, dependable, and sustainable supply of soft clams. Pollution is one of the major problems affecting the supply of soft clams, but there are other environmental problems that influence supply. In fact, environmental factors such as elevated seawater temperatures, and excessive fresh water runoff cannot be controlled and are directly related to soft clam mortalities. Thus far, attempts to produce or Increase soft clam production by mariculture efforts have not been successful. 4.8. Needs 1. Implement proven predator control techniques by appropriate agencies, particularly in New England waters. 2. Continue support and expansion of PSP monitoring to minimize industry impacts through adverse publicity. 3. Update assessments of designated shellfish grounds by state agencies to identify availability of present stocks. 4. Support sound pollution abatement programs. 4.9. Soft Shell Clam Industry References Belding, D. L. 1907. A partial report upon the shellfisherles of Massachusetts. 41st Ann. Rep. Comm. Fish. 2nd Game. p. 68. 1916. A report upon the clam fishery. 50th Annual Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries and Game, Massachusetts, p. 93-234, 43 1930. The soft-shelled clam fishery of Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Conservation, Division of Fish and Game, Marine Fisheries Section, Marine Fisheries Series No. 1. p. 1-64. Bockstael, G. 1976. Comprehensive report on the soft shelled clam (Mya arenaria ) industry in Rhode Island. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-5. Dow, R. L. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the soft shell clam ( Mya arenaria ) industry in Maine. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-29. Marine Research, Inc. 1976. A summary of the clam industry in Massachusetts Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-40. McHugh, J. L. and R. B. MacMillan. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the soft clam ( Mya arenaria ) industry in Maryland. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-12. Scott, R. and R. Rlnaldo. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the soft clam ( Mya arenaria ) industry in Maryland. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-16. Sugihara, T. 1976. Comprehensive Report on the soft clam ( Mya arenaria ) industry in New Jersey. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-12. Turner, H. J. 1948. Report on investigations of the propagation of the soft shell clam, Mya arenaria . Contr. 462. Woods Hole Oceanographlc Institution: 3-49. 44 Figure 1. Total U.S. conmiercial clam meat landings and total exvessel values - 1950-1975 120 100 {estimated 80 CO Q Z =3 O Q_ o 60 CO o -J =" 40 20 50 40 O — O POUNDS • — • DOLLARS 30 20 10 O m X < m CO CO m o O > C/) I I ' I I I I ' ■ ' I J I I L J I I I J I I i_ 1950 1955 I960 1965 YEARS 1970 1975 45 Figure 2. Total U.S. commercial clam meat landings and total surf clam meat landings - 1950-1975 CO Q Z ID O CL U. o 20 r A 00 - / \ / ' ^ 1 80 - / 1 ' 1 TOTAL CLAM LANDINGS / 9 ' ' ESTIMATED \ / 1 /57ff / /> o "y 60 /■ * / 1 9 1 / 1 ^o-o / i>/S76 40 A / " / 'd V^ / SURF CLAM LANDINGS P / .o cT' f 20 - 1 1 . > . . 1 ' . . 1 . , 1 1 1 I ■ 1 1 1 1 1950 1955 I960 1965 YEARS 1970 1975 46 I Ul o p. O •■-I <0 B >> CO e (U > 00 d ■a c (0 o 0£ 0) CO 0) o CO H -a ■« O 01 T— 1 3 T-t O o .C Q H -o d w t\i •o O) d 3 3 O x: (U H T1 01 d U n) to 0) r-l 3 r-l O O x: O tr-l V-1 01 to -o O) d 3 3 O o .c F^ 1-. DCM'vSTIC I'RODUCTION CO o O CN CO CO in r^ CTi 'J2 o Cvj u-1 o •J- IT) co CN) CO cr. CO O .-1 O <^^l r-l H ,—1 .-I r-l o CO d CO ?^ CO in 00 CO CT\ in o o 00 00 o lO OS 00 CO LTl m o c^ u-| 00 O r-1 CO ON •<1- -t -d- o ■H CJ . JJ ■rl d il •o a d d T-i 0) ^ "3 u r^I cH f— 1 «t3 O ■U M JD CO -a u. o 4-1 CN o r-l CN 4-1 *\ m i-l 0) o o 0) •H CO YEARS 49 Figure 4. Total U.S. surf clam meat landings and exvessel values - 1950-1975 100 r 80 o z o li. O ug/100 g. for the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria (Dow, 1976). 5.3. Resource Availability Data on the distribution of the ocean quahog has been provided from surveys by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This work indicates a large portion of the resource lies off the coast of Long Island. It was estimated that between 150 and 173 million bushels occur in this area (U.S. Dept. Commerce, 1976 b) . There is also a significant concentration off the coast of New Jersey. Sugihara (1976) has estimated that the New Jersey density of ocean quahogs is about half that off Long Island. These two areas have a greater production potential then the presently existing surf clam population. Preliminary information indicates the recruitment rate of ocean quahogs is greater than that of surf clams (Sugihara, 1976). Natural mortality rates of ocean quahogs are low, compared to those of surf clams. Ratios of .039 dead-to-live ocean quahogs have been observed, while surf clam 52 dead-to-live ratios were .25. The ocean quahog resource management problems will be identical to those of the surf clam industry. State regulations are not specific for ocean quahogs; Federal regulation reserves ocean quahogs for U.S. fishermen as a creature of the continental shelf. The resource is offshore and beyond the jurisdictional limits of most States. 5.4. Harvesting and Transporting The harvesting and transporting methods of the ocean quahog industry are the same as those described for the surf clam industry. Harvesting is by using hydraulic jet cage dredges by large, modern surf clam vessels designed to harvest and transport large volumes. The surf clam catch rate per unit effort has decreased, and many of these vessels now have excess harvesting and transporting capacity. Several of the more modern vessels of the surf clam fleet are now engaged in harvesting ocean quahogs, and more vessels are expected to enter the fishery. 5.5. Processing Ocean quahogs are more difficult to open than surf clams. In Rhode Island, ocean quahogs are opened with pressurized steam. Clam processing plants that use ovens for opening shell stock report ocean quahogs require twice the amount of opening treatment as that of surf clams, The meat yield from ocean quahogs is only about half that obtained from surf clams. Nearly all clam meat processors have managed to eliminate or disguise the strong flavor and aroma associated with ocean quahog meats. The darker meat problem has been partially solved by the use of meats in prepared clam products that do not require light or white meat. 5.6. Marketing The meats of ocean quahogs are marketed under the general category of clam meats and are used as an alternative to the more expensive surf, soft, and hard clam meats. In many prepared products, i.e., stuffed clams, Manhattan clam chowders, etc., ocean quahog meats are an acceptable alternative or substitute for more expensive and unavailable clam meats. Ocean quahog meats have thus far been found not to be suitable alternatives in New England type chowders or fried clam strips due to both color and flavor, although extruded products are being developed. The greatest sales problem exists in developing ocean quahog meats as a desirable product of itself. 