Massachusetts marine fisheries assessment at mid-decade

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Massachusetts Marine Hsheries

A%E%fq PIIDO DE

Ecwomk environmental and management problems facing
Mtssachusett@ corinwrcial and recreational marine figwries

flumeinber L985

v iori-wealth of Massachusetts
SH - @11
I I im, @ri of Marine Fisheries
.M4
ETITAT DFaCA

M36 )artment of FisheriesWildlifc
1985 Environmental Law Enforcement
-agive Office cf Environmental Affairs

PHiup G. COATES
DIRECTOR 727-3193

November 19, 1985

Dear Friend:

On behalf of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law
Enforcement we are pleased to send you a copy of the recently released report,
"Massachusetts Marine Fisheries - Assessment at Mid-Decade" prepared by the
Division of Marine Fisheries with help from the Office of Coastal Zone Management
and Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.

This report is a statement of concern intended to: 1) increase public and
legislative awareness of the problems confronting our fisheries, and 2) accelerate
existing efforts and lead to new attempts to meet the Commonwealth's commitment
to a safe and well-balanced environment and sound resource base. The report
is also intended to serve as a discussion document to be used at upcoming January
public hearings sponsored by the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission.

The Division of Marine Fisheries is furthering its efforts to reverse the
trend of continuing adverse impacts on the Commonwealth's marine resources.
Your input as a legislator, scientist, public official or concerned citizen is essential
if we are to succeed. Therefore, please take the time to review this report and
plan to attend and offer your comments.and concerns at one of the public hearings
listed below.

Tuesday January 7 Whaling Museum Auditorium 7: 00- 10 pm
New Bedford ,
Thursday January 9 Marshfield To4Hall 7: 00-10 pm
Thursday January 16 Cape Cod Community College 7: 00-10 pm
Science Building, Hall A, Barnstable I
Wednesday January 22 Gloucester City Hall 7: 00- 10 pm,
@Wednesday January 29 Gardner Auditorium 10 am-4 pm@
State House, Boston

Only through a collective effort can we hope to maintain the preeminent
position the Commonwealth enjoys as a result of a healthy coastal environment
and abundant marine resources.

For further information contact Philip Coates or David Pierce at 727-3193.

�Incerel

er E. Bickford Philip G.-Coates
Commissioner Director

WEB/PGC:elk

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was written by the Division of Marine

Fisheries with assistance from the Office of Coastal

Zone Management. David Pierce of DMF was the editor

and a contributor. Other DMF contributors were:

Michael Hickey, Elizabeth Amaral, Andrew Kolek, and

Philips Brady. Patricia Hughes of CZM was a contributor

and coordinated CZM's input and review. DMF reviewers

were James Fair, Sherry Sass, Leigh Bridges, and

Randall Fairbanks. Anthony Rodriguez of the

Department's staff also reviewed the paper. Steven

Lipman coordinated the Department of Environmental

Quality Engineering input and review.

US Department of commerce
NOAA Coastal services center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

PUBLICATION: # 14226-1500-61-11-85-C.R.
APPROVED BY: Daniel Carter, State Purchasing Agent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Introduction Page I

Fisheries 3

Commercial 3

Recreational 4

Environment 6

Pollution 7

Boston Harbor 7

Fish Cancer 7

Other Indicators 8

Lobster Disease 9

Soft Shell Clam Disease 9

PCB Contamination 10

Sediment Contamination and Dredging 11

Spread of Waste Related Pollution 12

Shellfish Contamination 13

Pesticides 15

Acid Rain 16

Habitat Loss and Degradation 17

Excessive Fishing 19

Other Fisheries Im-oediments 22

Inadequate Facilities 22

Inadequate Public Access 23

Canadian Competition 24

U.S./Canada Boundary 25

Insurance 26

Regulatory, Management and Research Concerns 26

Conclusions 30'

The Next Step 31

References 32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) is
responsible for protecting and enhancing the Commonwealth's
living marin'e resources. It is charged with promoting and deve-
loping Massachusetts' commercial and recreational fisheries and
with implementing management strategies developed in concert with
the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission. These responsibilities
led to the preparation of a 1982 Marine Fisheries Policy Report
which was designed to "coordinate agencies and programs to assure
long-term stability of the fishing industry as well as wise mana-
gement of the living marine resources". The Report, adopted by
the Governor, defined the Division's advocacy of the
Commonwealth's fisheries. This White Paper is a result'of the
role. It is a statement of concern intended to: 1) increase
public and legislative awareness of the problems confronting our
fisheries, and 2) accelerate existing efforts and lead to new
attempts to meet the Commonwealth's commitment to a safe and
well-balanced environment and a sound economic resource base.

Massachusetts' fishing industries are faced with a myriad of
problems which must be addressed. These are pollution and asso-
ciated fish and shellfish contamination, excessive fishing, and
habitat loss and degradation. Other impediments to fisheries are
inadequate port faciliti.es, inadequate public access, Canadian
competition for U.S. markets, the new U.S./Canada boundary par-
titioning Georges Bank between the-two countries, and escalating
insurance costs for fishing vessels. Other factors contributing
to the decreased vitality of the Commonwealth's marine fisheries
are related to regulatory, management, and research programs;
for example, inadequate funding and staffing, policy conflicts,
lack of interagency coordination, and conflicting goals.

Some of these problems are obvious and already have received
media and public attention. Unfortunately, this attention
generally has been short-lived and piecemeal. Considered too
complex or costly to address, problems andotheir underlying
causes either have been accepted or forgotten. More subtle
problems have gone unnoticed. Perhaps this is because each indi-
vidual pollutant source, incidence of fish and shellfish con-
tamination, habitat alteration, or occurrence of excessive
fishing seems relatively inconsequential. Isolated events fre-
quently are treated as natural and unavoidable consequences of a
growing state economy and coastal development.

This attitude should not continue. If it does, the
Commonwealth risks losing its fight to preserve its natural heri-
tage and the integrity of its marine resources and environment.
Efforts of state agencies already seeking to preserve and rebuild
marine resources and to protect the environment needed for suste-
nance of fisheries resources require the continued and increased
support of the public and the Legislature.

Commercial and recreational MaLrine fisheries are of great
economic value to the Commonwealth. Increased efforts should be
made for their continued protection and enhancement. Based on
the value of commercial landings, adjusted by economic
multipliers,'a very conservative estimate of the worth of
Massachusetts' commercial fisheries to the state's economy in
1984 was $1 billion. Much of this value was due to landings of
eight species - sea scallops, cod, lobsters, yellowtail flounder,
haddock, winter flounder, bluefin tuna, and swordfish. These
species were responsible for 78% of the value of landings in
1984. Lobster is the state's most valuable inshore fishery. In
1983, lobster caught in Massachusetts territorial waters were
valued at approximately $21,118,000. Value of all inshore
shellfisheries, including such species as soft-shell clams, bay
scallops, and quahogs, was approximately $24 million in 1983.

In 1982, approximately 870,QOO saltwater anglers fished
Massachusetts waters. This compares with approximately 6,300
state licensed commercial fishermen in 1984 (DMF records).
Generally, the most important finfish caught (in terms of num-
bers) by recreational fishermen are winter flounder, pollock,
bluefish, cod, and mackerel in that order. Striped bass is also
important and has a special mystique. Additionally, in 1984 over
38,000 family permits were issued by cities and towns for
shellfish such as soft-shell clams, quahogs, and bay scallops,
and 11,158 permits were issued to recreational lobster fishermen
by DMF.

In contrast to commercial fisheries, the value of
recreational fisheries is difficult to determine since there are
no accurate records of total catch, number of fishermen, or eco-
nomic impact on the Commonwealth's economy. Nevertheless, a 1980
estimate (excluding shellfish)-of approximately $111.6 million
has been calculated.

To be sure, there are many users of the Commonwealth's marine
living resources. Anything adversely affeoting these resources
similarly impacts these users and even non-users who value clean
water, a safe and healthy environment, and enjoyable outdoor
recreational opportunities.

Commercial and recreational marine fisheries are impacted
directly or indirectly by pollution of near shore waters such as
harbors and estuaries. Pollution may render fish and shellfish
unfit to eat in some areas or may impact their health by causing
disease. Pollution can and does, create an unwarranted public
perception that all seafood is unsafe and unfit for consumption.
A few major examples include:

A high prevalence (8%) of liver cancer has been documented in
Boston Harbor winter flounder. The Harbor has the highest
reported prevalence on the east coast. Additional DMF
sampling in Boston Harbor this winter revealed a prevalence

of 42%. The pathology of these lesions is not yet known, but
it is, suspected that they include precancerous and cancerous
lesions. Cancerous liver tumors d-lso have been found in
Salem Harbor winter flounder. The extent and effect of liver
cancer on the winter flounder resource are uncertain as is
the potehtial effect on human health.

A relatively high prevalence of fin rot has been noted for
winter flounder in Boston'Harbor., The prevalence has been as
high as 44%. This disease, characterized by eroded and
damaged fins, is believed to be triggered by pollutant
stress. Heavy metals, PCB's, petroleum residues, and fecal
coliform bacteria all appear to contribute to the problem.
Flounder live in close association with the bottom where
wastes accumulate.

Two types of lobster disease associated with a high level of
pollution have been found in Massachusetts Bay and Buzzards
Bay. Percentage shell disease (shell erosion and tissue
destruction) was highest near the Acushnet River and New
Bedford Harbor (33% and 50%, respectively, of fish examined).
Percentage black gill disease (gill erosion and tissue
destruction) was highest in these areas (about*52%) and off
Boston Harbor (33%).

PCB levels in lobster and finfish from the Acushnet River
estuary are higher than State Public Health and Food and Drug
Administration tolerance levels. Several areas of the
estuary are closed to all or some fishing activities. Recent
sampling of lobsters from areas thought by DMF to show
prospects for a future opening indicate that PCB levels have
increased unexpectedly.

Sediment contamination presents a major problem for much-
needed dredging projects. Dredging, as well as disposal of
dredged material, raises serious environmental concerns such
as the potential for release of sediment contaminants (e.g.,
PCB's) to the water column and benthic-animals at dredging
and disposal sites.

Public fear of consuming fish with contaminant levels above
standards can and has led to a common fear that all fish are
unsafe. This unwarranted belief impacts markets for fish
which are free of contaminants. It puts a stigma on seafood.

In the last two years there has been a 28% increase in the
amount of closed area to shellfish harvesting on the South
Shore and Southeastern Massachusetts due to bacterial con-
tamination. Presently, about 25,400 acres (40 square miles)
are closed. On Cape Cod, acreage has been closed in 14 new
areas, and six closed areas have been expanded for a total of
2,100 acres - 300% and 200% increases over acreage closed in
1980 and 1982, respectively. Additionally, in 1984 a signi-
ficant number of acres in formerly pristine areas such as the
Westport River (630 acres) and the No.rth and South Rivers
(2,400 acres) were closed.

--- On the North Shore and in Boston Harbor a total of 6,781
acres (11 square miles) -are closed or restricted to harvest.
Much of this acreage (4,65-0 acres) is in Boston Harbor; con-
sequently, waters adjacent to Boston, Milton, Quincy, Hull,
Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, and Winthrop are closed or
restricted. On the North Shore approximately 60% of produc-
tive shellfish areas are closed or restricted for
shellfishing.

--- Bacterial contamination causes an estimated total annual loss
of $1241 million in landed value to Massachusetts
shellfisheries. If reasonable economic multipliers are
applied, the total loss is about $55-$79 million.

--- Pesticide use by the cranberry industry is increasing espe-
cially in Soufheastern Massachusetts. Commonly used pestici-
des in the cranberry industry, are highly toxic to fish,
shellfish, crabs, and shrimp. Since most major watersheds in
Buzzards Bay and on Cape Cod drain large areas of cranberry
bogs, there is cause for concern that pesticides pose a
threat to shellfish resources; in these areas by c ng imme-
diate mortality or affecting reproductive success.
d 0
The exact magnitude of the acid rain problem confronting spe-
cies of diadromous fish (fish that move between fresh and
saltwater) such as river herring is unknown. However, the
potential for major impacts on reproduction, survival, and
growth of these fish is great. Acid rain has been implicated
as a major contributing factor to the decline of striped bass
and might be impacting the Commonwealth's river herring,
smelt, and other species.

In addition to pollution, habitat loss and degradation is a
problem for the Commonwealth's fisheries. Coastal areas provide
spawning, nursery, and feeding areas for our important finfish
and shellfish; therefore, as habitat disappears or is degraded,
fish and shellfish populations and fisheries dependent on these
resources decline.

This loss is occurring because: 1) Conservation Commissions
and proponents of coastal alteration projects frequently misun-
derstand existing regulatory standards and/or lack the expertise
and staff to properly assess projects' potential effects on
wetland areas; 2) careful state reviews of all Conservation,
Commissions' orders of conditions for approved projects are not
always possible; 3) there is a need for a greater state commit-
ment to the Wetlands Restriction Program. Specifically, of about
90,000 acres of salt marsh and tidal flats in Massachusetts, only
about one-third have permanent deed restrictions regulating
dredging, filling, removing or otherwise altering coastal

4
(mki@h
@_a u i

wetlands; 4) shellfish surveys leading to Wetlands Protection
Act prohibitions against permanent alterations or dest.ruction of
habitat cannot be routinely performed; and 5) a recent resurgence
of recreational boating has resulted in more private docks and
requests for alterations and expansions to existing docks with
associated,dredging and habitat loss.

Another significant problem is excessive fishing caused by
too many fishermen and fishing vessels with high fishing power
all competing for their "share" of finite inshore and offshore
resources. Excessive fishing is also caused by ineffective
fisheries management strategies due to inadequate planning and
insufficient law enforcement. Excessive fishing has led to
significantly reduced'resource abundance, smaller and less fish
and shellfish being landed in our ports, and economic hardship
for the state's fishing industry. Some examples are:

--- Abundance of Georges Bank haddock, an important component of
Massachusetts fishermen's catch, has declined 75 between L@@QLIJ,
1980 and 1983. Haddock reproduction from 197TZ@6_the present
has declined to the point where prospects for the immediate
future look bleak. Landings reflect this reduced abundance.
Total 1984 Georges Bank U.S. landings declined 30% from 1982
and 50% from 1980.

--- Sea scallops, the species responsible for -New Bedford's 1984
ranking as the number one port in the nation (value of
landings), have declined in abundance on Georges Bank. U.S.
catch per effort was 22% lower in 1984 than in 1983 (43%
lower than 1982) and was the lowest observed from 1965-1984.
Landings from the most productive portions of Georges Bank
were down 34% and 53% from 1982 and 1983, respectively.

