Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program

Home    BBNEP Info    Town Information    Pollution    Living Resources    Watershed Info    Enjoy Buzzards Bay    Technical Info    Special Topics

Home  >   Management Solutions  >   New Management Plan   >   Shellfish Action Plan

Draft Action Plan 2:
Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources

About the new Buzzards Bay CCMP Action Plans
The Buzzards Bay NEP is now updating our 1992 landmark Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to reflect the great progress achieved since that plan was finalized. It will include new goals, objectives, and recommendations to meet the environmental needs for Buzzards Bay and its surrounding watershed throughout the next decade. This new document will also meet the requirements for a Massachusetts Watershed Action Plan, which will enable new funding opportunities through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

On this page is a draft action plan from the updated Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. The text on this page is a public draft provided to invite comment and discussion of the subject by residents and stakeholders. It may contain goals and recommendations that have not yet been endorsed or approved by the Buzzards Bay Steering Committee. The views or information contained here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the US Environmental Protection Agency.

We want your feedback on this action plan. First, read the complete Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources Action Plan (1/5/10 draft, pdf file). At the bottom of this page is a link for you to provide comments on each goal, objective and recommendation contained in this Action Plan. Based on your feedback, we will update and revise all the action plans in the new CCMP.

Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources

Goals

Goal 2.1. Increase availability of shellfish resources for recreational and commercial use.

Goal 2.2. Restore habitat to increase the abundance and distribution of shellfish resources.

Objectives

Objective 2.1. To keep open all shellfish resource areas now open, and to open priority resource areas that are closed.

Objective 2.2. To increase the ability of DMF to carry out the sanitary survey program and provide technical assistance to municipalities to better manage shellfish resources.

Objective 2.3. To increase the capacity and commitment of municipalities to remediate pollution sources identified in sanitary surveys and other studies.

Objective 2.4. To expand the use of the conditionally approved classification for shellfish areas.

Objective 2.5. To restore shellfish habitat by eliminating pollutant sources and disturbances contributing to their loss.

Objective 2.6. Expand programs to propagate, seed, and relay shellfish.

Recommendations

Recommendation 2.1 DMF will encourage Buzzards Bay towns to work cooperatively to maintain or expand conditionally approved shellfish areas.

Explanation: Expansion of conditionally approved areas generally requires local action to eliminate pollution discharges. Municipal collaboration with DMF can help prioritize pollution sources most likely to result in openings of new shellfish areas.
Priority: Medium. Responsible Agent(s): DMF and municipalities. Commitments: DMF has not yet committed to this task. Legislation required: None. Estimated Costs: Several FTE staff commitments from state and participating towns. Potential Funding: State Legislature if required, local. Implementation Strategy: Identify most problematic discharges then develop solutions through board collaboration and engineering services. Measuring success: Acres of permanently closed beds converted to seasonal or conditional openings. Schedule: Possible goal to reduce permanently closed acres reduced to 5,000 within five years.
Comments: None.

Recommendation 2.2 The Commonwealth will increase funding to carry out the Shellfish Sanitation and Shellfish Management Programs more effectively and provide funds for seeding programs in each town.

Explanation: Declines in funding have hindered efforts to open closed areas and continue seeding efforts.
Priority: Medium. Responsible Agent(s): Legislature and support of EEA Commitments: EEA has not committed to this task Measuring success: Dollars awarded Schedule: beginning immediately and as funds allow. Commitments: EEA has not yet committed to this task Estimated Costs: $100,000 annually
Comments: dependent on State legislature and administration support. Municipalities

Recommendation 2.3 When needed, towns will assist DMF with their water quality monitoring program to meet FDA required testing frequency.

Explanation: If the state lacks manpower to meet sanitary survey monitoring requirements, town personnel could assist state shellfish biologists .
Priority: Low (just when needed). Responsible Agent(s): Shellfish Wardens or Health DMF. Commitments: Municipalities have not yet committed to this task Legislation required: None. Estimated Costs: Portion of FTE commitment. Potential Funding: Additional Local Funding if required. Implementation strategy: DMF must contact municipalities as needed. Measuring success: Number of towns participating. Schedule: As needed.
Comments: Local assistance will free up DMF staff to assist town's in other ways. Local participation also raises awareness of problems.