53 5.7. Major Industry Problems The major industry problem appears to be the complete lack of a sound management program for commercial utilization of the ocean quahog resource. Support for such a program requires research on the standing stock, reproduction, mortality, and growth in order to regulate this developing fishery on a maximum sustainable yield basis. 5.8. Recommendations A sound management program for the ocean quahog resource and industry should be developed and put into effect immediately to avoid repetition of the existing surf clam industry problems. A strong ocean quahog research program should also be developed immediately to obtain management information pertaining to the resource while the resource is still relatively abundant. 5.9. Ocean Quahog Industry References Arclsz, W. and L. A. Sandholzer. 1947. A technological study of the ocean quahog fishery. Comm. Fish. Rev. 9(6): 1-21. Bockstael, G. 1976. Comprehensive report of the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica ) industry in Rhode Island. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-7. Dow, R. L. 1976. Comprehensive report on the ocean quahog ( Arctica islandica ) industry in Maine. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-11. McHugh, J. L. and R. B. MacMillan. 1976. Comprehensive report on the ocean quahog ( Arctica islandica ) industry in New York. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-4. Merrill, A. S. and J. W. Ropes. 1969. The general distribution of the Surf Clam and the Ocean Quahog. Proc . Natl. Shellf. Assn. 59: 40-45. Parker, P. S. and E. D. McRae. 1970. The ocean quahog Arctica islandica resource of the northwest Atlantic. Fish. Industr. Research. 6(4): 185-195. Ropes, J. W. 1976. Trip report - September 9-14, 1976. U.S. Department of Commerce. Sugihara, T. 1976. Comprehensive report on the ocean quahog Arctica islandica industry in New Jersey. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 1-14. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1976 b. Cruise report NOAA ship Delaware II April 4 - May 13, 1976. MARMAP Surf Clam Survey. U.S. Dept. Commerce. 54 6. EAST COAST RAZOR CLAMS Although the East Coast razor clam Ensls directus is included in statistical landing data, harvesting or processing is incidental to other species. During the past 10 years, reported annual commercial landings have averaged only 3,700 pounds valued at only $2,400. This is a value too low to support even one full time harvester. The resource is not abundant, and reported commercial landings are usually made for a temporary specialty market (Marine Research, Inc., 1976). The razor clam is an inshore species and subjected to the same pollution problems previously described for the hard clam and soft shell clam industries (McHugh and McMillan, 1976). 6.1. East Coast Razor Clam References Marine Research, Inc. 1976. A summary of the clam industry in Massachusetts. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, p. 36. McHugh, J. L. and R. B. MacMillan. 1976. Comprehensive report on the razor clam ( Ensis directus ) industry in New York. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-3. 55 7. THE SUNRAY VENUS CLAM A conunercial fishery for the sunray venus clam Macrocalllsta nlmbosa existed on the northwest coast of Florida from 1967 through 1973. More than 2.5 million pounds of sunray venus clam meats were havested and processed during the 7-year period. Clams were harvested by hydraulic jet cage dredge. Nearly all the commercially harvested clams were obtained from 1 eight- square-mile area. Subsequent surveys by the Florida Board of Natural Resources along the entire west coast of Florida indicated that commercial quantities of sunray venus clams were found only in the primary harvesting area (Menzel, 1976). The future for a large sunray venus clam fishery in Florida is not promising. Exploratory hydraulic clam dredging has been observed to cause extensive damage to rooted vegetation in Florida. Although the sunray venus resource is sparsely distributed throughout Florida water, commercial quantities of the resource occur only near St. Joseph Bay. This one relatively small and localized population of sunray venus clams could not sustain prolonged and effective commercial fishing pressure. 7.1. Sunray Venus Clam References Akin, R. M. and H. J. Humm. 1959. Marcrocallista nimbosa at Alligator Harbor, Quart. J. Fla. Aca. Sci., 22 (4): 226-228. Cake, E. W. 1970. Some predator-prey relationships involving the sunray venus clam, Macrocalllsta nimbosa (Lightfoot) (Pelecypoda: Veneridae) along the Gulf Coast of Florida, M. S. Thesis (Unpublished): Fla. State Univ., Tallahassee, Fla., 167 pp. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Marine Resources, Bur. Mar. Sci. & Tech. "Summary of Florida Commercial Marine Landings." (Published Annually) Futch, C. R. 1967. Potentially commercial clams of the genus Macrocalllsta . Fla. Bd. Conserv. , Mar. Lab., Salt Water Fish. Leaf., Ser. 3, Suppl., 2 pp. Godcharles, M. F. and W. C. Jaap. 1973. Exploratory clam survey of Florida nearshore and estuarine waters with commercial hydraulic dredging gear. Fla. Dept. of Nat. Res., Prof. Papers Ser., No. 21, 77 pp. Haines, M. L. 1975. The reproductive cycle, larval development, culture, and tolerances of the sunray venus clam Macrocalllsta nimbosa (Lightfoot, Ph.D. Dissertation (unpublished). Fla. State Univ. , Tallahassee, Fla. 164 pp. Jolley, J. R. , Jr. 1972. Exploratory fishing for the sunray venus clam, Macrocalllsta nimbosa , in northwest Florida. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res. Tech. Ser. No. 67: 42 pp. 56 Joyce, E. A., Jr. 1970. History and current status of the sunray venus clam fishery In northwest Florida. Amer. Malcol. Union, Rept . for 1970: 29-30. Menzel, R. W. 1976. Comprehensive report on the sunray venus clam (Macrocallista nimbosa ) industry in Florida. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-15. Stokes, R. J., E. A. Joyce and R. M. Ingle. 1968. Initial observations a new fishery for the sunray venus clam, Macrocallista nimbosa (Solander) Fla. Bd. Conser., Mar. Res. Lab., Tech. Ser. No. 56: 27 pp. Personal communication with Fla. Bd. Nat. Res., Mar. Div. , especially E. A. Joyce, Jr., and D. S. Beamariage, Jr. 57 8. THE BRACKISH WATER CLAM RANGIA A small but promising fishery for the brackish water clam Rangia cuneata existed in North Carolina from 1966 through 1972. The development of the industry utilizing Rangia in commercial quantities was perhaps the first successful attempt to process the species throughout its range from Mexico to Maryland. The fishery and industry ended in February 1972 when the major harvesting area was closed because of domestic pollution. Average annual Rangia meat landings during the life of the fishery averaged 57,000 pounds, and landings were valued at $17,000. Rangia was harvested by hand rakes and small hand dredges from shallow waters in North Carolina. The catch rate per day, per fisherman, averaged forty to fifty bushels. (Chestnut and Porter, 1976). The potential for a future industry still exists in North Carolina and also in the states of Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, and other states. The major problems associated with the commercial utilization of Rangia are pollution and a musky flavor. Commercial quantities of Rangia usually exist in very low salinity rivers and bays, and nearly all harvesting areas are subjected to domestic pollution. The population dynamics of Rangia would also be a major industry problem, since it has evolved to inhabit a particular ecologic niche and has few predators in the low salinity areas where commercial quantities occur. As a result, Rangia populations tend to build up gradually to significant numbers and although the species appears to have a relatively long life span, recruitment is sporadic and may occur only once in ten or more years in some areas. Management of the resource would be difficult, but not impossible. 