--- Winter flounder has shown a constant downward trend in abun-
dance. Since 1975, large market category winter flounder has
declined steadily, and the percentage of small and "pee wee"
fish in landings has increased. This trend is indicative of
a resource problem.

--- The Division of Marine Pisheries resources surveys of coastal
waters showed drastic declines from 1983 to 1984 in abundance
of juveniles and adults of many species important to commer-
cial and recreational fisheries. The 1984 fall survey preli-
minary results were cause for alarm. For example, winter
flounder declined about 48% from 1983 and a previous six-year
average; young fish (pre-recruits) decreased 59% from 1983.
Young scup, butterfish, black sea bass, and long fin squid
decreased 35%, 71%, 49%, and 70%, respectively. Prospects
for the future are not encouraging.

Fisheries observations and landings of fish caught in
Massachusetts waters support OMP survey results. Many
Massachusetts inshore fishermen indicate a lack of marine
fish resource in state waters (and elsewhere) and continue to
express concern for the future. National Marine Service sta-
tistics bf percent decrease in landings of fish caught from
Massachusetts waters showed the following constant downward
trends: cod down 54% since 1.978; winter flounder down 46%
since 1978 and yellowtail flounder down 61% since 1979.

In 1982, 10,300 metric tons of yellowtail flounder were
landed from southern New England waters. An additional 3,300
metric tons were discarded because fish were too small. If
these fi 'sh were allowed to reach a larger size before har-
vest, a minimum of about $10 million potentially could have
56 been realized at the,producer level.

A lack of resource, especially in offshore waters, is
apparently prompting larger, very powerful vessels to shift
their operations inshore. This shift in effort is worsening
the resource picture for inshore waters and the economic
plight of fishermen with smaller vessels more dependent on
inshore grounds.

Other negative impacts on the commercial fishing industry are
inadequate port facilities, CanaLdian competition for U.S.
markets, the newly set U.S./Canada boundary partitioning Georges
Bank, and escalating fishing vessel insurance.

Minimal requirements such as safe berthing, ample space to
off-load fish, and adequate access do not exist in many
Massachusetts ports. For example, in Boston the fishing
industry is losing its struggle to maintain or rehabilitate
facilities due to competition with real estate interests,
other waterfront development, and/or politics. In Hyannis,
recreational boats compete directly with fishing vessels for
moorings and berths.

Over the past four to five years Canadian imports have
reached unparalleled proportions. For example, during the
first half of 1984 imports of fresh cod fillets approached
the total volume of 1982 (7.9 million pounds). The Canadian
fishing industry is now attempting to make major inroads into
the Commonwealth's fresh fish markets. In contrast to the
U.S. fishing industry, the Canadian industry is heavily sup-
ported by the Canadian government. - nlj@\-L,
The new U.S./Canada boundary is denyi-n-
@)Massachusetts fisher
men access to productive fishing grounds and is causing
fishermen to fish farther !@nshore thereby worsening the sta-
tus of the Commonwealth's JLnshore fisheries, increasing com-
petition with smaller vessels fishing on these resources, and
increasing user group conflicts. According to the Northeast
Fisheries Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service,

13%, 33%, 12%, and 15% of cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder,
-and sea scallops, respectively, caught by U.S. fishermen on
Georges Bank in 19.83 were taken east of the boundary.
I
--- The difficulty of securing insurance for fishing vessels has
been indreasing in recent years. Because of sinkings and
large cash settlements received by injured fishermen, com-
panies are either refusing to issue insurance or are signifi-
cantly increasing premiums. Consequently, fishermen are
forced to remain at the dock, pay the high premiums, or fish
without insurance.

An additional impact on recreational fishing, be!@4des reduced
abundance of sport fish, is inadqqU_ate public accea,&_-_ Many
recreational fishing sites accessible 6@-iia few years ago are
now unavailable due to the fencing off of areas and closing of
piers. This diminished access is due, in large part, to coastal
development. The problem is coastwide. As an example, on the
south side of Cape Cod, no trespassing signs stretch from Woods
Hole to Chatham.

Finally, this.Paper underscores problems related to regula-
tory, management, and research programs. It stresses the fact
that Massachusetts has a fairly sound legal and regulatory
framework for addressing environmental issues. But, in order to
fully utilize it and keep pace with the increasing impacts on
marine resources, several problems must be addressed: adequate
budgets and staffing must be provided, new policies developed and
other policy conflicts resolved, research and monitoring efforts
enhanced and coordinated, and general cooperation among all par-
ties must be improved.

4
--- More work is need to identify and abate non-point
sources along our coastal areas. There is a need for addi-
tional technical and financial assistance at the local and
regional levels to accomplish these tasks.

--- There is insufficient staffing, lack of, specific federal
standards for many toxics, and extraordinary reporting dif-
ficulties leading to deficiencies in the state's present
industry compliance monitoring system and the state's
knowledge of the sources, total volume, and composition of
waste released into coastal waters.

--- Situations arise where salt ponds with unstable inlets begin
to close and tidal exchange is reduced or ended. Many of
these ponds have, or could have, significant shellfish and
finfish populations if their openings to the sea where
seasonally maintained. However, because of the regulations
governing barrier beaches and dunes, it is difficult to get
permission to maintain tidal exchange into such ponds.

While shellfish habitat is afforded protection under the
coastal regulations of the Wetland Protection Act (WPA),
prohibitions on permanent altE!rati(:)ns or destruction of
this habitat can occur only if it is mapped by DMF.
Unfortunately, the mapping of'shellfish habitat cannot be
routinely performed due to lack of funds and staff.

----A dispersion of responsibilities between agencies for regula-
tion and management of contaminated shellfish and their habi-
tat has created serious problems in communication and
coordination and considerable confusion for communities and
fishermen. The entire issue of shellfish contamination needs
to be closely examined, and workable solutions to the
problems must be implemented.

Public agencies which are mandated to both protect natural
resources as well as promote public access and waterfront
development can act in contradictory ways. Often, this
inconsistency in actions is attributable to a failure to ade-
quately consider alternatives which reduce or eliminate
C___ impacts on coastal wetlands areas.

implementation of the Wetland Protection Act is primarily a
municipal responsibility. Appeals of local decisions are
resolved by the regional offices of DEQE. This decentralized
administrative organization offers numerous advantages but
also can result in inconsistent decision-making-. Improved
policy guidelines and training for decision-makers are needed
to reduce these difference.
:7411legal alterations of wetlands remains a serious problem, as
well. Improved coordination between local, state, and
federal agencies is required if habitat protection programs
are to be strengthened. in addition, existing law
enforcement personnel in EOEA agencies should be utilized to
more actively protect a broader range of environmental
interest.

--- There are several deficiencies in the shellfish reimbursement
program for coastal cities and towns.Funding for the reimbur-
sement program has remained at the 1974 level, so local
programs, expanded in response to state funding, have been
slowly eroded as salaries, etc., increased. The expansion of
local shellfish programs has; greatly increased the need for
technical assistance at the state level, and placed addi-
tional administrative burdens on DMF. The need for technical
assistance and administration of reimbursements cannot be met
adequately by DMF under existing personnel and budget
constraints. In addition, the greatly increased interest in
private shellfish aquaculture over the last decade and the
resulting need for technical assistance, surveys, and
licensing at the state and local levels has further worsened
the problems created by level funding.

Investigations to identify the existance and extent of
problems in the Commonwealth's marine environment, iden-
11--ification of trends through monitoring, and major efforts to
develop remedies or means to curtail this pollution have been
minimal. Fortunately this situation is changing. More of
these types of programs have been developed or.proposed. The
key need now is for continued and new support for these ini-
tiatives.

Efforts to address problems confronting Massachusetts
fisheries, the resources on which they depend, and the environ-
ment vital for the maintenance of these resources must be acce-
lerated and not allowed to abate. The major concern is that
these problems are responsible for or eventually will result in
great economic losses to the Commonwealth; e.g., areas closed to
shellfish harvest due to bacterial contamination causes an esti-
mated annual economic loss of $55-$79 million.

It is now up to the public, the Legislature, and state agen-
cies, charged to protect the public's best long-term interests to
reverse the course of our continued adverse impact on
Massachusetts commercial and recreational marine fisheries, the
resources on which they depend, and their habitats.

Solution will not come easily. Regarding concerns related to
pollution, many of the problems and issues confronting fisheries
and environmental agencies are complex, multifaceted, and require
interdisciplinary approaches to resolution. Many problems are
long-standing and chroni-c in nature and have developed over many
decades. There are few "quick fix" solutions to these chronic
problems. For example, many of the environmental sciences, engi-
neering practices, and waste treatment technologies are still
evolving and developing in the area of toxics control, dredge
spoil disposal, and combined sewer over-flow control. Many solu-
tions to problems are not yet within reach. Furthermore, some of
the known and proposed solutions (for example, dredging New
Bedford Harbor to remove PCB's) are oftentimes complex, sometimes
economically infeasible, and frought with uncertainties.

Nevertheless, much can be done and is being done already. A
spurring on of agencies is needed to accelerate their existing
efforts and to develop new initiatives to meet the Commonwealth's
commitment to a safe and well-balanced environment and a sound
economic resources base. Public and legislative support is cri-
tical.

I N 7"R 0 D U CT 10 N

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) is
responsible for protecting and enhancing the Commonwealth's
living marine resources. It is charged with promoting and deve-
loping Massachusetts' commercial and recreational fisheries and
with implementing management strategies developed in concert with
the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission. These responsibilities
led to the preparation of a 1982 Massachusetts Marine Fisheries
management Policy Reportl which was designed to "coordinate agen-
cies and programs to assure long-term stability of the fishing
industry as well as wise management of the living marine
resources". The Report, adopted by the Governor, defined the
Division's advocacy of the Commonwealth's fisheries. This White
Paper is a result of that role. It is a statement of concern
intended to: 1) increase public and legislative awareness of the
problems confronting our fisheries; and, 2) accelerate existing
efforts and lead to new attempts to meet the Commonwealth's com-
mitment to a safe and well-balanced environment and a sound eco-
nomic resource base.

Massachusetts' valuable marine resources, their habitats and
commercial and recreational fishing industries, that these
resources support are important components of the Commonwealth's
economic viability, historic character, and prestige.
Promotional materials recently developed to attract business and
tourists to Massachusetts emphasize the values placed on our
fisheries and marine resources. For example, the brochure, "Come
Share The Spirit of Massachusetts", highlights the Commonwealth's
fishing ports, coastal parks and wildlife areas, the length and
beauty of our varied coastline with its exceptional beaches, and
productive coastal waters. The importance of these links to the
sea and the economic and recreational opportunities they present
are key elements of Massachusetts' national appeal.
I
Massachusetts' fishing industries are faced with a myriad of
problems which must be addressed. These include pollution and
associated fish and shellfish contamination, excessive fishing,
and habitat loss and degradation. Other impediments to fisheries
are inadequate port facilities, inadequate public access,
Canadian competition for U.S. markets, the new U.S./Canada boun-
dary partitioning Georges Bank between the two countries, and
escalating insurance costs for fishing vessels. Other factors
contributing to the decreased vitality of the Commonwealth's
marine fisheries are related to regulatory, management, and
research programs; for example, inadequate funding, policy
conflicts, and lack of interagency coordination.

Some of these problems are obvious and have already received
media and public attention. Unfortunately, this attention
generally has been short-lived and piecemeal. Considered too
complex or costly to address, problems and their underlying
causes either have been accepted or forgotten. More subtle
problems have gone unnoticed. Perhaps this is because each

-1-

individual pollutant source, incidence of fish and shellfish con-
taminationr habitat alteration, or occurrence of excessive
fishing seems relatively inconsequential. Isolated events fre-
quen.tly are treated as natural and unavoidable consequences of a
growing state economy and coastal development.

This attitude should not continue. If it does, the
Commonwealth risks losing its fight to preserve its natural heri-
,tage and the integrity of its marine resources and environment.
Efforts of state agencies already seeking to preserve and rebuild
marine resources and to protect the environment needed for suste-
.nance of fisheries resources require the continued and increased
support of the public and the Legislature.

There are many existing and proposed programs or activities
,which already demonstrate a state commitment to address many of
the problems facing our fisheries. For example, the recently
created Water Resources Authority offers hope that the health of
Boston Harbor can be considerably improved. The Division of
Water Pollution Control has an ambitious five-year (1986-1990)
strategy related to such things as wastewater and septage pro-
jects and an inventory, class if ication, and reduction of major
toxic problems in the state, to name a few. The Division of
Marine Fisheries is developing a comprehensive inshore fisheries
management plan to rebuild depleted inshore fish populations and
to address other management concerns. The Coastal Zone
Management Program is administerLng an $11 million state bond
program for the rehabilitation and/or construction of public
'N coastal facilities such as wharves, piers, and for ourchase of
01@1 coastal properties. While these state agencies and -other enti-
ties with plans for the betterment of marine living resources and
their environment have good intentions, these best of plans might
fall short of their objectives without public and legislative
support. It is hoDed that this Paper will lead to a sharing of
our concerns, more support, and an acceleration of efforts to
address the problems described herein.

_2 -

FISHERIES

Commercial Fisheries

Massachusetts' fishing industry has an impressive standing in
the nation. In 1984 Massachusetts was third nationwide in value
($233.5 million) and sixth in total volume (375.5 million pounds)
of landings2. In New England the Commonwealth ranked first in
both categories with 54% of the value and 54% of the volume.
This does not adequately describe the total value of fisheries to
our state, however, because landed product must pass through a
series of production and distribution steps before being
marketed. Landed value of Massachusetts' total catch must be
multiplied at least four times to adequately reflect the fishing
industry's actual contribution to the Commonwealth's economy.
Consequently, a very conservative estimate of worth would be
approximately $1 billion in 1984.

About 46 species of edible fish, shellfish, and crustaceans
are landed by Massachusetts fishermen in over 50 ports (Fig. 1).
The species of greatest value are sea scalloos, cod, lobster,
yellowtail flounder, haddock, winter flounder, bluefin tuna, and
swordfish. These eight species were responsible for about 78% of
1984 commercial landings in Massachusetts.

The diversity of our state's fishing industry is reflected by
its variety of ports, harbors, and types of fishing vessels.
Ports range from New Bedford and Gloucester - the Commonwealth's
largest commercial fishing ports with the greatest number of
vessels - to the smaller ports typified by Provincetown and
Chatham.