Recommendation 2.4 Boards of Health will take enforcement action to eliminate illicit and illegal discharges identified by DMF's sanitary surveys, municipal Phase II plans, and DEP and other studies of pathogen and stormwater load assessments.

Explanation: Continued review of DMF sanitary surveys, and exchange and coordination of information between municipal health agents, Phase II stormwater coordinators, shellfish officers, and conservation agents will help municipalities remove remaining illicit pollution discharges.
Priority: Medium. Responsible Agent(s): Municipal BOHs should be the lead for enforcement action. Commitments: The towns have not committed to this task. Legislation required: None. Estimated Costs: 10 FTE watershed wide. Potential Funding: Department budgets or town meeting. Implementation Strategy: This work is best coordinated through the town's Phase II stormwater permit program. Measuring success: Number of illicit and illegal discharges eliminated. Number of problem stormwater discharges treated. Towns should have annual accounting of accomplishments. Schedule: beginning immediately and as funds allow.
Comments: Dependent on Town Meeting and Selectmen support.

Recommendation 2.5 DPWs should remediate town-owned stormwater discharges for sediments to meet the state stormwater policy standard, and fecal coliforms to meet the Buzzards Bay bacterial TMDL whenever major roadwork is conducted or a wetlands permit is required where discharges are to impaired (category 5 303(d) listed) waters.

Explanation: The current Total Suspended Solids (TSS) standard of treatment for stormwater discharges is not enough to open shellfish beds. DPW's should always treat to remove bacteria for any discharge to impaired shellfish resource areas.
Priority: Medium. Responsible Agent(s): Municipal DPWs. Commitments: The towns have not committed to this task. Legislation required: None. Estimated Costs: Millions, see Stormwater Action plan. Potential Funding: Department budgets or town meeting, state and federal grants, stormwater utilities. Implementation Strategy: This work is best coordinated through the town's Phase II stormwater permit program. Measuring success: Number of illicit and illegal discharges eliminated. Number of problem stormwater discharges to impaired waters treated. Schedule: beginning immediately and as funds allow.
Comments: Dependent on Town Meeting and Selectmen support. This recommendation is also in the Stormwater Management Action Plan.

Recommendation 2.6 Town of Bourne adopt criteria, standards, and limit the extent of areas allowed for hydraulic clamming.

Explanation: The Town of Bourne is the only municipality in Buzzards Bay that allows hydraulic dredging of shellfish with embayments, and as close as 6 ft to the MLW line. Because of hydraulic harvesting has a potential impact to water transparency and the redistribution and deposition of fine silty sediments within a harbor may adversely affect quahog settlement and affect other species, the town should prohibit this practice in sensitive areas.
Priority: Medium. Responsible Agent(s): Selectmen or Town Meeting. Commitments: The towns have not committed to this task. Legislation required: None. Estimated Costs: Nil. Potential Funding: NA. Implementation Strategy: Town Meeting or Selectmen action. Measuring success: Adoption of law or regulation. Schedule: Within two years.
Comments: Dependent on Town Meeting and Selectmen support.

Recommendation 2.7 Town's should provide staff to assist in shellfish seeding programs

Explanation: Towns often participate with DMF on this when manpower is needed.
Priority: Low. Responsible Agent(s): Harbor Master or Town Meeting Measuring success: Towns provide needed staff or temporary support Legislation required: None. Estimated Costs: Internal department budgets, possibly hire part time or temporary services needed
Comments: Dependent on Town Meeting and Selectmen support. Potential Funding: NAs. Implementation Strategy: Town Meeting or Selectmen action. Measuring success: Adoption of law or regulation. Schedule: Within two years.
Comments: None.

To fully understand the basis of these goals and recommendations, please read the complete Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources Action Plan (1/5/10 draft, pdf file).

Feedback Form

---