8.1. The Brackish Water Clam Rangia References Anonymous. 196A. Little-neck clams appear promising. N.C. Commercial Fisheries Newsletter. Vol. 1, No. 1. pp. 1-2. Bailey, R.S. 1970. Marsh clams - an unexploited resource. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci., News Release No. 611, p. 2. Chestnut, A.F. and H.J. Porter. 1976. Comprehensive report on the brackish water clam, Rangia cuneata (Grayl) industry in North Carolina, Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, pp. 1-10. Hopkins, S.H., J.W. Anderson, K. Horvath. 1973. The brackish water clam Rangia cuneata as indicator of ecological effects of salinity changes in coastal water. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exp. Sta. , Miss. Contract Rept . H-73-1, p. 117. Lyles, C.H. 1968. Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1966. Statistical Digest No. 60. U.S. Dept . Int., Gov't Print Office, Washington, D.C. 58 Porter, H.J. 1969. The molluscan fauna in North Carolina's Neuse River estuary. Am. Malac. Union, Ann. Rept. Bui. No. 36: 39-40. Tenroe, K.R., D.B. Horton, T.W. Duke. 1968. Effects of bottom substrate on the brackish water bivalve, Rangia cuneata . Chesap. Sci. 9: 238-248. Wells, H.W. 1961. The fauna of oyster beds, with special reference to the salinity factor. Ecol. Monogr., Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 239-266. Wolfe, D.A. and E.N. Petteway. 1968. Growth of Rangia cuneata . Chesap. Sci. 9: 99-102. 59 9. SURVEY OF PACIFIC COAST CLAM FISHERIES The Pacific Coast clam resources and the commercial and recreational industries associated with the various clam species that occur along the Pacific and Alaskan coast of the United States are unique in many respects. Pacific Coast clam industry consultants, T.D. Schink and K.K. Chew, prepared a comprehensive report entitled "Survey of Pacific Coast Clam Fisheries" from which the following was abstracted. Introduction Currently, the Pacific Coast clam fishery is small compared to its counterpart on the Atlantic Coast. A summary of United States clam landings by region has been presented in Table 2. In recent years, the Pacific Coast clam harvest amounted to only about 1 per cent of total United States production. Of this amount, Washington provides approximately 95 per cent of the production. Alaska provides most of the rest with negligible contributions from Oregon and California. Washington's leadership in the Pacific Coast clam industry may be attributed to a number of factors: 1. There are relatively large areas of protected and very productive inland estuaries. 2. Most clam producing areas are free of water quality problems and paralytic shellfish poisoning. 3. Commercial clam production occurs on privately owned lands or privately held leased land. A common property clam fishery is virtually non-existent. 4. There is presently a balance between the recreational and commercial utilization of the state's clam resources. For several reasons, Oregon, California, and Alaska are not significant contributors to the total United States clam harvest. California is notably lacking in the protected bays and estuaries necessary for signifi- cant clam production and in addition, coastal clam habitat is limited. For this reason, the state was never a major clam producer. Even the small commercial fishery the state once supported has disappeared since World War II, due to pollution, harbor dredging, and the recreational demands of a rapidly increasing human population. Oregon has even less coastal habitat suitable for supporting a clam industry although it too supported a small clam industry into the 1960 's. Like California, recreational demand for clams is presently consuming the bulk of Oregon's clam production. Alaska has an extensive coastline, rich in clam resources, but harvest is restricted by paralytic shellfish poisoning and an unfavorable economic climate. 9.1. California 9.1.1. Brief History of California Clam Resources 60 California's long coastline is notably lacking in protected bays. It is not, therefore, surprising that California's clam stocks were never extensive (Bonnot, 1949); however, they supported a small commercial clam fishery prior to World War II. The species having appeared in commercial catches included: Pismo clam - (Tivela stultorum ) Soft-shell - ( Mya arenarla) Native littleneck clam - ( Protothaca st amine a ) Cockle - ( Chione sp.) Gaper, Horse clam - ( Tresus capax and T\ nuttalli ) Washington clam - ( Saxidomus nuttalli and S_^ giganteus ) Razor clam - ( Siliqua patula ) Jackknife clam - ( Tagelus calif ornianus ) Bean clam - ( Donax gouldii ) Commercial clam landings in California have steadily decreased and the reported commercial clam catch of 1975 was only around 1600 pounds of meats . 9.1.2. Current Status of California Clam Resources In recent years, California's clam resources have been insufficient to support both a commercial and recreational fishery. As a result, the California Legislature has reserved the State's clam resources almost exclusively for the recreational digger. Theoretically, commercial clam harvest is still possible, although not practiced in Humboldt Bay by "market order". That is, a commercial fisherman with a bona fide order from a wholesale fish dealer may harvest the number of clams specified in the order. It is also possible to commercially harvest clams in intertidal areas not accessible to sport diggers. Dahlstrom (Schink and Chew, 1976) (personal communication) believes San Francisco Bay is the only area in California with sufficient clam abundance to permit a commercial fishery. There are considerable subtidal populations of Manila ( Venerupis japonica ) and soft-shell clams as well as intertidal stocks on private grounds which are inaccessible to the sport digger. Recently, legislation was passed permitting a commercial fishery on these stocks. A private corporation which owns part of San Francisco Bay's subtidal lands and an aquaculture firm are interested in pursuing a commercial fishery. Since the Bay is polluted, depuration is an essential prerequisite for sale of these clam stocks for human consumption. Major problems facing the recreational clam fishery in California are the discharge of sewage and animal wastes into its marine water (Dahlstrom, personal communication). There is also a negative attitude of local owners for allowing clamming; however, impacts are being minimized. 