New Bedford traditionally has ranked among the nation's too
fishing ports. In 1984 it was the nation's number one port in
terms of value of landings ($107.7 million), more than $23
million above its nearest competitor. In 1984 there were
approximately 193 vessels (draggers and scallopers) from 60-130
feet landing yellowtail flounder, sea scallops, cod, haddock,
winter flounder, and other species. This port's fishermen
usually make trips of 7-10 days at sea and often fish over 100
miles offshore.

Gloucester leads all Massachusetts ports in volume of fish
landed. Nationwide, in 1984 it ranked seventh (ninth in value at
$37.1 million). Many Gloucester fishing vessels concentrate on
lesser-valued fish such as whiting, ocean perch, sea herring, and
menhaden. Cod, haddock, and flounder also contribute substan-
tially to this port's landings. Additionally, Gloucester is New
England's largest frozen fish processing port utilizing imported
fish almost exclusively.

Boston, once New 'England's and the country's premier fresh
fish center especially famous for haddock, is now @omeport to a
relatively small number of vessels. In 1984, 20.2 million

-3-

pounds with a value of $11.2 million were landed in Boston.
Boston is known primarily as New England's center for the distri-
bution and processing of fresh and frozen imports.

'In addition to these three large ports, Provincetown,
Chatham, Sandwich, Plymouth, Scituate, Westport, . Harwich,
Woods Hole, and many other smaller ports rely heavily on
"fish dollars" generated by their local fishing industries.
These ports primarily support day-boat fisheries on inshore
:fishing grounds, generally within 12 miles of the coast. Vessels
.participating in these fisheries are usually less than 60 feet
and include a large fleet of vessels which fish exclusively for
lobster. In 1983 Massachusetts' lobstermen landed 12,136,600
pounds worth approximately $29,613,000; 71% of this value was
attributed to territorial water's catch making lobster the
state's most valuable inshore -fishery. Value in 1984 increased to
$31,996,800.

Moreover, in virtually every Massachusetts coastal town there
are numerous skiff fishermen urho seasonally shift gear and
fisheries. These fishermen, like their counterparts using larger
vessels, are opportunists subject to the vagaries of fish abun-
dance and competition.

Finfish, lobster, and sea scallops are not the only commer-
cial fisheries in our state. The inshore shellfishery is a major
component of Massachusetts marine fisheries and an integral part
of our coastal heritage. Important inshore species of commercial
value are soft-shell clams, quahogs, oysters, bay scallops, surf
clams, blue mussels, and to a lesser extent, razor clams and two
species of conchs. In addition to sea scallops, important
offshore shellfish include surf claims, ocean quahogs, and Icelandic
scallops.

Sbellfisheries provide employment for more than 4,000 commer-
cial fishermen3. In 1983, [email protected] million pounds of shellfish
valued at over $105 million were landed. Inshore shellfisheries
accounted for $24 million or 22.9% of the total landed value.
The value of shellfisheries to the Commonwealth in 1983 was
approximately $500 million (economic multiplier of 4.5).

Recreational Fisheries

Saltwater sportfishing is a major recreational activity in
Massachusetts. Abundance of fish and numerous angler services
attract sportfishermen to the Commonwealth's shores. Marine
sportfishing provides food and recreation to the angler and
contributes substantially to our state's economy. In 1980, the
most recent year'for which data are available, 556,000 saltwater
anglers spent about $111.6 million in pursuit of their sport in
Massachusetts4. In 1982, there were an estimated 870,000
anglers.

Recreational fishing for species such as striped bass, winter
flounder, bluefish, and scup can be divided into shore fishing and

boat fishing. Shore fishing includes fishing .4.rom beaches,
banks, jetties, piers, docks, and bridges. Boat fishing can be
Categorized as private boat, oarty boat, and charter boat. There
are '170,000 boats registered in Massachusetts, and based on est-i-
mates from-earlier studies, 26% or 44,200 are used for saltwater
angling5. This estimate probably should be higher due to-a popu-
lation shift toward coastal towns. While statewide population
increased only 1% from 1970-1980, population in coastal areas,
especially southeastern Massachusetts and Cape Cod, increased
20%.

In 1984 approximately 56 party boats operated out of 24 ports
along the Massachusetts coast. A party boat is a sportfishing
boat open to all fishermen who are.charged a flat rate per per-
son. Passenger capacities range from 20-80 fishermen. Most
vessels make trips daily during summer and on weekends only in
the spring and fall. Boats averaged 92 fishin days in 1975 and
carried an average of 26 passengers per tripe. Assuming these
averages are still valid, in 1984 about 134,000 fishermen fished
from party boats. At an average cost per trip of $18, total 1984
Z
i-ares were approximately $2,411,000.

A charter boat is a sportfishing boat hired for a trip by a
group of six or fewer people. There were 127 charter boats
fishing out of 33 ports in 19736
Average cost per trip in 1973
was $270. in 1984, charter boats averaged 68 fishing trips
(1975 estimate) a total of approximately $2,332,000 was spent on
charter fares.

The above estimates are conservative since recreational
fisheries are difficult to survey and their statistics are
incomplete and imprecise, particularly since saltwater anglers
currently are not licensed in Massachusetts. There is no precise
way to adequately assess the number of recreational fishermen in
this state.

Another major component of the marine sportfishing industry
is the bait and tackle shop. The 1983 Massachusetts Saltwater
Fishing Guide lists 84 bait and tackle shops in our coastal
cities and towns. This total, however, does not include numerous
inland shops or department and discount stores which in recent
years have been major suppliers of tackle. In 1980 marine
anglers in Massachusetts spent about $27.6 million for saltwater
fishing equipment4.

Other costs included in the $111.6 million spent on saltwater
fishing in Massachusetts in 1980 were $58 million for food,
lodging, and transportation. Fishing obviously contributes to
the tourist trade and benefits hotels and restaurants.

Not included in the total value are cost of new boats and
boat fuel. In 1975 saltwater anglers in Massachusetts spent
approximately $9 million for new boats, motors, and trailers.
Party and charter boat '7 sales were $3.6 million. Boat fuel expen-
ses were $2.6 million Adjusting for inflation over the past

nine years (34% since 1975) and assuming level purchasing., 1984
.expenses would-have been $20.4 million.

Recreational fisheries also exist for shellfish and lobste@r.
There are 38,000 family shellf ish permit holders in the
Commonwealth3. In 1984 11,5113 non-commercia-1 licenses -for
lobster fishing were issued by DMIF.

ENVIRONMENT

The Commonwealthl's nickname, "the Bay State", underscores the
importance of Massachusetts' coastal habitats. These coastal
environments provide spawning, nursery, and feeding areas for
finfish and shellfish that support the state's commercial and
recreational fisheries. These habitats are found along the
state's 1,200 miles of coastline.

There are about 40 estuaries and coastal embayments and 14
salt ponds in Massachusetts. These habitats are distinct from
the more open territorial waters extending approximately three
miles from shore in most areas (Fig. 1). There are 48,105 acres
of salt marsh, 41,514 acres of tidal flats and 18,888 acres of
barrier beaches in the Massachusetts coastal zone (Table 1)8.

Salt marshes are important features of our coast since they
provide habitat for coastal marine life, produce large quantities
of plant material forming the base of the food chain, lessen
impacts of storms on the coast, and protect groundwater intrusion
of saltwater. Extensive salt marshes are found in the
Parker River-Plum Island area, North River estuary, Essex Bay,
PlymouAk:h-Kingst,on-Duxburv Bay, Pleasant Bay, and the
Barnstable Harbor-Sandy Neck area.

Tidal flats are important habitat for many species of
shellfish, act as a buffer against storms, and retain and release
important nutrients originating from marshes. Extensive flats
are found primarily north of Cape Cod.

Barrier beaches are integral parts of an estuary, coastal
embayment, or salt pond. They separate brackish water from more
salty, open coastal waters and protect marshes and other habitats
from storms. Examples of barrier beaches are found in Barnstable
(Sandy Neck), Wellfleet, Provincetown (the Provincelands), and
Newbury (Plum Island).

Another extremely important coastal habitat is the rocky
shoreline north of Boston including the coasts of Swampscott,
Marblehead, Beverly, Rockport, Gloucester, and ManchesIC-er. Rocky
areas orovide valuable habitat, esoecially for such creatures as
lobster and mussels.

Finally, there are rivers and streams linking lakes and ponds
with the ocean. These provide habitat for important fish such as
river herring, smelt, shad, and salmon which mature in the sea
b,ut reproduce in freshwater.

-6-

POLLUTION

Pollution is a rather abstract concept to most people. How
is itcharacterized? When can it be concluded that the extent of
degradation is unreasonable or unacceptable? Answers to these
questions entail an examination of such things as concentrations
of toxins in marine fish and shellfish relative to public health
criteria, contaminant burdens in sediments, the incidence of fish
and shellfish disease, and the amount and frequency of closing of
productive shellfish beds due to the presence of coliform bac-
teria and human pathogens.

A 'Look at these considerations indicates that the quality of
much of Massachusetts' nearshore marine environment is degraded.
of note, Boston Harbor and New Bedford Harbor are seriously
polluted. The following are prominent examples of what DMF
believes is unacceptable pollution impacting fish and shellfish
health and impacting fisheries by rendering fish and shellfish
unfit to eat i*n some areas or creating the unwarranted public
perception that all seafood-should be shunned.

Boston Harbor

Boston Harbor pollution rivals some of the worst conditions
in U.S. harbors and estuaries. A primary pollutant source is
domestic and industrial sewage containing bacteria, viruses,
heavv metals, pesticides, oil, polychlorinated biphenvls (PBC's),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) and other c;mplex orga-
nic compounds. Antiquated sewer systems ani treatment plants and
the method of sewage sludge disposal significantly contribute to
the harbor's pollution. Of significance, the flow from the Nut
Island and Deer Island sewage treatment plants alone is 415
million gallons per day three-quarters of the ave.-age flow from
all rivers emptying into the Harbor. Additionally,, and just as
significant, even though sewage sludge is released at the
Harbor's mouth, it may not be transported away on outgoing tides.
The harbor's long flushing time and landward bottom drift contri-
bute to the retention of wastes9.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) was
established in 1984 to helD solve the complex pollution problem
of Boston Harbor, in part, through renovation and upgrading of
the sewer systems and operation and management of combined sewer
overflows. The MWRA has the monumental task of regulating an
estimated 5,200 industrial users discharging into the municipal
sewage system.

Fish Cancer

Boston Harbor has been included in a recent study of the
prevalence of cancerous tumors in east coast, bo"-om-dwelling
fishlO. In 1984, at the request of the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), the Division of Marine Fisheries collected 200
winter flounder from Boston Harbor near the Deer Island outfall.
Scientists from NMFS and University of Rhode Island examined

-7-

flounder livers and found tLhat Boston Harbor flounder had the
highest prevalence of liver lesions and tumors when compared to
flounder from other polluted areas on the east coast. Eight per-
cent.-had cancer of the bile duct and/or liver. This situation
contrasted with the complete lack of lesions and tumors in
flounder taken from unpolluted sites on the south sides of
central and eastern Long Island, Casco Bay (ME), and Georges
Bank. Flounder in Boston Harbor ZLre almost year-round residents.
Their seasonal movements consist of a change in distribution from
the harbor mouth to the flats and channels of the harbor; hence,
they are prime indicators of the extent of local pollution.

Additional NMFS/DMF sampling in Boston Harbor this winter
revealed a higher prevalence (42%) of lesions. The precise
pathology of these lesions is riot yet known, but it is suspected
they include precancerous and cancerous lesions. More research
is needed to determine the prevalence of tumors throughout the
harbor. system; Lor example, in Quincy Bay where a major
recreational fishery for flounder exists.

Cancerous liver tumors are not confined to flounder of Boston
Harbor. As part of a NMFS survey of fish and environmental
health, Salem Harbor flounder were sampled in July 1984. Of 77
fish examined, approximately 3% had liver cancer. While this
percentage is relatively small., it still raises questions and
concerns. It is unknown whether this problem exists in other
Massachusetts harbors and bays, and the effect of liver cancer on
the winter flounder resource is uncertain, as is the potential
effect on human health.

Other Indicators of Pollution

Another Boston Harbor comparison is provided by a study of
biochemical and liver condition differences between winter
flounder caught off the sewage outfall near Deer Island and a
relatively clean area near Plymoutbll. Significant differences
existed between areas for such things as the amount of vitamin
(ascorbic acid) in the liver. Thie study indicated that vitamin C
may be depleted in fish during st--ress caused by chemical pollu-
'Cants. Vitamin C is essential for the detoxification of harmful
substances and wound healing. Significant differences in liver
abnormalities (e.g., color and cell structure) also existed bet-
ween the areas.

Winter flounder provide an additional means o.L monitoring the
health of the marine environment 'since this species lives in close
association with the bottom where pollutants can concentrate. An
indication of a degraded or polluted environment is provided by
the prevalence of fin erosion disease (fin rot), a destruction of
fin tissue, which is believed to be triggered by environmental
stress. Heavy metals have been cited as a possible factor in the
occurrence of this disease. PCB's and petroleum residues also
appear to be contributing factors12.

The harbors and coves bordering nearby urbanized areas (e.g.,
Boston and New Bedford) clearly show increased disease incidence

_8__

in contrast with the more offshore, but still coastal,
Massachusetts waters. In a re-en" studvll, winter flounder were
sampled for fin r;t disease a-rou'nd th6 Deer Island outfall in
Boston Harbor. Fin rot was prevelant 'in 44% of the fish sample4
in 1979, and 10% in 1982. Flounder sampled in Clarks Cove, oart
of the polluted Acushnet River estuary showed a 6.4% prevelance
of fin rot in the spring of 1982 and 5.6% in the spring of 1983.
The prevelance of fin rot in winter flounder sampled in these two
polluted coastal areas contrast sharply with observations made
during DMF spring and fall bottom trawl surveys of Massachusetts
coastal waters. of the 1082 winter flounder examined -from
throughout state waters during the 1984 fall survey, three fish
(0.3%) had fin rot.

In addition to fin rot and vitamin C levels, another
indicator of environmental stress is the level of a r)articular
kidney enzyme in winter flounder. High levels of this enzyme are
believed to indicate that flounder are trying to cope with
environmental pollutants (e.g., building protein and fighting
infections). NMFS summer 1983 tests of winter flounder from
Buzzards Bay showed significantly higher enzyme levels, similar to
levels found in flounder from highly polluted New York and
Delaware Bay watersl3. Flounder from known unpolluted waters had
relatively low levels. These results suggest that Buzzards Bay
is developing pollution problems.