61 Harbor dredging, once a problem in clam producing areas, has largely been stopped and marina development is closely controlled (Schwartzell, personal communication) . In those areas presently impacted by sewage contamination, the installation of secondary sewage waste treatment facilities will apparently do little to improve the recreational clam fishery. Such treatment systems are not considered reliable, and instituting a system of alerting the public of potential hazards during plant failures would be unmanageable. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (P.S.P.), a recurring problem for the Pacific coast clam fisheries, also appears in California's coastal areas. As a result, the California State Department of Health has instituted a coast-wide warning from May 1 to October 31. In addition, the state monitors for paralytic shellfish poisoning on a monthly basis. There have been problems with mussels in the past, occasionally requiring the closure of bays to mussel harvest; however, there has never been a reported incidence of P.S.P. in bay clams. 9.1.3. Expected Future of the Commercial Clam Harvest Although there is little future potential for commercial clam fishing, California's clam farming potential was evaluated and a number of important considerations are summarized below: 1. Most of the land in California is state owned and the state retains fishing rights. 2. Intertidal and subtidal lands can be leased from the state. 3. There are procedures for entering land based aquaculture similar to those California oyster farmers go through to obtain land leases. 4. Clam farming would be permitted only in those areas where no native clams exist. Presumably, culture under these restrictions would involve some form of beach rehabilitation and/or the planting of artifi- cially reared clam seed. 5. In many areas, residents might object to using public lands for private benefit. As a result of stringent state regulation and economics, the potential for clam farming in California appears extremely limited. 9.1.4. California Clam Resource References Aplin, J. A. 1949. Pismo clams. The commercial fish catch of California for the year 1947 with an historical review 1916-1947. Calif. Dept . Natural Resources. Div. Fish and Game. Fish. Bull. #74, pp. 165-167. Bonnot, P. 1949. The commercial fish catch of California for the year 1947 with an historical review 1916-1947. Calif. Dept. Natural Resources. Div. Fish and Game. Fish. Bull. #74, pp. 161-164. 62 Fitch, J.E. 1963. Common marine bivalves of California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Fish. Bull. #90, p. 102. Schink, T.D. and K.K. Chew. 1976. Survey of Pacific Coast clam fisheries Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware. pp. 1-112. Wendell, F. , J.D. Demartini, P. Dinnel and J. Siecke. 1976. The ecology of the gaper clam or horse clam, Tresus capax (Gould, 1850) (Bivalvia: Mactridae), in Humboldt Bay, California. Cal. Fish, and Game. 62(1): 41-64. Sources of Personal Communications in California Burge, Richard, California Fish and Game, Monterey, California. Dahlstrom, Walter. California Fish and Game. Schwartzell, Philip. California Fish and Game, Menlo Park, California. Smith, Emil. California Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Warner, Ron. California Fish and Game, Eureka, California. Young, Clarence. California Department of Health, Berkeley, California. 9.2. Oregon 9.2.1. Brief History of Oregon Clam Resources Oregon has few areas suitable for supporting clam populations. Alonj its 300 miles of coastline, only a small stretch of northern ocean beach is productive clam habitat. Although there are a number of protected bays and estuarine areas, each is relatively small'^ Nonetheless, Oregon has historically supported a small commercial and recreational clam fishery. It is customarily considered in two parts; the bay clam and coastal razor clam fisheries. The principal clam species having commercial and recreational importance are: Prothothaca st amine a - native littleneck clam Clinocardium nuttalli - cockle My a arenaria - soft-shell clam Tresus capax - gaper, horse clam Saxidomus giganteus - butter clam Siliqua patula - razor clam 63 Bay Clam Commercial Fishery This history of Oregon's commercial clam fishery is sketchy. Records of total clam catch were collected from 1928 to 1950. Between 1940 and 1950, the state made estimates of bay clam and razor clam catch, but it was not until 1950 that harvesters were required to report their catch by species (Marriage, 1954). Judging from these statistics, Oregon's commercial clam harvest was never large. Peak production occurred in the 1930's spurred by the demands of an economic depression (Cleaver, 1951). The highest production recorded was 664,297 pounds in 1938. Restrictions on night digging and ocean beach closures caused a sharp decline in clam production during World War II. Clam catches increased after the war, but production levels were below those of preceding decades. Cleaver (1951) attributes this to reduced digging activity brought about by an improved post-war economy and an increase in oyster farming in Tillamook, Yaquina, and Coos Bays causing the loss of some traditional clam producing areas. Since the mid 1950 's, bay clam production has steadily declined and in recent years has been negligible. Commercial clam landings in 1975 were only approximately 26,800 pounds of clam meats. The future of Oregon's commercial bay clam fishery appears to depend on the utilization of subtidal stocks. In 1955, an enterprising commercial harvester in Coos Bay began using a hand held nozzle for harvesting intertidal gaper clams by water jet and although the state immediately outlawed such devices, a 1959 regulation change permitted their use in the subtidal harvest of gapers. Currently, state policy forbids the use of mechanical clam harvesters and water jets are considered mechanical. 9.2.2. Current Status of Oregon Clam Resources There has been little subtidal harvesting of clams due, in part, to the lack of information on the location and extent of subtidal clam stocks, Oregon is reluctant to open its subtidal clam stocks for full-scale commercial harvest until a number of important management questions are answered including: 1. the effect of harvest on existing stocks 2. the effect of harvest on substrate 3. the relationship between intertidal and subtidal clam populations. Of particular interest is the importance of subtidal stocks as spawning stock. Coastal Razor Clam Fishery Razor clam production has its center on Oregon's Clatsop Beaches. According to Cleaver (1951), there is little statistical catch data prior to 1941. Data thereafter suggests an adverse impact of World War II restrictions on beach use and a shortage of diggers on total catch. From 1942 through 1950, the commercial fishery increased steadily from a low of 13,353 pounds to a high of 340,362 pounds. There was also an intense 64 sport fishery, probably equal to the commercial catch during the post-war period (Cleaver, 1951). By the mid 1950 's, a marked decline In commercial catch began and by the early 1960 's It was about 20,000 pounds. Catches Increased again In the late 1960 's, peaking at 122,523 pounds In 1967. A decline followed, and In recent years, production has ranged between 20,000 and 108,000 pounds . The fishery Is managed by a season closure extending from mid- July through August and a 3 3/4 Inch size limit. Each commercial digger must possess a $40.00 commercial license, and a state health certificate. A record Indicating quantity of clams and market destination must be In possession to prevent people from using a commercial license to dig unlimited numbers of clams for personal use. In Oregon, most commercially dug razor clams are sold to two Oregon processors. Currently, diggers are paid as high as $.85-$. 95 per pound, whole wet weight or $2.20 If cleaned. Most are processed Into fresh or frozen steaks. However, the high cost of raw clams and labor Intensive processing requires a high retail price ($4.75-$5.00 per pound). This limits the sale of razor clams to the specialty retail and restaurant trade. Razor clams are marketed primarily In Portland and along the Oregon coast, with lesser amounts sold In Seattle and the Washington coast. Attempts to develop markets outside these localities has met with consider- able resistance because of high price and product unfamlllarlty . The ocean beaches support a small razor clam fishery. The most productive are the 20 miles of Clatsop beaches extending from the Columbia River to Tillamook Head south of the city of Seaside. 9.2.3. Expected Future of Oregon Clam Region As stated earlier, Oregon's small subtldal clam stocks provide the basis for a potential commercial fishery. However, the resource Is relatively small and as yet estimates of maximum sustained annual yield are not available. Other potential sources of clams on which to base a commercial Industry do not appear promising. A variety of commercial clam species occur In Oregon's offshore coastal zone, and although little Is known about their abundance. It Is assumed to be low. In addition, there appears to be little potential for Intertldal private clam farming since land Is In short supply In Oregon's estuaries (Snow, personal communication) Oregon's Recreational Fishery Surveys of the bay, which clam recreational fishery conducted sporadically through the years, reveal a small but Intensive fishery, particularly on cockles and gapers. In 1971, Oregon reported a recreational 65 catch of 1.8 million clams. Spot surveys conducted in 1975 and 1976 indicate a markedly increasing effort placing considerable pressure on clam stocks. In 1977, a routine sampling program of the bay clam sport fishery will begin. The sampling program will evaluate the effects of new clam regulations . Beginning in 1955, the sport catch of razor clams has been estimated annually. The recreational harvest has ranged between about .5 and 1.5 million clams per year. In 1976, the catch has been exceptionally good with 235,000 pounds or about 940,000 clams taken. 9.2.4. Oregon Clam Resource References Cleaver, F.C. 1951. Fisheries statistics of Oregon. Oregon Fish Commission. Contribution. pp. 64-71. Gaumer, T.F. and G. Lukas . 1975. Methods of supplementing clam and abalone production. Comm. Fish. Res. and Devel. Act. July 1, 19 74 to June 30, 1975. Fish. Comm. of Ore. Proj . Rept. p. 35. Gaumer, T.F. and B.C. Halstead. 1976a. Subtidal clam distribution abundance and planting sites. Comm. Fish. Res. and Devel. Act. July 1, 1975 to June 30, 1976. Fish. Comm. of Ore. Proj. Rept. p. 65, Hirschhom, G. 1962. Growth and mortality rates of the razor clam (Siliqua patula) on Clatsop Beaches, Oregon. Fish. Comm. of Oregon., Contrib. #27. p. 55. Link, T. 1976. The 1975 razor clam fishery. Fish. Comm. of Ore. Shellfish Invest. Rept. #76-9. p. 5. Marriage, D. 1954. The bay clams of Oregon-their economic importance, relative abundance and general distribution. Fish. Comm. of Oregon. Contr. #20. p. 47. Schink, T.D. and K.K. Chew. 1976. Survey of Pacific Coast clam fisheries. Unpublished manuscript. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware. pp. 1-112. Sources of Personal Communications in Oregon Davison, Sharrel. Oregon Department of Health, Portland, Oregon. Demory, Darrel. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport, Oregon. Gaumer, Thomas. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport, Oregon. Mills, Rod. Coos Bay, Oregon. Smith, Merv. Seaside, Oregon. Snow, Dale. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport, Oregon. 66 9.3. Washington Introduction Unlike California and Oregon, Washington state has a long coastline, much of which is suitable clam habitat. On Washington's southern coastal beaches is located a very large razor clam ( Siliqua patula ) resource. In the more protected estuarine areas of Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay, extensive intertidal and subtidal hardshell clam stocks may be found. The species of clams found in Washington's estuaries having commercial importance are listed by scientific and commonly used local names as follows: Protothaca st amine a - Native littleneck clam, rock clam, steamer clam Saxidomus giganteus - Butter clam Venerupis japonica - Japanese littleneck clam, Manila clam Tresus capax - Horse clam, gaper Panope generosa - Geoduck My a arenaria - Soft-shell clam, mud clam In addition to the extensive clam beaches and the variety of commercial clam species, Washington has a long and favorable tradition of private ownership of intertidal beaches and the private leasing of state owned subtidal bottom land. The coastal beaches, however, are publicly owned- with the exception of those attached to Indian reservations. This combination of generally favorable physical and political factors has given Washington a small but viable clam fishery. There is little historical reference in the literature to Washington's early clam fishery. A large scale commercial harvest of the coastal razor clam began in earnest just after the- turn of the century with the introduction of canneries. Then, as now, the razor clam was not subject to an extensive fresh market (Schaefer, 1939). The harvest of Puget Sound clams, primarily butter clams and native littleneck clams, was marketed both fresh and canned, principally through Seattle (Nightingale, 1972). Early production figures give some indication of the size of Washington's clam fishery. In 1935, the Washington Department of Fisheries revised its system for gathering and compiling catch statistics. In recent years, more detailed records of clam landings by species are available. A summary of hardshell clam catch, most of which is from Puget Sound, is provided in Table 3 by year and species. Both the coastal razor clam fishery and the estuarine hardshell clam fishery have undergone radical changes during the last four decades. The commercial razor clam industry has largely disappeared except for a small Indian fishery on the Quinault Indian Reservation; however, a large active 67 recreational razor clam fishery remains. The hardshell clam fishery, although appearing relatively stable according to the production figures, actually has experienced major changes as described below. The hardshell clam harvest from Washington's publicly owned beaches, once the major source of commercial supply, declined gradually after 1940. There were apparently a number of factors involved in this decline. First, public beaches were dug heavily during the depression of the 1930 's, and a subsequent lack of major setting reduced the standing stock. Second, there were fewer people harvesting, during and after World War II, due to the improved employment opportunities. Third, during the 1940 's, the purchase of tidelands by private individuals accelerated, much of which was removed from production. Lastly, the value of butter clams declined and as a result, fewer were harvested (Lindsay, personal communication). 