Lobster Disease

Disease problems are not confined only to fish. The prevalence
of two lobster diseases has recently been documented by, DMF in
Massachusetts Bay and Buzzards Bayl4. Shell disease (shell ero-
sion and tissue destruction) and black gill disease (fouling and
erosion of gills and destruction of underlying tissue) were most
r)revalent in and near the Acushnet River estuary, Buzzards Bay,
and off Boston Harbor. There is a definite relationship between
these diseases and a high level of pollution. Observations were
made on 272 lobsters collected at 12 coastal Massachusetts sites
(Fig. 2). The percentage of shell disease was highest (50% and
33%) near the Acushnet River and New Bedford Harbor, respec-
tively. Black gill disease was highest in these areas
(approximately 52%) and off Boston Harbor (33%). Relatively
clean areas in Cape Cod Bay and east of Cape Cod had a very low
vrevalence of these diseases (0% shell disease and approximately
black gill disease).

Soft Shell Clam Blood Disease

Recent Tufts University research on soft shell clams taken
from New Bedford Harbor showed widespread occurrence of a disease
of the circulatory fluid (shellfish "blood")15. Abnormal cells
of the "leukemic" type were present in 90% of the shellfish
collected there in 1982 and 1983. This contrasted with an
approximate 11-28% incidence in clams from Cape Cod. While no
definite cause and effect relationship between harbor pollution
and this disease was cited, the Tufts investigators suggested
that an association existed between high prevalence of the
disease and industrially contaminated locations.

-9-

.PCB Contamination

PCB contamination of fish anrt shellfish is not a new problem
for Massachusetts. High PCB.1evels have been responsible'for the
closure of the Acushnet River estuary since 1979 to some or all
fishing activities depending on the location in the estuary (Fig.
3). Restrictions are griBatest n New Bedford Harbor where the
PCB problem was first identified in Massachusetts.

DMF testing, in cooperation with other agencies, of lobsters
.taken in the estuary during the winter of 1979-1980 to the fall
of 1983 showed average PCB concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 4.9
ppm (parts per million); however, individual lobsters reached as
high as 23.8 ppm. During this -time 20% of all lobsters tested
exceeded the 5 ppm state/federal public health tolerance level
for fish and shellfish. Future prospects for an opening are
uncertain *especially since the federal standard is now 2 ppm
(down from 5 ppm) and the State Department of Public Health (DPH)
has recently aaopted the same standard.

Recent Deoartment of Public Health test- data of lobsters
collected during the spring of 1984 in Area 3 of the Acushnet
River estuary revealed PCB levels in excess of 2 ppm at all 11
monitoring stations (Fig. 4). The overall average was 6 ppm.

Contact with PCB-contaminated sediments and waterborn PCB's
or consumotion of PCB-contaminated prey have led to the
"bioaccumuia-6.ion- of PCB's in valuable fish and shellfish which
take up and store these substances in body fatty tissues. This
,is of great concern since PCB's are persistent in the environment
and are possible human carcinogens. The sediments of the
Acushnet River estuary and especially New Bedford Harbor have PCB
.concentrations ranging from a few parts per million to well over
100,000 ppm (Fig. 5). The most severe sediment concentrations
are in the western and northern parts of the estuary where PCB's
commonly exceed 50,000 ppml6. The Environmental Protection
Agency considers sediment levels over 50 ppm to be hazardous
waste.

PCB levels over 30 ppm also were found in three sediment
samDles -taken in the Neoonset River. This led the NMFS Habitat
Protection Branch to recommend that EPA deny the ocean disposal
of these sediments which were to be dredged by the Army Corps of
Engineers to maintain channels "or boat passage. Lower levels
have been found in Winthrop Harbor, Savin Hill Cove, Dorchester
Bay., and in sediment off South Boston. A primary source of the
PBC's is believe to be sewage sludge. Additionally, PCB's are
carried to the Harbor by tributary rivers such as the Charles and
by combined sewer overflows.

PCB's are also found in the sediments of Massachusetts Bay
and Buzzards Bay. One 1976 study showed that PCB's, as well as
other toxic substances, were accumulating in the sediments of
Massachusetts Bayl7. This same study determined that PCB's in
sediments closer to shore were at higher concentrations. More

_10-

recently, Massachusetts Bay sediment PCB concentrations were
found to be 1/10 that of concentrations found at dredged material
and sludge dump sites in the New York Bight Apex, a heavily con-
taminated coastal areal8. A similar conclusion was reached for
PAH's in Massachusetts Bay where concentrations were 1/3 to 1/2
of those found in Apex dredged material and sewage sludge dump-
sites. Sediment PAH's include such compounds as benzo(a)pyrene
and benz(a)anthracene (known carcinogens) and a number of other
possible carcinogens and biologically active compoundsl8.

"ediment Contamination and Dredging

Sediment contamination presents a major problem for dredging
projects. Massachusetts coastal communities depend on their har-
bors for recreation, commerce, and revenue, and this utilization
requires dredging of navigation channels, moorings, docking
and turning areas. This dredging, as well as disposal of dredged
material, raises serious environmental concerns such as potential
for release of sediment contaminants (e.g., PCBIs) to the water
column and benthic animals at dredge and disposal sites, altera-
tion of natural habitat for fish and benthic animals, and lack of
snvironmentally acceptable upland, in-harbor, or ocean disposal
Sites for dredged material.

The amount of dredged material from Massachusetts, waters is
significant. From 1960-1981 a minimum of 4,760,000 cubic vards
were dredged from Beverly, Chelsea, East Boston, South Boston,
Gloucester, New Bedford, Fairhaven and Salem waters. This quan-
tity would have filled a one sguare mile hole 41 feet deep. More
recently, in 1983 approximately 600,000 cubic yards of sediment
were dredged in the Commonwealth as part of state projects alone.
The need for dredging is increasing.

Within the past 10 years, several state and federal dredging
projects have involved sediments with high concentrations of con-
taminants such as heavy metals and PCB's. PCB's have been found
in sediments of Rockport Harbor, the Neponset River, and
Dorchester Bay. Additionally, heavy metals and/or petroleum
hydrocarbons have been measured in areas such as Gloucester
Harbor, Chelsea River, Boston Harbor, and Wellfleet Harbor. As a
result of the r)resence of these contaminants, it is difficult to
find acceptable disposal locations for dredged material.

The aforementioned examples of a polluted environment should
not be taken lightly or ignored. They are signposts and
illustrate the degradation of some of the Commonwealth's
nearshore waters, especially its bays and harbors.

Preceeding references to wastewater-related resource problems
and concerns focused on Boston Harbor. Harbor pollution cer-
tainly has been a focus of recent attention in the media and on
Beacon Hill, but these problems and concerns are not unique to
the Harbor. They extend to other coastal areas such as Buzzards
Bay and Massachusetts Bay, as evidenced by the previously
referenced incidence of tumors and fin rot in winter flounder and

_11-

shell disease and black gill disease in lobsters.from these Bays.
Pollution stemming from sewage di.scharges '-from sewage treatment
plants, stormwater drains and combined sewer overflows is more
widespread than just Boston Harbor, and may continue to be a
serious threat to the shellfish in many coastal -communities.
Locations of major sewage outfalls and flow rates are shown in
Figure 2 and Table 2.

Suread of Waste-related Pollution

Waste-related problems also are becoming more commonplace in
coastal cities and towns due to population growth and a popula-
tion shift to coastal areas. People have been attracted to the
coast due to its resources, aesthetics, and recreational oppor-
tunities. At an ever increasing pace, the immediate coastal area
is becoming more heavily developed. For example, the year-round
Cape Cod population has grown by, more than 50% in the last 10
years and over 40% of our state's population now lives in coastal
communities.

Coastal development is accompanied by waste disposal
problems, and our state's valuable commercial and recreational
shellfisheri 'es for soft shell clams, quahogs, oysters, bay
scallops, and blue mussels are most affected. These resources
have been afforded some protection by legislation and programs
such as the Wetlands Protection Program and the Chapter 91
Licensing program of the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) . These programs have slowed rapid physical
destruction of the coastal environment by activities such as
marsh removal, dredging, and ocean dumping. However, programs at-
local, state, and federal levels regulating the discharge of
industrial and municipal wastes and the installation of septic
.systems have not stopped further pollution of our coastal waters
by sewage and toxic chemicals.

As an illustration of the public's perception of pollution
problems and their control, in a 1984 questionnaire inauiring
about shellfisheries management -problems and needed state tech-
nical assistance, r)ollution and pollution-related problems were
cited by coastal communities as the number one concern by 14
towns and as a second or third concern by six towns. In an
earlier 1982 survey shellfish harvesting area restrictions
(closures) due to sewage and toxic chemical contamination were
.considered serious problems by 45% and 56%, respectively, of com-
mercial fishermen who were queried. Sixty percent of
recreational fishermen questioned. thought sewage pollution was a
major threat to the marine environment. Sixty-five percent also
considered toxic chemical pollution to be a major threatl.

Homes, as well as businessest institutions, marinas, and
.boats are sources of sewage with attendant fecal bacteria and
viruses which are accumulated and concentrated within filter-
feeding shellfish such as clams. The single greatest domestic
source in water adjacent to urban areas is from combined sewer
overflows and municipal treat-inent facilities which are not func-

-12-

tioning properly. Another source @-.rhich is increasing in signifi-
cance in coastal regions is increased land run-off. Other
sources of bacterial contamination include malfunctioning septic
systems, and animal feces. The latter may be introduced either
directly by large numbers of waterfowl and seabirds or indirectly
.via surface run-off especially during and immediately after
storms. waterfowl populations have increased in some areas due
in part to feeding which concentrates birds in small areas and
creates resident populations.

The significance of "non-point" sources of contamination was
highlighted in a March 1985 Barnstable County Health and
Environmental Department Report entitled "Bacteriological Quality
of Shellfish Harvesting Areas in Barnstable County, Mass. 1984".
in reviewing contamination problems in the waters of Barnstable
County, the Department stated that "the primary threat to the
water quality in marine coastal environments is non-p-oint
r)ollution". The Report identified four non-point discharges as
primary sources of bacteria in coastal waters - stormwater
runoff, wildlife, failing septic systems, and discharges from
boats and marinas. Stormwater is the major source of pollution
in both urban and rural areas as it is discharged untreated into
coastal waters. In addition ' to bacteria, stormwater runoff
carries organic and heavy metal contaminants, particularly from
roads and parking lots.

The Barnstable County report also stated that "land use
surrounding shellfishing areas and contributing waters is likely
the single most important factor in determining water quality".
As stated earlier, the Massachusetts coastal zone is becoming
more developed. The year-round population of Caoe Cod has grown
by more than 50% in the last 10 years. Uplands -adjacent to
coastal ponds and estuaries are in great demand, and much already
has been developed. Massachusetts' environmental regulations
exist to Drotect wetlands and other sensitive coastal resource
areas, but the regulatory system does not provide enough
_prqtec-
01' adjacent- _@__s -more protect-ion
tion - u-pranc5_- TVvins-dan - -prov-fde
their zoning power and the local Boards of Health
authority.

Shellfish Contamination

The incidence of and trends in shellfish contamination due to
fecal coliform bacteria are keys to a better understanding of
what is happening to our coastal waters and resources. What
follows is an alarming account.

In the decade between 1970 and 1980, there was little change
in total amount of open and closed shellfishing areas on the
South Shore and in Southeastern Massachusetts (from the
Hull-Cohasset town line to the Mass/R.I state line). A total of
19,891 acres were closed to the harvest of shellfish for public
health reasons at the end of 1980. Much of the closed area was
in the vicinity of highly urbanized and/or industrialized areas
of Taunton River/Mt. Hope Bay, New Bedford Harbor/Clarks Cove,

_13-

Plymouth Harbor and a number of smaller harbors inc'Luding
Falmouth Harbor, Hyannis Inner Harbor, Cohasset Harbor, and por-
.tions of Provincetown Harbor.- Numerous smaller areas also added
to the total.

The situation remained much the same throughout 1981 and
early 1982. However, by the end of 1.982, DEQE reclassified and
DMF subsequently closed an additional 2,038 acres to
shellfishing. By November 1, 1984 another 3,469 acres were
closed. Consequently, during that two year period 5,507 acres
(8.6 square miles) of coastal waters were closed to shellfish
harvesting due to bacterial contamination. This brought the
total area closed to shellfishing to 25,398 acres in the
southeast region of our state and represented a 27.7% increase
over the 1980 total. These additional closures affected 17 com-
munities, 15 significantly (20 or more acres) and f or the most
part were in suburban areas nol: serviced by, municipal sewage
treatment plants.

In particular, on Cape Cod acreage has been closed in 14 new
areas and six closed areas hZLve been expanded since 1982.
Between new and expanded closures, 1,390 additional acres have
been lost to fishing. Added to 712 acres previously closed, the
.total closed area on the Cape is about 2,102 acres - a 200%
increase since 1982. A particularly ironic event was the closure
of the Pocasset River area to shellfishing in October 1984. This
.area had been classified by the state a few years ago as "an area
of critical environmental concern."

other major closures have occurred in what were once con-
sidered relatively unpolluted areas. In picturesque tidal rivers
like the Westport (630 acres) and the North and South Rivers
(2,400 acres) in Marshfield and Scituate, a total of 3,030 acres
were closed in 1984. Ten years ago, the 13 mile North River was
designated as one New England's cleanest rivers. A listing of
closures by town and region are provided in Tables 3 and 4.

In contrast, on the North Shore and in Boston Harbor the
situation is not quite as bleak in terms of new closures.
Nonetheless, the present status quo is already worrisome to those
concerned about shellfish harvest and oublic health (Fig. 6) For
many years all of Boston Harbor has been closed to the harvest of
shellfish except in certain areas classified as "res-11--ricted". In
these areas specially-licensed diggers harvest nmoderately con-
tarninated" (with coliform bacteria) soft shell clams for purifi-
cation at the state-operated purification plant in Newburyport.
The amount of productive shellfish area classified on any given
day as "restricted" is about 2,864 acres. In Boston Harbor about
1,826 productive acres are closed (prohibited) at all times.
Portions of the 2,864 acres classified as "restricted" may tem-
porarily revert to the prohibi--ed status on a daily basis
depending on sewage treatment plant malfunctions and stormwater
bypassess. There are no open areas in the Harbor. Consequently,
adjacent waters of Boston, Milton, Quincy, Hull, Braintree,
Weymouth, Hingham, and Winthrop are closed or restricted. This
totals 4,690 productive acres (7.3 square miles).