9.3.1. Razor Clam (Siliqua patula) Industry in Washington 9.3.1.1. Brief history of the razor clam industry in Washington . The razor clam, found in surf-swept, sandy ocean beaches from California to Alaska is harvested commercially in a number of separate areas from Oregon to Alaska (Quayle, 1960). There are four main razor clam beaches in Washington. Namely, Long Beach (24 miles). Twin Harbors (12 miles), Copalis (14 miles), and Moclips (3 miles). Other beaches supporting a significant fishery are at Taholah on the Quinault Indian Reservation and Kalalock to the north (Schaefer, 1939). In recent years, observations by diving and bottom grab sampling, indicate razor clam population extending off the coast to water depths of at least 60 feet. In depths greater than 25 feet, however, razor clams of a different variety or species appear and the intertidal variety disappears. The offshore type is thinner and smaller with a maximum size of 4 inches. Although they are found in some abundance to 60 feet (the deepest grab sample observations that have been made) , they are probably too small to have much commercial potential. The offshore range of these clams is not know, but local crab fishermen have found shells in crab traps set in 16 fathoms (Tegelberg, personal communication). Prior to 1900, there was a small fishery supplying local fresh markets. Large scale utilization of the resource did not begin until canneries were introduced just after the turn of the century. Statistics compiled by Schaefer (1939) indicate the magnitude of the Pacific coast razor clam pack in early years. In the peak year of 1915, 67,463 cases of 48 1-pound cans were produced, representing a clam catch of about 8 million pounds of unshucked clams. From the time the fishery expanded, there was governmental concern about the condition of Washington's razor clam stocks. In 1917, a commercial season was imposed extending from September 1 to May 31, for the purpose of eliminating harvest of clams during the summer spawning season (Tegelberg, personal communication). In a further attempt to improve stocks, the 68 state legislature, in 1917, passed a bill reducing the 9 month season to 3 months, extending from March through May. In 1929, a 3-1/2 inch commercial size limit was adopted (Tegelberg, personal communication). In addition to the large commercial fishery, a relatively large unrestricted personal use fishery had developed by the late 1920 's. As reviewed by Schaefer (1939), this lead to considerable clam wastage and also "bootlegging". In 1929, sports take regulations were first insituted and their histories to the present are reviewed below: Year to 1929 Bag Limit Legal Size none none Season none 1929-42 1943-47 1948-59 1960-72 1973-present 36 clams/person 3-1/2" 36 clams/person 18 clams/person 15 clams/person none 24 clams/person none (except 18 in '50) none none none Mar. 1-Sept. 30 Mar. 1-Sept. 30 Mar. 1-Sept. 30 July 1-Sept. 30 complete closure. PM closure Mar . 16- June 30 The 1940 's brought changes to the commercial industry. Because of declining clam stocks, a poundage quota system was imposed. This quota system, together with the limited season described above, placed considerable economic strain on razor clam canners . During this period, Washington's Dungeness crab fishery expanded rapidly with increased utilization of offshore stocks. Since razor clams are the preferred crab bait, the expanding crab fishery placed additional demand on an increasingly limited supply of commercially available razor clams. In the early 1950 's, the dramatic entrance of inexpensive east coast canned surf clams in what had been traditional razor clam markets placed canned razor clams at a distinct competitive disadvantage. As a result, the canning industry in Washington rapidly declined. An increasing proportion of the commercial catch, formerly canned, was absorbed by the crab bait, and fresh food markets. In addition, a market shift developed by the late 1950 's in which about 30 percent of Washington's commercial razor clam production went to Oregon and California crab bait markets. State attempts to prevent these out-of-state exports were overturned in court . A nominal $5.00 fee for a commercial license encouraged increasing numbers of sports fishermen to purchase such licenses, and thereby avoiding recreational limits. By the 1960 's, an estimated 30-40 percent of the commercial catch actually was diverted to personal use. This, 69 together with the large quantities exported out of state, lead to a phase-down of the commercial fishery until, finally, a commercial fishery was permitted only if there was a surplus of clams above that which could be taken by the recreational fishery. In addition to previously noted restrictions, the phase-out of the commercial fishery was finally hastened by beach closures. Long Beach and Twin Harbors were permanently closed to commercial fishing in 1950, Copalis in 1960 and Moclips in 1968. The sole remaining, non-Indian commercial fishery exists on the detached spits at the mouth of Willapa Bay. This area is not easily accessible and is quite unstable. It is difficult to manage and is left open for harvesting without seasonal restriction. It produced well in the late 1950 's, but production subsequently declined and has remained low. 9.3.1.2. Current status of the razor clam industry in Washington. Currently, the bulk of Washington's razor clam stocks are harvested through an intensive recreational fishery and a small Indian commercial fishery. Quinault Indian Razor Clam Fishery Since 1960, most of Washington's commercial razor clam production has come from the Quinault Indian Reservation. Catch records, although incomplete, are available since 1953. From the early 1950 's through the 1960's, production averaged about one quarter of a million pounds per year (Tegelberg, 1968). Recent records provided by the Quinault Reservation are summarized in Table 4. It is presently the principal revenue-producing fishery on the reservation. Prior to 1972, reservation harvest was loosely regulated. Since then, stringent rules on the fishery were instituted by the tribe. Diggers now require a tribal license, issued only to the Indians. Buyers of reservation clams must be licensed, but not be Indian. The tribe apparently takes a conservative view of clam managment and has instituted relatively stringent harvest regulations. Harvest season is closed from May to mid-August. Digging is allowed only on low, minus tides (Wright, personal communication) . The tribe is developing an improved management program. Since 1972, an annual standing crop assessment of their beaches has been made. Future studies are planned to determine optimum tide to harvest and to more accurately estimate optimum annual yield. The latter is particularly important since some diggers feel the tribal beaches are not dug to their fullest extent (Wright, personal communication). Harvest is by shovel, called a "clamgun". There is little interest in mechanizing the process since it is an important source of employment and hand digging is an important part of tribal life. 70 Licensed buyers purchase clams from diggers on the beach at prices set by the tribe (presently SOc/lb, whole wet weight). Most Is sold for crab bait and the rest enters the fresh and frozen retail and restaurant markets. Razor clam processing on the reservation, although attempted, has not been successfully developed because of high processing costs as well as labor and quality control problems (Reeves, personal communication). 