-14-

Like Boston Harbor, much of the North Shore has been closed
for many years. 'Of the 3,514 productive shellfish areas, 1,576
(44.9%) are prohibited and 514 are restricted (14.6%). Hence,
only..1,424 acres (40.5%) of productive flats are open. The only
improvement is that since 1981 some prohibited productive acres
have been reclassified as restricted: Newburyport (1981) 77
acres; Ipswich (1982) 124 acres; Gloucester (1983) 56 acres.
Still, the combined total productive shellfish flats closed (or
restricted) from Boston Harbor northward amounts to 6,781 acres
(10.6 square miles) (Table 5).

The foregoing refers to closures of productive areas; that
is, intertidal flats with commercial quantities of soft shell
clams. In addition to these areas, however, there are about
18,000 nonproductive acres closed because water quality does not
meet shellfish growing area standards. Species of value such as
blue mussels, surf clams, and ocean quahogs are found in portions
of these 18,000 acres. Taken together, the total area under a
vublic health closure on the north shore and in Boston Harbor
amounts to 24,780 acres (38.7 square miles).

Of the closed area south of Boston, about 80% (20,318 acres),
is considered productive since the shellfishery is diverse and
not confined to an intertidal soft-shell clam fishery. Quahogs,
oysters, soft-shell clams, and mussels are found in both inter-
tidal and subtidal waters while bay scallops, surf clams, and
ocean quahogs are harvested in subtidal waters.

Im'oortant commercial and recreational shellfish areas have
been closed resulting in heightened fishing pressure on remaining
open areas and adverse social, economic, and biological impacts.
The expansion of closed areas due to bacterial contamination,
especially in Southeastern Massachusetts is indicative of a
serious problem and graphically i l1lus t rates the degradation of
our coastal waters, precluding their use for commercial and
recreational fishing. Since recently increased monitoring may be
partly responsible for the increase in closures, there could be
many other areas which are contaminated but mis-classified due to
insufficient monitoring. Bacterial contamination of coastal
waters is more widespread than realized.

Pesticides

Bacterial contamination is not the only concern related to
shellfish and its harvest. Synthetic pesticides (insecticides,
fungicides, herbicides, and rodenticides) pose a direct threat to
our state's shellfish resources since they can cause direct mor-
tality or impair the survival of shellfish. Currently the major
sources of pesticides are agricultural run-off from uplands and
bogs and individual use on lawns and gardens.

The major agricultural activity in the coastal region of
Southeastern Massachusetts and on %_ C._@
@ar)e Cod is the cranberry
industry. Cranberries are grown in bogs where large amounts of
water are used for irrigation. The cranberry industry uses of

-15-

insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides to maintain and increase
'production. Many of these pesticides were developed for agri-
cultural use on dry land and carry warnings on their labels
,against application over open water or near streams, ponds or
estuaries. In addition, labels state -that many of these pestici-
des are highly toxic to fish, shellfish, crabs, and shrimp. A
few examples are Parathion, Carbaryl (Sevinol 4), Roundup, and
Difolatan.

Most major watersheds in Buzzards-Bay and on Cape Cod drain
large areas of cranberry bogs. Pesticides from bogs are carried
by these rivers and streams into the coastal waters where they
can cause acute, immediate fish and shellfish mortality and
sublethal effects such as reduced reproductive success.
Regarding the latter, pesticides are known to hinder shellfish
embryonic development and reduce laral survival.

With the cranberry industry's current success resulting from
expanded markets, the demand for and price of berries has
increased dramatically, and this has encouraged growers to
increase production in existing bogs through application of
pesticides. Furthermore, bog acreage is being expanded where
possible through reclamation of abandoned bogs or creation of new
ones.

While the characteristics of -the pesticides used, application
methods (holding water in bogs), and simple dilution minimize the
potential for significant pesticide residues reaching coastal
waters, there is evidence that not all cranberry growers use
proper application methods. For example, a recent fish kill in
'Falmouth was caused by improper pesticide application. There is
.a need for more monitoring of application methods and enforcement
of existing regulations.

Moreover, there is a need to consider charges in licensing
requirements. Currently there are no licensing requirements
(e.g., classes and tes-.ing) for bog owners who apply their own
,non-restricted pesticides, and accounts of the amount of pestici-
des applied to bogs must be derived from owners' spraying records
and cannot be verified. Bog owners applying their own restricted
pesticides (e.g., parathion) must make their records available to
the state's Pesticide Bureau on request. Still, there is poten-
for a.buse. More monitoring and enforcement is needed.

Acid Rain

A final examr)le of environmental degradation is acid rain
.Acid rain is a term for an insidious form of air pollution. The
effects are generally not immediate, but slow and cumulative. I-'-
kills by chemically altering the environment. The fog, rain, and
.snow that falls in Massachusetts are weak solutions of sulfuric,
nitric, and hydrochloric acids between 40-100 times more acidic
than "normal" rain.

The extent to which acid precipitation impacts aquatic
ecosystems is dependent on the geochemistry, geomorphology, and

_16-

hydrodynamics of the system. Due to soil r)roperties, bedrock
geology, climate patterns, and vegetation types, many areas of
the Commonwealth, especially Cape Cod and other'southeast regions
are highly sensitive to the effects of acid rain. Within Bristol
County sixty percent of the water bodies (streams, lakes, ponds,
etc.) are classified as acidified or critical, endangered, or
highly sensitive to acidic precipitation. Twenty-two percent of
all Massachusetts water bodies are either acidified or critical.

The exact magnitude of the acid rain problem on the 17 spe-
cies of diadromous fish (fish that move between fresh and salt
water) which frequent waters of the Commonwealth is unknown.
The potential for major impacts, on the spawning, survival, and
growth of these species is great, however. Species such as
river herring and shad leave their buffered, ocean environment
and enter coastal streams and rivers during times of the greatest
acidification impact. . The acidity and metal loading from winter
snow melt and heavy spring and fall rains place spawning fish in
an environment where harmful conditions are maximized and fish
life stages (weakened, spent adults, fertilized eggs, and newly
hatched larvae) are most susceptible and intolerant.
Consequently, diadromous fish that are important to the state's
commercial and recreational fisheries are susceptible t.0 the
effects of acid precipitation.

Currently, many stream, pond, and lake habitats lack histori-
cal or temporal data for determination of acidification trends.
Regardless, it is clear that these habitats are being altered. A
number of soecies have suffered significant declines in abundance
along the Atlantic coast (for example, striped bass). Acid rain
may be a major factor contributing to these declines.

HABITAT LOSS AND DEGRADATION

Massachusetts was one of the states to pioneer laws pro-
t_,ecting wetlands. The Coastal Wetland Protection Act
(Chapter 131, Section 40) was passed in 1963 and the Coastal
Wetlands Restriction Act (Chapter 130, Section 105) was enacted
in 1965. The wholesale loss or alteration of coastal habitat has
been arrested in large part as a result of these two laws.
However, there is still small-scale loss of coastal habitats.
What follows is an account of how this small-scale loss may
occurs.

There are seven interests under the Wetland Protection AcC
that must be protected. To afford this protection, local
Conservation Commissions condition or deny projects affecting
wetlands. Unfo--tunately, in some towns both project proponents
and Conservation Commissions frequently misunderstand the
existing regulatory standards and/or lack the expertise to pro-
perly assess projects' Dotent-ial effects on wetlands.
Conservation Commissions are composed of volunteers often with no
technical background or professional staff to assist them. As a
consequence, local Conservation Commissions may allow projects

-17-

resulting in small losses @of Wetl2Lnds; for example, filling along
the inland edge of the wetland that encroaches into a marsh, or
dredging an area that is on or abuts a-productive shellfish area.
Furt@ermore conservation Commissions, can allow dredging in
shellfish areas if the applicant transplants the shellfish or
purchase stock for the town. Little monitoring has been done
however, to determine survival of shellfish transplanted for
small dredging or marine construction projects. Transplants may
result in significant shellfish mortality.

The regional offices of DEQE review Conservation Commission
orders of Conditions, review appeals by aggrieved parties to
these decisions, and may themselves appeal local Order of
Conditions if DEQE believes them to be inadequate. However,
reduced staff levels and increased permitting (development) acti-
vity make it difficult for DEQE to carefully review each of the
nearly 5,000.Order of Conditions issued statewide.

Wetlands in Massachusetts can also be protected by the
Wetlands Restriction Program. The Program offers strong protec-
tion because it stipulates on the property deed what is allowed
and prohibited in wetlands areas. The Program allows the state
to set orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting dredging,
filling, removing, or otherwise altering or polluting coastal
wetlands. Once an order is established, it is recorded with the
Registry of Deeds or the Land Courit. Unfortunately, the Program
has not been pursued aggressively. Of the approximate 90,000
,acres of saltmarsh and tidal flats in this state, only about one
third have restrictions of one kind or another. More effort is
needed through deed restrictions to protect the additional 58,000
acres.

The recent resurgence of recreational boating also is contri-
buting to small-scale habitat loss. More people. owning
waterfront property want docks for their private craft.
Consequently, there are more private docks and more requests for
alterations and exoansions to existing docks in communities like
Falmouth, Bourne, and Barnstable. The r)roblem. lies not with
individual projects, but with the cumulative effect of a number
of similar projects, throughout EL tidal river or embayment. Once
one individual is allowed to build a private dock, it becomes
difficult to deny another request for a nearby dock. Each of
these projects 0ften involve dredging 200-1,000 cubic yards of
material. The net effect of this activity is a potential for
destruction of fisheries habitat resulting from dredging.
Furthermore, boat propellers often are used -to create turbulence
to re-dredge or deepen an area. Washed-out silt and sediment may
then settle on adjacent shellfish beds and cause damage or
destruction by smothering.

A review of "Notices of Intent" (NOI) and "Orders of
Conditions" (OOC) reveals how often pier construction or modifi-
cation with dredging occurs. it also provides some indication of
interest in coastal develot)ment. For example, in 1983 in the
town of Barnstable, 152 NOI were filed (as required by the

Wetlands Protection Act). Twenty-two were for coastal
construct i on/alterat ion and/or dredging. Oiders of Conditions
were issued for 19 (2 were withdrawn and one was denied). Of
these 19 projects, 7 involved dredging. In 1984, 136 NOI's were
filed; 40 were for coastal construction/alteration and/or
dredging. One request was denied and the other 39 were issued
OOC's. Thirteen involved dredging. An example of how these pro-
jects become cummulative is provided by Cotuit Bay. In 1973, 14
of the 19 approved projects were in this large estuarine system
on the south-side of Barnstable.

The gradual loss of wetlands is difficult to document. There
have been three studies to delineate the acreage of wetland types
in Massachusetts, and two of these have been time series to
determine the loss of acreage. However, these two studies have
not used the same methodology and therefore the results cannot be
compared. Little information is available concerning the amount
of saltmarsh loss due to illegal dredge and fill operations.
While it is unlikly that there are major losses, the state is
aware of small, less than one acre, illegal projects. In addi-
tion, some loss of coastal wetlands may occur from public pro-
jects, such as bridge construction, since the Legislature has
exempted these projects from the jurisdiction of the Wetlands
Protection Act.

The gradual disappearance of wetlands from man's activites
is a serious problem that cannot be ignored. In 1972, in
amending the Wetlands Protection Act, the Massachusetts
Legislature identified seven public benefits of wetlands: flood
control, storm damage prevention, public or Drivate water supply,
groundwater supply, prevention of pollution, orotection of
fisheries and protection of land containing shellfish. Recently,
an important value of wetlands was highlighted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Se--vicel9. The Service cited benefits of a South
Philadelphia 512 acre tidal marsh system into which three sewage
treatment plants discharged sewage. The marsh removed 7.7 tons
of organic matter, 4.9 tons of phosDhorus, 4.3 tons of ammonia,
and 138 pounds of nitrate daily. It also added 20 tons of oxygen
to the water. The marsh served as an effective device for water
pollution control and enhanced water quality. This is just one
important function of wet-lands.

EXCESSIVE FISHING

Excessive fishing is another serious threat to the
Commonwealth's finite fisheries resources and to the fishing
industry itself. Excessive fishing is caused by too many
fishermen and fishing vessels with high fishing power, all com-
peting for their "share" of the resources. Excessive fishing is
also caused be ineffective fisheries management stragies due to
inadequate planning and insufficient law enforcement. This leads
to reduced fish abundance, less landings, smaller and often imma-
ture individuals being landed, and economic problems for the
fishing industry.

_19-

Evidence of the adverse effects of excessive fishing and
ineffective fisheries management 'on Massachusetts' fishing
industry abound. A series of recent newspaper articles highlight
'the problem that exists, not only in Massachusetts but in all of
New England as well: "New England Fishing Poor" and "Fishing
Fleet Struggles to Stay Afloat" :Cape Cod Times, 9/84 and 5/84),
"Hard Luck, Hard Times Chip Away At Provincetown's Fishing" (Cape
Cod Business Journalp 4/84)r "riecline and debate pervade New
England groundfishery" (National Fishermen Yearbook 1985), "Sea
scallops continue to decline" (Commercial Fisheries News, 5/85).
,These headlines reflect a substantial problem.

Documentation of reduced fish abundance is available from
Massachusetts and federal fish population surveys, observations
of fishermen, and trends in landings. For exampfe, haddock total
1984 U.S. landings from Georges Bank were 30% of 1982 landings
and 50% of 1980 landings. The population (in terms of weight)
declined 75% from 1980-198320. Haddock reproduction from 1979 to
the present time has been so poor that prospects for the next few
years look very dim. The situation for Gulf of Maine haddock
also is not promising; e.g., from 1983-1984 landings dropped 50%.
Haddock is an important component of Massachusetts' fishermen's
catch.

Sea scallops, the species primarily responsible for New
Bedford's 1984 ranking as the number one port in the nation in
terms of value, have been reduced to very low levels of abun-
dance. U.S. commercial catch per effect (a good indicator of the
status of a fishery and its resource) was 22% lower in 1984 than
in 1983 (43% lower than in 1982) and was the lowest observed from
1965-1984. Landings in the traditionally most productive por-
tions of George's Bank decreased 29% from 1983 to 1984 (53% from
1982). Federal surveys indicate that on Georges Bank and in the
Mid-Atlantic area (where scallop catches were once high), scallop
abundance will remain r)oor in the near future. Additionally, in
the Gulf of Maine the commercial sea scallop fishery will become
more devendent on inshore beds in territorial waters since no
im,oortant beds of scallops in deeper offshore waters appear to
ex *:st2l.