9.3.1.3. Expected future of the razor clam Industry In Washington. In the future, the Qulnault Indian clam fishery may prove the most viable in Washington. It is one which can be controlled in a way not available to most of the state's clam Industry. Both the beach and uplands are exclusively held and managed by the tribe, and consequently, are less subject to the encroachment of residential development than those in Puget Sound. In addition, the Qulnaults are not subject to most of the state and federal regulatory machinery as well as many of the other political, social, and economic forces encroaching on Washington's non-Indian clam fisheries. The Qulnault 's management program initiated a few years ago may improve the productivity of the fishery. Clam supply, however, will still be limited by the vagaries of natural setting. The future of the razor clam market is more difficult to predict. At present, the market apparently is limited and demand is quite variable. The future crab bait market is dependent on the viability of the crab fishery, the extent of British Columbia and Alaska imports, and development of bait substitutes. The fresh and frozen razor clam market for human consumption is considered by some to have a limited future. However, rising prices for clam products in general and more aggressive marketing could insure a continued solid base and modest growth for this segment of the market. Problems: 1. Climatic Survival of late summer razor clam sets can be adversely affected by winter storms, particularly if fall growth is slow (Tegelberg and Magoon, 1968). 2. Resource availability a. Variation in recruitment Variation in recruitment is a dominant feature of the fishery, b. Predatlon Predation of small clams occurs by shore birds, sea gulls, ducks, flatfish and perch; however, the Dungeness crab is the most serious predator. 3. Harvesting and transporting 71 a. Perishability Razor clams are extremely perishable and once harvested, they must be processed within a few days and preferably within 24 hours. 4. Processing - Shucked meat problems a. Quality control Razor clams cannot be marketed whole, except for crab bait. For the restaurant and retail markets, the clams are processed by hand removal of shell, gills and viscera and by cutting open the body mantle and siphon. This produces the "dressed" or "steaked" razor clam product. However, it is difficult to process the razor clam consistently into a good quality product. b . Labor problems A good quality, dressed razor clam product requires consider- able skill and a tolerance of tedious work. Few workers want to process clams, which is relatively low paying, when they can earn more money in harvesting. Processing problems as well as market problems described below, have discouraged the Quinaults from producing dressed clams for the retail trade. 5. Marketing a. Quality problems Clam weight drops markedly during the summer spawning season. b . Sales problems The periodic entrance of Alaskan razor clam into the west coast crab bait market has been disruptive. c. Consumption problems The Quinaults have had a problem finding a sufficient food market for their razor clams. One factor limiting sales is the high cost of dressed razor clams (presently about $5.00/lb. retail). The reasons for this are several. The cost of harvested clams is extremely high ($.80/lb); there is a 50-60 percent weight loss during processing; and considerable hand labor is required in processing (Reeves, personal communication). This limits the razor clam to the small specialty retail and restaurant trade, particularly in the coastal areas of Washington and Oregon where it enjoys product familiarity not generally recognized elsewhere. 6. Major industry problems a. Limited markets. b. High cost of harvested clams. c. Perishability of razor clams. d. Quality control, labor, and cost problems in processing for food market. e. Competition in the crab bait market from Alaskan razor clams. 72 Washington's Recreational Razor Clam Fishery As noted earlier, Washington's razor clam fishery has evolved from commercial to predominantly recreational. The dramatic increase in digger trips from 208,000 in 1946, when annual monitoring of the sports fishery began, to 600,000-700,000 by the late 1960's demonstrates how important this personal use fishery became. The economic impact of this fishery on nearby resort communities is, of course, considerable. The program employed by the Washington Department of Fisheries to manage the sports fishery is relatively simple, but effective. The fishery is monitored to include: 1. Surveys of the number of diggers,^ their average catch, size of clams taken, wastage, and total catch. 2. Assessment of clam abundance, reproduction and recruitment necessary to predict size and abundance in the future fishery (Tegelberg, personal communication). Based on clam abundance, bag limits and seasons may be adjusted to accommodate changes in the number of diggers participating in the fishery. Since the late 1960 's, total digging has been established largely through regulation changes. Another important management tool is the "emergency closure" of beaches. This is enforced to avoid wastage that occurs when the standing stock of large clams on a beach is low, yet the abundance of undersize clams is large. Beach closures allow small clams to reach a future size acceptable to the sports digger. The present status of the razor clam fishery is difficult to assess. Compared with the catch of previous years, recent statistics available for 1972-1974 suggest the fishery may be declining. Year Total Catch (Millions of Clams ) Digger Trips 1972 3.5 362,000 1973 7.5 535,000 1974 7.5 604,000 The statistics do not reveal, however, the amount of illegal digging, which may be quite significant (Tegelberg, personal communication). Washington Department of Fisheries Management personnel expect the fishery to continue at about the same level in the future. There is concern, however, over some physical changes occurring in several of the beaches which are affecting productivity, although the causes are not readily explained. For example, the southern end of Twin Harbors Beach is eroding and clam productivity is declining while the northern 3 miles 73 of beach is becoming gravel. In addition, good setting of clams is not occurring on the southern beaches (Long Beach and Twin Harbors) and as a result, clam populations are at relatively low levels. At the same time, however, record sets have occurred in the northern beaches of Copalis and Moclips (Tegelberg, personal communicaton) . 