The resource status described for haddock and scallops typi-
'Lies the situation which exists in Massachusetts now. High
value, desirable species have been fished down to low levels oil-
abundance, and there are no foreseeable prospects for improve-
ment. Consequences are: 1) a shift of effort by the highly
mobile and efficient Massachusetts fishing fleet to other species
(e.g., winter flounder and yellowt-ail flounder) thereby stressing
these species too: and, 2) a shift to inshore areas thereby
increasing competition with and worsening the economic plight of
smaller, inshore, day-trip vessels dependent on finite resources
of fishing grounds in or near Massachusetts waters. This move-
ment inshore and to other species has also created serious
conflicts between commercial draggers and fixed gear fishermen
(e.g., lobstermen) and has ignited conflicts between commercial
and recreational fisheries interests (e.g., competition for

-:20-

grounds in traditional recreational fishing or party boat fishibg
areas).

The shift to inshore fishing areas for flounders and other
species is one of the primary problems confronting our inshore
resources. In particular, winter flounder, a mainstay of
Massachusetts commercial and recreational fisheries, has shown a
constant decline in abundance of juveniles and adults in
Massachusetts territorial waters. While the exact cause for this
trend cannot be pinpointed, it is likely related to the substan-
.ially increased catch of winter flounder in recent years. An
all-time high U.S. commercial landing of winter flounder was
approximately 38.6 million pounds in 1980 and 1981. Landings
were similar in 1982 and 1983 (34 million). However, the Percen-
tage of small and "peewee" fish in landings has increased since
1.975 while the "large" market category has declined, especially
for fish caught off southern New England22
This change in size
distribution of landings is indicative of a serious resource
oroblem. Furthermore, winter flounder is no longer incidental to
the catch taken when fishing for other species. The percentage
of fishermen directing their effort towards winter flounder,
especially offshore, is increasing. Relatively high landings of
winter flounder are maintained by increasing fishing effort and
catching many small fish.

The status of other st)ecies in Massachusetts waters is docu-
mented by DMF's.semi-annual state waters survey. DMF's spring
1984 survey findings were alarming. Dramatic declines in several
species were found. For example, the lowest catch (number of
fish) in five years was recorded for cod, pollock, fluke, and
windowpane f lounder. Small scup (pre-recruits) were at, their
lowest level in f ive years. Black sea bass abundance was down
63% from 1983. American t)laice (dab) was near a five year low.

DMF's fall 1984 survey preliminary results were just as grim
and documented the continued decline in fish stocks and
discouraging prospects for future recruitment. For example,
winter flounder declined about 48% from 1983 and the previous six
year average; pre-re-cruits decreased 59% from 1983. Pre-recruit-
sized scup, butterfish, black sea bass, and longfin squid
decreased 35%, 71%, 49%, and 70%, respectively.

Fishermen's observations are a vital component o IL an
assessment of the status of any resource. Their observations
support evidence presented by the more scientific assessment pro-
cess. For examole, one New Bedford fishermen was auote@ as
saying, "It's the worst summer I've seen in 14 years o@_ fishing
for cod and flounder" (Cape Cod Times '. September 1984). An
experienced, long-time inshore fisherman found flounder fishing
in Massachusetts waters to be pitifully poor. Many Provincetown
fishermen recently considered selling out and getting out of the
fishing business due to low catches and poor prices. Some
claimed that the conditions in the fishery, particularly inshore,
were only worse prior to the implementation of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 when foreign

-21-

fleets overfished fish stocks off New England. Even after
accounting for exaggeration, it is clear that fishermen are
spending more time to catch less,. and this trend will continue
until resources off our coast recover at a time very much uncer-
t a i n'.

Excessive fishing has created a situation in which the
fishing industry is: (1) more susceptible to economic hardships
,caused by contaminated (actual or perceived) resources (e.g. ,
consumer fear/avoidance and decreased market demand); (2) put at
a comr)etitive disadvantage with other countries sharing the same
or seeking new markets; (3) more resistant to state and federal
management resource recovery strELtegies; (4) less able to make
.needed capital investments to MF-Lintain safety and longevity of
vessels; and (5) increasingly stressed by high insurance costs.
Excessive fishing also leads to increased competition between
individual fishermen and between states (e.g., New Bedford vs.
Point Judith) for slices of a "resource pie".

OTHER FISHERIES IMPEDIMENTS

In addition to obvious effects of pollution, habitat loss,
and excessive fishing on our state's fishing industry, our
industry is bei'ng adversely effected by loss of opportunities
caused by: 1) inadequate port facilities; 2) inadequate
public access; 3) Canadian comr)etition for U.S. markets;
4) -the -new U.S./Canada boundary which apportions Georges Bank
between the two countries; and 5) insurance costs.

Inadeauate facilities. To -take advantage of available resour-
ces and to have viable business,es,fishermen from rural fishing
r)orts such as those of Cape Cod and from metropolitan ports such
as Boston, must have basic fishing facilities. Minimal require-
ments include safe berthing; ample pier or bulkhead space to
offload fish and take on gear and provisions; adequate access to
and from the harbor; and if possible, storage space for fishing
gear. Support facilities such as fuel, ice. and ships
chandlers are equally important. These facilities are woefully
inadequate in many Massa@'husetts ports; e.g., Hyannis.

Our ports and harbors were originally designed and built
around fishing industries and sea-going trade. The Boston
waterfront attests to this fact with its host of 'Long ;@--'.
n'-i waterfront buildings, many of which have been converted to
expensive condominiums, motels, or office space. For example,
about one-4%--hird of Boston's lobster fleet (88 vessels) recently
was forced to relocate. With few exceptions, problems facing
almost all of the coastal fishing ports and harbors in
Massachusetts are very similar - a struggle to maintain or reha-
bilitate existing facilities.

Like Boston fishermen, Commercial fishermen in at least 10
T-)or-L..s and harbors on Massachusetts' South Shore for the past
several years have struggled to compete with interests of greater
financial resources and/or local politics. Competition with

-22-

recreational boaters for limited space also has been a source of
conflict ifi some instances. Recent events in towns such as
Scituate, Provincetown, Harwich, and Hyannis serve as examples of
fishermen's attempts to gain town funding for minimal improve-
ments to existing facilities. Most of these attempts have ended
in failure. For example, one publically funded feasibility study
and another private proposal projected the economic and tourist
benefits to Hyannis and its fishermen of minimal upgrading of
commercial fishing facilities. The Hyannis commercial waterfront
has not undergone any necessary improvements.

There is rarely any problem in appropriating money for feasi-
bility studies in Cape Cod ports to explore minimal improvement
to commercial fishing facilities. Unfortunately, planners and
developers usually consider large expansion projects rather than
address critical day-to-day needs of the fishing industry.
Despite studies documenting the year-round benefit of commercial
fishing bases to local economies, fisheries must continually
prove their worth and deal with competitors such as seasonal
tourist-related interests.

Inadeauate r)ublic access. Inadequate public access is a
serious problem for recreational fisheries, and the Droblem is
growing. Some of these problems are discussed below.

With increased use of trailered boats, there is a need for
more boat ramps, repairs to existing ramps, and parking areas.
However, in the last five years the state Public Access Board has
built only tree new saltwater ramps. Six ramps have been
repaired, and additional parking has been added at only three
sites.

Many recreational fishing sites accessible 20 years ago are
now unavailable to fishermen. Shorefront development generally
is the culprit. Many areas are now fenced off or are posted to
trespassing. Although a coastwide problem, it is most noticeable
on the south side of Cape Cod. Almost all the coastline from
Woods Hole eastward to Chatham is privately owned and public
access is severely restricted or prohibited.

Access on publicly owned land is also limited. Parking at
night at state and town beaches where surf and jetty fishing
takes place is now prohibited in many areas. Of the 13 towns
that border Buzzards Bay and Nantucket Sound, six do not allow
parking after swimming beaches close. While state parks at Plum
Island, Salisbury, Halibut Point, and Lynn do allow vehicular
access at night, most parks in southeastern Massachusetts do not
allow access. Dighton Rock, Fall River Heritage Park, Horseneck
Beach, Deme.rest Lloyd, and Fort Phoenix, are all closed at night.
South Cape Beach and Scusset Beach in Sagamore are the only
exceptions.

More and more piers and docks are being closed to the public.
For example, in Boston several piers, that at one time provided
sites for recreational fishermen, were rehabilitated with public

_23-

f unds, and condominiums were built., Now guards stand at
en@rance gates to the piers and allow only condo residents to
enter.

Recreational fishing is an important attraction of
Massachusetts. Opportunities for, recreational fishing have been
and are being lost.

Canadian Competition. The presence of Canadian fresh and fro-
zen groundfish in the New England marketplace is nothing new.
Canadian groundfish have been exported to major U.S. markets for
at least 30 years. However, over the last four or five years
Canadian imr)orts have reached unparalleled levels (Fig. 7). For
example, imported Canadian fresh cod fillets totaled 1.5 million
pounds in 1974. This figure rose to 7.9 million pounds in 1982,
slightly more than a 400% increase. During the f irst. half of
1984, imports of fresh cod fillets approached the total volume of
1982 imports (Fig. 8). This is :significant since prior to 1983,
the majority of imported groundf ish products from Canada was in
frozen form. Canada now is attempting to make further inroads
into the U.S. fresh fish markets; of domestic producers. Ninety
percent of Northeast U.S. production of groundfish is marketed in
Acresh form.

The U.S. is an extremely important market for Canadian
exports of groundfish. During 1979-1983 86% of the quantity and
89% of the value of Canadian imports of groundfish were marketed
in the U.S.23. These products compete with Massachusetts produc-
tion thereby hindering our state's efforts to expand or even
maintain existing markets. Many Massachusetts companies no
longer enjoy a domestic distribution advantage because Canada now
air freights direct to most major U.S. cities. This is a recent
Dhenomenon.

One aspect of this competition deals with ex-vessel prices or
prices paid to fishermen. Canadian ex-vessel prices in 1983 for
cod, haddock, flatfish, pollock, and sea scallops were signifi-
cant.ly lower than prices paid to U.S. fishermen (Fig. 9).
Consequently, Canadian suppliers can and do undersell U.S.
suppliers in the U.S. domestic market. For example, during a
recent International Trade Commission hearing, a Boston fish
broker stated that his New England business accounts dropped from
60% to 2% in the last 10 years due to undercutting by Canadian
fish prices. He now must air freight outside New 'England at
greatly increased cost24.

The Commonwealth's fishing industry has objected to the
unfair market competition presented by Canadian imports. Our
industry has emphasized the many forms of Canadian government
assistance (grants, loans, subsidies) to their industry. For
example, massive infusions of federal Canadian dollars during
1983 were used to restructure, or bail out, two of Canada's
largest processing companies.

Our industry was so concerned about its unfavorable com-
petitive position that it recently joined forces with other sta-

--24-

tes' industries to request the federal government to inves@igate
impacts of Canadian imports on New England. An International-
Trade Commission fact finding investigation ' was initiated in
respo-nse to this request, hearings were held, and a final report
was released.

Three of the ITC's more noteworthy conclusions were:
1) Atlantic Canada producers hold a price advantage vis-a-vis
New England U.S. producers at the ex-vessel and wholesale
levels for groundfish and scallop products;
2) Government assistance programs appear to favor foreign
producers particularly in Atlantic Canada;
3) %Canada was the principal supplier of New England ground-
fish and scallop imports during 1979-1983.

The New England fishing industry, with Massachusetts in a
leading role, has petitioned the federal government for protec-
tive relief (e.g., tariffs), and the International Trade
Commission recently voted in it's favor. The ITC concluded that
there was reasonable evidence that the Northeastern U.S. fishing
industry is suffering injury through imports of fresh groundfish
f1rom Canada. The Commerce Department's International Trade
Administration will try to determine the level of Canadian
government subsidies. The New England fishing industry is
seeking countervailing duties of 10-20% on fresh, whole, filleted
cod, haddock, pollock, hake, and flatfish. It is not yet known if
the ITA will conclude that these levels of duties are appropriate.

U.S./Canada boundarv. The recent Wor ld__Cojkr1@Jbpundary decision
giving productive George Bank fishing grounds to
example of loss of opportunity (Fig. 10) . Unless some kin@ of
reciprocal fishing rights are agreed to by both countries ,
Massachusetts and other New 'England fishermen traditionally
fishing this area for species such as haddock, scallons,'@'.,_@,
lobsters, and svordf ish will have to fish elsewhere. Presentiy,
any kind of agreement appears to be far from completion and,i,jow W@O_
implementation.

our fishermen's exclusion from the Northeast Peak and
Northern Edge of Georges Bank will deny them access to one of the
few areas showing promise for increased sea scallop abundance. A
National Marine Fisheries Service 1984 survey of scallop grounds
off New England indicated that "exceptionally large recruitment"
of the 1981-born scallops had occurred on the Peak and Edge.
Elsewhere off Massachusetts, abundance was decreasing or showing
no change.

As a result of loss of these important and promising fishing
areas, effort of larger vessels will be displaced towards shore
thereby worsening the status of the Commonwealth's inshore
resources, heightening competition with smaller vessels dependent
on those resources, and causing user group conflicts (e.g.,
lobstermen vs dragger fishermen). Vessels normally fishing
farther offshore have already been seen fishing off the eastern
side of Cape Cod and elsewhere inshore.

_25-

Insurance

The difficulty of securing insurance for fishing vessels has
been Ancreasing in recent years. Because of sinkings and large
cash* settlements received by infiured fishermen, insurance Com-
panies are either refusing to issue insurance or are signifi-
cantly increasing premiums. Consequently, fishermen are forced
to remain at the dock, pay the high premiums, or fish without
For example, this 'June approximately 80 Cape Cod
insurance.
.fishermen had their insurance cancelled. one fishermen was
quoted by the Cape Cod Times (6/28/85) as saying that his policy
,would be rewritten only if the premiums were increased by 110%.
This added expense is forcing many fishermen deeper into their
own financial crisis.

REGULATORY, MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CONCERNS

Massachusetts has established a fairly sound legal and regu-
latory framework for environmental issues. In order to f ully
.utilize it and keep pace with the increasing adverse impacts on
marine resources, several problems must be addressed: adequate
budgets and staffing must be provided; new policies must be deve-
loped; policy conflicts must 6e resolved; research and monitoring
.efforts must be enhanced and coordinated; and, general coopera-
tion among all parties must be improved. The following accounts
describe various aspects and needs of these problem areas.

Federal and state pollution abatement strategies have tradi-
tionally focussed on point sources of pollution. Recent infor-
mation has begun to demonstriLte the significant amount of
pollution contributed to water bodies by non-point sources.
Regulatory programs and policies need to respond accordingly
especially in coastal waters.

DEQE conducts sanitary surveys of shellfish growing waters
and in the process, looks for pipes, sewage outfalls, visibly
.Lailing septic systems, storm drains or culverts and t-he presence
of wild or domesticanimals and waterfowl. Potential sources of
contamination are noted. This information is provided to the
affected municipality and typically is accompanied by enforcement
actions. The coastal city or town must rectify the pollution
problem itself by, for example, the local board of health .
However, when sources are not .-Ldentif ied or when the source is
non-point in origin, such as run-off from surrounding upland, or
is of mixed origin, (human and animal), then abatement by a local
cummunity may be dif f icult. Often in situations such as these,
not only are the source or sources of pollution dif f icult to
identify, but they may extend beyond the boundaries of one or
more municipalities. Furthermore, the funding and expertise
needed to determine the exact cause of the nroblem and carry out
pollution abatement procedures 'may not exi@t locally. Problems
then worsen, and communities must seek outside help from private
consultants. Consequently, progess in rectifying these complex
and costly problems are slow to occur. There is a need for addi-

tional technical and financial assistance at the "Local and
regionall levels for identifying and implementing solutions to
non-point sources of pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Division of
Water Pollution Control (DWPC) -have primary responsibility for
pollution abatement and control from point and non-point sources.
They have focussed efforts over the years on point source
discharges and have led to.the construction and maintenance of
sewage treatment plants as mandated by the federal and state
clean Water Acts. Overall, Massachusetts has achieved signifi-
cant success at cleaning fresh water, as evidenced by the return
of Atlantic salmon to the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers. A
effort discharges is proceeding with
for point source
regard to our marine waters, but additional work is necessary to
identify and abate non-point sources along our coastal areas.

A second problem relates to insufficient staffing, lack of
specific federal standards for many toxics, and extraordinary
reporting difficulties leading to dificiencies in the state's
.oresent industry compliance monitoring system and the state's
knowledge of the sources, total volume, and composition of
wastes. EPA and local governments currently have primary respon-
sibility for implementation and enforcement of the industrial
pretreatment program. DWPC works with the EPA and communities on
funding, siting and construction of municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants and the development of local pretreatment programs.
Compliance monitoring is the responsibility of the plant operator
who must monitor the discharge from the treatment plant for
priority pollutants specified in its discharge permit. These
compliance reports are submitted monthly to EPA and DWPC. A
major drawback of this procedure is that industries discharging
into a treatment plant monitor their own discharges and repo-rt
results to treatment plant operators. Considering the possibi-
lity of industry abuse of this honor system, it would appear that
the system is flawed. Furthermore, DWPC currently has no direct
means of identifying all of the industry dischargers and con-
sequently is unable to easily identify the number one volume, and
composition of industrial discharges into state waters.

DWPC is currently negotiating with EPA for responsibily of
the permits and industrial pretreatment programs. This will
significantly increase the state's industrial data retrieval
capabilities but will also require a significant increase in per-
sonnel and data management systems. The state's existing
comoliance monitoring generally is confined to a review of the
monthly reports from treatment plant operators, periodic inspec-
tions of the treatment plants and bi-an.nual sampling and analysis
of the plants' effluents. Periodic water quality surveys of the
major river basins and some coastal systems are also done. While
this Drocedure includes monitoring of individual discharges, the
extent of monitoring is insufficient to ensure full industrial
compliance.

The complexity of managing the competing uses of marine
resources is occasionally reflected in policies that seem to be

-27-

at cross-p urposes. For example, the apparent conflict in the
Wetlands regulations concerninq barrier beaches and projects
related to enhancement of marine fisheries. Speciiically,
situations arise where salt ponds with unstable inlets begin to
close and tidal exchange is reduced or ended. Many of these
ponds have,' or could have, significant shellfish and finfish
populations if their openings to the sea were seasonally main-
tained. However, because of the regulations governing barrier
beaches and dunes',, it is difficult to get permission to maintain
tidal exchange into such ponds. This is, and will continue to be
a problem on the south side of Cape Cod, the Islands, and
Buzzards 'Bay where salt ponds E'XiSt. Resolution of this problem
will involve rewriting the regulations in a manner that balances
the public interest of fisheries enhancement and storm damage
prevention in these hazard prone areas.

while shellfish habitat, is afforded protection under the
coastal regulations of the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), pro-
hibitions on permanent alterations or destruction of this habitat
can occur only if it is mapped by DMF. Unfortunately, the
mapping of shellfish habitat cannot be routinely preformed due to
lack of funds and staff. Thus, a direct way to enhance the pro-
+Cection of shellfish habitat by utilizing existing statutory
authority cannot be effectively used.

Another problem regarding shellfish is the shared jurisdic-
tion of four state agencies in the regulation and management of
contaminated shellfish and their habitat. Briefly, DEQE classi-
fies shellfish areas, DMF regulates access to restricted areas by
openings and closures, DLE enforces closures, and DPH monitors
the marketplace and imposes closures based on threats to the
public health. This dispersion of responsibilities has created
serious problems in communication and coordination and con-
siderable confusion for communities and fishermen. The entire
issue of shellfish contamination needs to be closely examined,
and workable solutions to the problems must be implemented.

EOEA agencies are responsible for various development activi-
ties along the coast including boat ram5s, marinas, and commer-
cial fishing facilities. Because all these activities sometimes
are located in or near coastal wetlands, each may result in the
cummulative degradation of coastal habitat. Unfortunately, public
agencies which are mandated to both protect natural resources as
well as promote public access and waterfront development can act
in contradictory ways. Often, this inconsistency in actions is
attributable to a failure to adeguately consider alternatives
which reduce or eliminate impacts on coastal wetlands areas.

Implementation of the Wetland Protection Act is primarily a
municipal responsibility. Appeals of local decisions are
resolved by the regional offices of DEQE. This decentralized
administrative organization offers numerous advantages but also
can result in inconsistent decision-making. Improved policy
guidelines and training for decision-makers are needed to reduce
these difference.

-28-

illegal alterations of wetlands remains a serious problem, as
well. improved coordination between local, state, and federal
agencies is required if habitat protection programs are to be
strengthened. In addition, existing law enforcement personnel in
PEOEA agencies should be utilized to more actively protect a
broader range of environmental interest..

The Division of Marine Fisheries is the lead agency in the
Commonwealth for the management and enhancement of marine
fisheries resources and the promotion and development of commer-
cial and recreational fisheries. Concerning shellfisheries, DMF
has provided municipalities with technical assistance since 1966
and financial assistance (approximately $300,000 annually) since
1974. It promotes development of management Plans and utiliza-
tion of contaminated sheflfish through transplants for natural
depuration, propagation, and restocking. The DMF also has
managed and assisted coastal communities manage moderately con-
taminated soft-shell clam fisheries.

Since 1966, local shellfish management has improved con-
siderably due to DMF assistance, but also because cities and
towns recognize the value and importance of shellfisheries.
Coastal cities and towns collectively spent $1,202,513 on
shellfish management in 1984. However, several deficiencies
exist in the present system. Funding for the reimbursement
program has remained at the 1974 level, so local programs,
expanded in response to state funding, have been slowly eroded as
salaries, etc., increased. The expansion of local shellfish
programs has greatly increased the need for technical assistance
at the state level, and.placed additional administrative burdens
on DMF shellfish personnel. The need for technical assistance
and administration of reimbursements cannot be met adequately by
DMF under existing personnel and budget constraints. In addi-
tion, the greatly ingLreased interest private shellfish
aquaculture over the lastlaecade and the resulting need for tech-
nical assistance., surveys, and licensing at the state and local
levels has further worsened the problems created by level
funding. .I

A final problem pertains to a need for more research and con-
tinued support of existing and proposed research. The aforemen-
tioned identification of pollution-related problems have
originated primarily from research by the federal government and
private firms. Apart from the emphasis on Boston Harbor and the
Acushnet River estuary, research carried out by the Commonwealth
traditionally has been scant. Hence, investigations to identify
the existance and extent of problems in other areas of the
Commonwealth's marine environment, identification of trends
through monitoring, and major efforts to develop remedies or
means to curtail this pollution have been minimal. Fortunately
this situation is changing. more of these types of programs have
been developed or proposed. The key need now is for continued
and new support for these initiatives.

-29-

CONCLUS IONS

E,f f o r t sto address oroblems confronting Massachusetts'
fisheries, the resources on which they depend, and the environ-
ment vital for the maintenance of these resources must be acce-
lerated7and"not be allowed to abate. The major concern is that
these problems are responsible for or eventually will result in
great economic losses to the Commonwealth. For example:

Areas closed to shellfish harvest due to bacterial con-
tamination along the Massachusetts coast cause an esti-
mated annual economic loss of $12.1 million (landed
value only). This is equal to 50% of the reported 1983
landed value of $24 million for the state's inshore
shellfisheries. If economic multipliers are applied,
total loss is $55 - $79 million.

---- Reduced landings of commercially important species
equate to a loss of ii.-icome to fishermen and processors.
and an adverse impact on the state's economy. Landings
of haddock are approximately 25% of sustainable levels
of 30,000-40,000 metric tons. This respresents an
annual loss of about. $50 million.
J---- Catching and discarding small yellowtail flounder redu-
ces yield to the f ishery. In 1982, 10,300 metric tons
of yellowtail were landed from New England waters. An
additional 3,300 metric tons were discarded at sea
because fish were too small25. If these f ish had been
allowed,to reach a larger size before harvest, a minimum
of $10 million potentially would have been realized at
the producer level. Furthermore, large dollar losses
occur each year due to the harvest of small winter
flounder, sea scallops, and other species.

Seafood is an important part of the diet of
Massachusetts' citizens and tourists. A public percep-
tion that seafood is hazardous (;an result in consumers
seeking other alternatives. Restaurants and other
seafood businesses will suffer. Additionally, tourists
coming to fish in Massachusetts waters may make other
choices as to how they spend their dollars and leisure
time if they fear catching contaminated fish. Clearly,
contaminated seafood or the presumption that seafood is
contaminated can only be to the detriment of
Massachusetts' economy if people decide not to eat
seafood or choose to fish elsewhere.

Pollution, habitat loss, excessive fishing, the other
described fisheries impediments, and bureaucratic shortcomings
are major causes of this actual and potential economic loss. It
is now up to the public, the Legislature, and state agencies,
charged to protect the public's best long term interests, to
reverse the course of our continued adverse impact on
Massachusetts valuable commercial and recreational marine

-30-

,fisheries, the resources on wh-ich they depend, and the habitats
i7ital for sustenance of these resources.

qolutions will not come@ easily. Regarding concerns related
Co pollution, many of the problems and issues confronting
fisheries '%fid environmental agencies are complex, multifaceted,
and require interdisciplinary approaches to resolution. ., Many
problems are long-standing and chronic in nature and have deve-
loped over many decades. There are few "quick fix" solutions to
these chronic problems. 'For example, many of the environmental
sciences, engineering practices, and waste treatment technologies
are still evolving and developing in the area of toxics control,
dredge spoil disposal, and combined sewer overflow control. Many
solutions to problems are not yet within reach. Furthermore,
some of the known and proposed solutions (for example, dredging
New Bedford Harbor to remove PCBIsI are oftentimes complex, some-
times economically infeasible, and fraught with uncertainties.

THE NEXT STEP

This White Paper is to be discussed at public meetings along
the coast. The problems and issues raised herein will be
expanded upon and other more specific local concerns will be
incorporated. Following these meetings, recommendations for
actions and remedial steps will be developed. An important com-
ponent of this strategy will be effective communication and coor-
dination with the Legislature.

REFERENCES

(1) MacIsaac, D. and W. Hotz. 1982.
Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Management Policy
Report. Division of Marine Fisheries. 151 p.

(2) U.S. Department of Commerce. 1984a.
Current Fisheries Statistics. No. 8320. Fisheries of
the U.S. 1983.

(3) Hickey, J.M. 1984.
Comments on the Massachusetts molluscan shellfishery
with special emphasis on pollution. MS. Mass. Division
of Marine Fisheries. 40 p.

(4) U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce
1984b. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Government
0
Printing.Office, Washington, D.C.

(5) Bromberg, K. M. 1973.
Determination of the number of commercial and
recreational boats in the U.S., their use, and selected
characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Washington, D.C.

(6) Iwanowizc, R. 1977.
Summarization of Massachusetts sports fishery sta-
tistics, 1975. Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston.

(7) Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. 1977
Economic activity associated with marine recreational
fishing. National Marine Fishereis Service.
Washington, D.C.

(8) Hankin, A. L., Constantine, L. and S. Bliven. 1985
Barrier beaches, saltmarshes, and tidal flats. The
Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies and the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program p 27.

(9) Fitzgerald, M. G. 1980.
Anthropogenic influence on the sedimentary regime of an
urban estuary - Boston Harbor. Ph.D. Thesis. Mass.
Institute of Technology - Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. WHOI-78-38.

(10) Murchelano, R. A. and R. E. Wolke. 1984.
Epizootic carcinoma in winter flounder,
Pseudopleuronectes americanus, MS National Marine
Fisheries Service. 15 p.

(11) Carr, R. S., R. E. Hillman, and J. M. Neff.
The Impact of an ocean sewage outfall on winter
flounder,Pseudoplei.ironectes americanus, - Part II:
Biochemical variables and statistical associations.
Unpublished manuscript.

(12) Sindermann, C. J. 1979
Pollution associated diseases and abnormalities of fish
and shellfish: a review. Fishery Bulletin.

(13) Gould, E. 1984.
Flounders showing early signs of stress in polluted
habitats. Northeast Fisheries Center Monthly
Highlights. June.

(14) Estrella, B. T. 1984
Black gill and shell disease in American lobster
(Homarus americanus) as indicators of pollution in
Massachusetts Bay and Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. MS.
Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries.

(15) Reinisch, C. L., A. M. Charles, and A. M. Stone. 1984.
Epizootic neoplasia in soft shell clams collected from
New Bedford H"arbor. Journal of Harzardous Waste.
1:73-81.

(16) Yeasted, J. G. 1984.
Feasibility study 6f remedial action alternatives.
Acushnet River Estuary above Coggeshall Bridge. New
Bedford site. Bristol County, MA NUS Corporation.
Pittsburgh, PA.

(17) Gilbert, T. R., A. M. Clay, and C. A. Karp. 1976.
Distribution of polluted materials in Massachusetts
Bay. New England Aquarium Corporation, Central Wharf,
Boston, MA.