9.3.2. Puget Sound Clam Fisheries Most of Washington's hardshell clam fisheries are found in various parts of Puget Sound. Farming of Manila clams and native littleneck clams is closely associated with the oyster Industry of southern Puget Sound. In central Puget Sound there is intertidal farming of native littleneck clams and butter clams, as well as the subtidal harvest of native little- neck clams, butter clams and horse clams by mechanical harvesters. A new but rapidly expanding fishery is utilizing a small portion of Puget Sound's extensive subtidal geoduck populations. Another newcomer is a struggling soft-shell clam fishery. 9.3.2.1. Native littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) industry in Washington State 9.3.2.1.1. Brief history of the native littleneck clam industry in Washington State. Early observations by Kincaid (1919) and Nightingale (1927) on the Puget Sound clam fishery suggest that the extensive clam beaches of Puget Sound supported a small but stable industry. This industry was based almost entirely on two species, the native littleneck clam and the butter clam. The industry supplied both fresh and canned products to local markets, the largest being Seattle. The early fresh market trade was limited by the keeping quality of the clams and the demand limits of the local market. The canning industry was in a competitive market with canned razor clams and canned clams from the east coast (Nightingale, 1927). Early note was made of areas within Puget Sound having sufficient clam abundance to support large scale commercial harvest (Kincaid, 1919). These were the radiating bays of southern Puget Sound, the bays of Kitsap County, Discovery Bay and Sequim Bay. Considerable numbers of productive clam beds also were located in Hood Canal, where butter clams predominated north of Seabeck and native littlenecks were in the southern part. The native littleneck clam occurs in a variety of substrates, but prefers a gravel-mud mixture. It is not abundant at the half tide level but extends into the subtidal. Its maximum burrowing depth is about 6 inches (Quayle, 1960). Goodwin (1793) has found littlenecks to water depths of 60 feet in Puget Sound, but they are most concentrated in the lower inter-tidal-high subtidal zone. On the average, they are most abundant subtidally at 4-10 feet below mean low water and somewhat less between 10 and 30 feet. Below 30 feet, abundance declines markedly. 74 Native littlenecks are relatively slow growing, reaching commercial size in 4-6 years. Data is simply not available for analysis of historical trends in native littleneck production. Total hardshell production for the Puget Sound district, which accounts for most of the production, has remained relatively stable at 1-2 million pounds per year, the exception being the late 1930 's when a peak of about 3-1/2 million pounds were harvested. Table 3 indicates that while total lardshell clam production has remained relatively stable, production ol native littleneck clams has declined during the last 20 years from approximately 1,000,000 pounds per year in the late 1950 's and early 1960 's to between 600,000 and 700,000 pounds in recent years. The type of fishery has changed as well. This is particularly evident when one compares the annual catch from hand and dredge harvesting (see Table 5). The hand-harvested catch has steadily declined since the early 1960 's. Since 1959, however, production of littlenecks has been significantly supplemented by dredge harvested clams, primarily from subtidal stocks. The first dredge used in Puget Sound was built by a Seattle marine construction firm for the Washington Department of Fisheries from the Hank's patent. The dredge was operated for a time by the state; however, there were operational difficulties encountered in the use of the dredge in Puget Sound's rocky substrate. In 1959, the dredge was transferred to private ownership. At about the same time, another dredge was built and operated for a number of years in the Sequim Bay area. Then in 1968 and 1969, two additional operators built dredges. Over the years each operator has contributed to design modifications necessary for successful harvest in Puget Sound (Lowman, personal communication). 9.3.2.1.2. Current status of the native littleneck clam industry in Washineton State. At present, the intertidal, hand-harvest native littleneck fishery is centered in the west-central Puget Sound area, namely, Sequim Bay, Discovery Bay, Port Townsend, Port Gamble, Bremerton and Kingston-Pt. Madison. Southern Puget Sound is still producing natives; however, production figures are not accurate enough to assess catch size. Most of the harvest is from privately owned tidelands; either owned directly by the harvester or leased from other individuals, payment being based on a "stumpage fee" or a royalty on the number of pounds harvested. Under the present law, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, which manages state-owned lands, may lease public tidelands to private clam harvesters, but in recent years has ceased to offer new leases - reserving public beaches for recreational use. Harvest is by hand-digging with long-tined rakes during low tides. The clams generally are held in floats for at least 24 hours to allow 75 for sand depuration. After depuration, the clams are either sacked or boxed, depending on market destination and type of transportation; no further processing is required since these clams are served steamed in the shell. A hardshell clam dredger may obtain state-owned subtidal clam lands for their exclusive use (at the present time, there is no intertidal dredging being conducted) . The process followed in procuring a private lease is briefly described as follows: Under Washington Department of Fisheries supervision and with an observer on board, a dredger is allowed to explore what he considers potentially good clam grounds . These are generally areas of fast current with bottom composition of rock and coarse gravel. Although native littlenecks are the most desirable species sought, there are few beds of pure natives - most contain other species as well. A dredger, therefore, looks for a subtidal tract which will produce sufficient volume of a balanced mixture of native littlenecks, butter clams, and horse clams to be profitable. In assessing the profit- ability of a tract, one dredger indicated he uses as a rule of thumb: 20 bushels of horse clams, 20 bushels of butter clams, and 800 pounds of natives per day. Other considerations in assessing a potential lease are its exposure to strong winds and rough water, whether or not it will be certified by the health authorities, and the probability of complaints from adjacent upland owners. Once a desirable tract is found, the dredger finances a Washington Department of Fisheries inspection ($600-$800) to estimate standing crop, species composition, and total area. Based on the survey, a lease fee is set by the Department of Natural Resources. The lease fees are variable, but there is a $5.00 per acre per year minimum. The lease terms are 5 years with an option to renew. In addition, a royalty is paid to the Department of Natural Resources on the number of pounds harvested. The present royalty varies with species as follows: Native littleneck clams - 3<: per pound Butter clams - l-l/2<: per pound Horse clams - l-l/2<: per pound Geoducks - 1-3 /4