(18) Boehm, P.D., W. Steinhauer, and J. Brown. 1984
Final report on organic biogeochemistry studies in the
northeast U.S. marine environment. Part 1: The state
of organic pollution (PCB, PAH, coprostanol) con-
tamination of the Boston Harbor-Massachusetts Bay-Cape
Cod Bay system: sediments and biota. Batelle/New
England Marine Research Laboratory, Duxbury. 61 p.

(19) Tiner, R. W. 1984.
Wetlands of the U.S.: current status and recent
trends. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. 59 p. -

(20) Overholtz, W. J., S. H. Clark, and D. Y. White. 1983
A review of the status of the Georges Bank and Gulf of
.Maine haddock stocks for 1983. NMFS, NEFC, Woods Hole
Lab. Ref. Doc. No. 83-23, 31 p.

(21) Serchuk, F. 1984.
Sea scallops more abundant in some areas. Northeast
Fisheries Center Monthly Highlights. October.

(22) Anderson, E. M. 1984.
Status of the fishing resources off the Northeastern
United States for 1983. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMPS-F/NEC-29

(23) Newmanr D. E.F R. L. Corey Jr., R. M- Steller, T. Planton,
and C. Mehta. 1984. Conditions of competition
affecting the northeastern U.S. groundfish and scallop
industries in selected markets. Report to President on
,Idvestigation No. 332-173, under Section 332 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. U.S. International
Trade Commission Publication 1622.

(24) Am aral, E. H. 1984.
The truth about Canadian fishing subsidies; their
impact on local fishermen and cod. Cape Cod Business
Journal. p. 3-7.

(@5) McBride, M. M. and S. H. Clark. 1983.
Assessment status of'yellowtail flounder (Limanda
ferruginea) stocks off the northeast United States.
1983. NMFS, NEFC, Woods Hole Lab. Ref.,Doc. No. 83-32,
23 p.

-:@: . ..............

A4assachusetts
Bay

L monwea/,
ine Of the CO'T@'
..........

- - - - - - - - - - -
.. .......

R.L
C PIEQ Co
x-i: @�@xl.,--'-ffls.-*�
01
Say

...............................
............. ...
..........
. .... .... .... ......

Y..
----------- --

1 450 ket Sound
Nantuc
@o @*:
61

0 3 6
Seve n l6wes 4s late waters, subject to federal choiienge

Figure 1. Massachusetts territorial waters and commercially
important ports and', harborsW

KEY
Sewage discharged directly
into coastal waters

lessthan4MGD

15-41 M G D

100-400 MGD

0.0
MGD million gallons per day)

Sewage discharged into or
near an estuary

less than 4 MGD

12.5

Disease in Lobster
0.0 TOP
qW 50.0 % Shell Disease
7-0 .2 BO OM
TT
0/0 Black Gill Disease

;7-

0
49)

t.@ T
E.4
50.0

33.
50.

22.

Figure 2. Percent incidence of two diseases in lobster 1983 and
1984. Locations of major sewage outfalls.

3 Clarks
Point 3 Rocky
Wilbur Point
Rickersons Point
Point

1. Waters closed to all fishing activities
2. Waters closed to the taking of lobsters, eels,
flounders, scup, and tautog
3. Waters closed to lobstering only
Mishaurn Point

Figure 3 Areas subject to PCB closures.

45'

40'

:TAIRHAVEN
AREAA

NEW 9EIJFORD:. .

WASKEILICKET
BAY
AREA 2

CLARK
Py
-2-5
%ILBUR
t Kr_TS3N PT.
PT 7.6
2.9

AREA- 3 6.0

2.9

3.6
r -.1
BUZZARD'S BAY

7.0

71* 55, 50, .45,

Figure 4. Spring 1984 PCB concentrations (ppm) at 11 sites in
Area 3.

2EQfORO 0 2Cd)6

C
F

C
C If A A 11 F e F
A F R E R
A
A C@SHvrr
A
C C F
IE E

FOR PCB CONCZNTR--T:0Ns IN rMLS AREA,
SEH' . ENLARGED PLAN, FIGURE

K EY TO

A - BELOW 2

8 - 2 TO 0

C - 10 To 50

D - X -,o I=
C FAIRHAVEhl E - SOC TO 1-00

F - ABOV-1 500
UNDEFINEO
0 4000 ecoo,
C C7
=Lt IN FEET,
NEW =-=FC-RD
c

C
Le
c

A
SCONIMCUT
NECK

C
A

Irl
B II--%
A

C
A

13 c C C

Source: NUS Corporation

Figure 5. Sediment PCB concentrations in Acushnet River estuary
F
Ar E

and New Bedford Harbor.

S"L-alus of North Shore & Boston Harbor
she I Iffsh areas (P,-(Dd u C I I've) I n 1924

North Shore
3,510 acres

Boston Harbor
4,691 acres

... ... ... . .

.................

..........

C losed
Restricted 00pe,

Figure 6.

350-

300- E.

250'z

0.
Cl) "p,

5@t
200-
Zzi-A
0

z
0
150-

100-

50-

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

YEAR

Source: National Marine Fisneries service

LEGEND IMPORTS LANDINGS

Figure 7. New England cod landings vs. U.S. imports from Canada 1974-1983
(live weight).

30-

25-
/ 0
20-

0
15
z
0

10.

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

MONTH

Legend 01982 1983 01984

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service

Ficrure 8. Fresh cod fillets monthly cumulative NeW England imports
from Canada 1982-198A.

USCod
US Haddock - - - - - - Canadian Flaills
.. . . . . Canadian Polloc:

CA
nadian Cod
Canadian I fiddock USFIatlish
USPollock
/* /*
ko
C
/*

0 m.4
H :3m
ti
0
0 P,w
0 0) La
PV m
(D
x
10
.4 :3 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .
Pi (D rt
(1) n@ -------------- --------
(1) (1) I-A --------------- ---------- ------------
(D M ........... .......
0) FA
0 0 0 4 -
0 11
01 11-
Feh U., A- n. i Aug. S--P. Ocj. rv. Dec. jai-,. F.b. Mar. Apr. May jun. jul.
P M(D 1983 19a3
0 En P)
U) 0
rt
0(D

F-I 0 0 8-
w Pi
0:) in US Scallops
. . . . .. Canadian Scallops

QJ 6-
P.,
0
0
VV rt

f-h t% 4-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

rt,0
f-h
P.
En
2-

0- Sour

jan. 1' ell. mav Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
1983

LEGEND
U.S. Requested Boundary* NEW BRUNSWICK
Canadian Requested Boundary
World Court -Established Boundary

MAINE NOVA SCOTIA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

MASSACHUSETTS

Norrhem Eage

RHODE Norrheast Peak
ISLAND

14-1 01@

K
C,eorges Ban

Figure 10. U.S./Canadian/World Court Established Boundary.

1. Coun-,y acreage of -,"I-ree major nazural resources.

Barrier Beaches Salt Marshes Tidal Flat's

Barnstable County 8,723.1 15,201.0 17,808.6
Bristol County 1,008.1 3,748.0 3,130.5
Dukes County 2,135.7 1,C27.7 1,256.7
Essex county 2,955.4 IE,026.9 6,067.7
Middlesex County 0.0 0.0 0.0
NanTucket- Cou=y 1,841.7 E57.3 136.9
Norfolk Coun-,y 95.7 1,056.7 2,334.6
Plvmo,j-,h County 1,qn.8 7,400.0 9,369.9
Suffolk Coun-,y 194.5 967.0 1.367.3

18,880.0 48,104.6 4-1,514.2

Table 2. ME-c- publica-1-IN cvnee sewage works
open or e:stuar-;_ne envircnmen--s.

Flow RE-6.e
of -ralllons/dav)

Boston, Deer Island 343
BosTon, Nut Island
Cha-.ham 0 . LL4
Da---,r,.outh 2.9
FairhEven 2.07
Fall River 30.9
hull 3.07
Gloucester is.0
Ipswich 1.8
Lynn 1415.6
Manchester 0.67
Mlarion 0.34
Marshfield 2.1
New Bedford 30.0
Newbu--vDort 2 . 6
Plvmouth 1.75
Rockr)ort C.8
Sc. -cua-
, e
Somerset 1.6
South 1--sex L,11.0
27
Swam,Dsco-,T

;aun.-,cn

Table 3.- Waters closed to she)-tfishing i-a 1.984 by town and
type of clusure south of Boston Harbor (acreage)

Sec. 74 Sec. 74A 1) Seasonal Total Sec. 74 Sec. 74A Scaqonn I- To La L-

ISLANDS BUZZARDS BAY

C I It I III;, I r k .10.7 0 1-0.7 Acuslinet 58.6 0 0 58.6
I" d p I r t ow n 0 0 198.3 198.3 Berkley 586.2 0 0 586.2
Cay flead 0 0 0 0 Da I- tniou Lh 1,631.7 0 0 1,631.7
C' os I 101 d 89.8 0 8t.9 171.7 D1 gh toll 210.2 0 0 210.2
Mantiteket 1-05.3 0 0 105.3 F a ii r Im v e n 2,611.2 0 0 2,6!1.2
O;I1C Blul rs 0 6.0 48.2 118.2 Fall River 955.4 0 0 95 ') . /I
"I., I sbi 11. Y 0 0 82.7 82.7 Freetown 2,389.1 0 0 2,3199.1
West Tishijuy 0 0 Max lon 0 13.1 175.9 189.0
fla t ta po ]- Se t t 75.1 53.5 0 128.6
205.8 6.0 lilt . 1, 616.9 New Bedford 4,168.2 0 0 /1 1168.2
Somerset 2,339.8 0 0 2,339.8
CAN" COD Swansea 8614.9 43.7 0 908.6
Warehant 7 At .4 0 0 74. 14
Ha rns ta b I e 125.7 100.2 0 285.9 Westport 994.8 0 0 9914.8
Boll I-Ile 566.9 31.2.6 10.0 889.5
11 rews t e r 12.8 0 0 12.8 16,959.6 110.3 175.9 17,254.8
Chm thaill 1.23.0 0 0 123.0
Delild s 0 0 0 0 CANAL, NORTH
Elast-lial" 0 0 0 0
Fa 1, mot I L I 1 99.6 68.9 74.1 239.9 Cohasset 88.4 60.1 0 1 /1R. 5
flarw I ch 5.5 . 8 20.5 0 76.3 DuXbury 362.5 20.0 0 392.5
Maslipee 72.6 0 0 72.6 Kingston 167.3 0 0 167.1
Or I emis 1/1.3 0 0 111.3 Marslif feld 1, 196.8 401.8 0 1.,599.6
11 rov.i neplown 71 .5 0 15t.6 223A Pt Yniou th 2,009.6 75.8 0 2,085.4
Sandwich 0 38.0 50.0 88.0 Scituate 546.3 497.6 0 1,043.9
0 0
We 1. 1. r I eet 20.0 0 50. 1 70.1 4,370.9 1,055.3 0 5,426.2
Yatillouth 7.0 0 0 7.0

1,1(19.2 600.2 333J 2,102.5 Chapter 130 M.G.L. Delproinallon of conlamlimled mroas; rhollr% of Plopattmpril of
Public llealill In lot- to delet minallon

1) Chapter 130 M.G.L. Power to defl9finte 5hellfish areas as containina loci In event
of emergency; tirpor I: notice to local atithol ities,

Table 4 WaTers closed -co zy region (acres).

Sec 7"a Sec 74Ab Seasonal o t a I

Martha's Vinevard
Nantucke-.

i980 174.3 6. 0 43E.6 K6.9
2.962 E9.0 2, 63:3. 8 L, 3E. 6 2,139.4
205.8 15.0 Uil.i E16.9

Cane Cod

i980 39-1.5 189.4 13-1.4 712.3
1982 572.2. 157 . 3 161.5 910.9
1984 1,169.2 600.2 333 . i 2,102.5

Buzzards Bav

i980 14,514.9 598. i 27.2 15,2uO.2
2.962 @,365.0 11,479.8 27. 2 14,872.0
1984 16,959.6 111.0.3 1755.9 1-7,245.8

Cal ,:)e ;Cod

2.980 80.6 2.40.9 0 5
2.9S2 2.8C5-1 2 101 . 0 0 Z,005.1
198a, 413:70.9 3 0 5,426.2

o-, al s

i980 18,3EI.3 934.4 59=.") -1s,290.9
19E2 14,47:1-9 645.3 21,92S.4
2.984 22,705.5 1,77L. 8 9 2 2. -7

aCha=Ter 120 Determ-natien of contaminated areas; du-its of Deparrme= of Tutlic liep-'-.h -,rior 'to
dete-minaiian

Cha;ter 2 3C, M. G. L. - Fo-er to designate shellf4 sh areas as cetzaminated -n eve=-, cf emergency; report;
notice Tc local a-ithoritieS

Tal@le Sta-,u-,@ cf produC-4 he'@!';sh areas 19S4 (acres)
-ve s

-NORTH SHORZ

Productive Oi)en Closed Restricted

Salisbury 206.4 0 206.4 0
14ewbur,,-Dort 524.8 0 LL47.7 77.11
Ne;,ibury 253.8 139.1 i09.6 S.i
Rowlev 47.7 47.7 0 0
IDswich 633.9 453.6 0 180.3
Essex 340.7 340.7 0 0
Gloucester 608.2 442.8 37.7 -127.7
ManchesTer 16.7 0 16.7 0
Beverly 67.8 0 E7.8 0
Danvers 98.9 0 98.9 0
Salem 218.3 0 181.2 37.1
Marblehead 54.9 0 0.3 54.6
Nahan-, 42.5 0 42.5 0
Lvnn 98.3 0 98.3 0
Saugus 122' . 1 0 0
Revere 17E.0 0 142.6 322.4-

2.514.0 ',423.9 1,575.8 52.4.3

BOSTON HAFBOR

Productive or)er. clcsee Res-.ricted

Bcs-,cn 0 11,00-1.9 251.1
M.-*L-',-,On 52.3 0 5S.3 0
QUI'Mcy -1,23E.0 0 5511.2 68E.8
H
I :,:,: 0
U1.1 1256.0 0 22.1
Brai-.tree 42..0 0 0 42.0
380.9 0 54.9 '226-0
344.6 0 1-2.0 '-:32.6
Hingham
n-- O'D 0 2.2 E-. 1

4,E90.5 0 1,625.4 21864.0

1 .4-22 . 0- 3.402.3 2.2-6.3

Gran6 Tc7a! E,780.6

I -

F-
I
i

3 6668 14102 5694