Proposed clam study shot down by Eastport committee, council

Despite significant audience applause and apparent support for a soft‑shell clam research study proposed by Downeast Institute (DEI) Executive Director Brian Beal at the August 14 Eastport City Council meeting, at a September 4 special council meeting held to discuss infrastructure projects, the council voted 3‑2 to reject the study. Councillors Jeanne Peacock and Hailley Bradbury were in favor, while Scott Emery, Peter Small and Rocky Archer were opposed.
At the September 4 meeting were shellfish committee Chair Ricky Cox and committee member Dale Maddox. Bobby Cummings, the third committee member, was not present. Councillor Emery is the council liaison for the committee. Peacock stated that she wished Beal had been present to defend his study and organization given some of the statements by Cox and Maddox. Council President Archer, who on occasion has quickly shut down rancorous discussion, did not do so during the discussion on the study.
Beal had proposed that Eastport be part of a statewide two‑year clam research study that would use wood boxes with a sandwich of screening to trap clams during the early phase of their life cycle. Each box is approximately 1'x2'x4', with 16 boxes used in two study areas per site. "The box is a predator exclusion box. It gives us an idea truly of what comes from the water column," Beal explained at the August 14 meeting. The study could take place on closed flats, thus having no impact on the harvests of local clammers. The study is meant to include student, teacher and public participation in the gathering of data, and in a bigger picture of educational outreach it would be set up to encourage classrooms and students around the state to share information using information technology.
Eight communities so far have said agreed to allow the study, Beal says. "I've got teachers lined up all over the state who want to work with us. It's really exciting, the work. It's meant to enhance learning from Pre‑K to 12th grade." The grant funding isn't procured yet, but if it doesn't come through, the positive response has galvanized Beal to find the funding no matter what. Eastport's decision means that he will find another community Downeast to participate. "I feel badly that kids [in the Eastport school system] won't have the experience."
Shellfish committee explains opposition
At the September 4 meeting, Cox said, "If it were going to enhance our clamming I'd say go for it, but it's not." He added, "These guys want a foot in the door. The next thing you know there'll be more. ... They all want in because there's nowhere else to dig in the winter." This year Eastport issued 11 commercial licenses, 10 resident and one non‑resident. Recreational licenses are encouraged for personal harvesting as well.
The harvested poundage and dollar value for Eastport's flats aren't released to the public, in part because of Department of Marine Resources (DMR) confidentiality rules. When fewer than three dealers purchase clams from a municipal district, those numbers are not available to the public, explains Heidi Leighton, DMR area biologist. In DMR figures outlining reported municipal landings from 2007‑2018, Eastport is not listed, whereas Lubec, Perry, Pembroke, Whiting and more areas Downeast are.
Eastport, with about 850 acres in flats, according to Beal, would be considered quite a resource by many communities. However, Cox and Maddox stressed that opening the flats to more diggers in the past and in other neighboring areas has ended badly, with the flats decimated and taking years to recover. Management practices help to ensure that flats remain healthy, and Cox felt that the techniques the committee had been using did not need any additional research methods to be successful.
During the meeting, Cox said in an aside to an audience member that Beal would take the collected clam spat back to the institute and sell it for thousands of dollars. Maddox joined in, saying, "This is not a study. This is a way for Paul [Brian] Beal to get another grant." When Peacock noted that Beal was born and raised in Washington County, that as children they'd grown up as neighbors and she felt the institute's work was of benefit, Maddox replied of DEI, "It does absolutely nothing." An audience member jumped in, stating that the shellfish committee members were the ones who knew best, unlike large entities from away that come in to take what they want.
Councillor Bradbury responded by noting that, in her understanding of Beal's presentation, "he didn't express anything about selling." She suggested that the conversation needed to be fact‑based. "It's a study he's trying to conduct on sustainable clamming."
Cox stated that if Beal and the council could guarantee that none of the clam spat "leaves this town, then I'm all for it." However, he failed to give his blessing to the council vote when Councillor Peacock formulated a motion meeting his criteria with the research taking place at Shead High School, with no spat to leave Eastport and a report due in three months followed by regular reporting.

Beal addresses committee's claims
In an interview, Beal expresses his disappointment with the decision. "I am not trying to hurt anybody or make trouble. I'm really trying to get people to talk about the resource." He adds, "The 3‑2 vote represents 60% of the people [of Eastport] wouldn't want this project to happen on their flats. Is that the case?"
He says that he was startled by Councillor Emery's negative stance at the August 11 council meeting, speaking of the shellfish committee's opposition to the study, when Beal had not yet presented it to the council. "How would you know enough about the project when I hadn't presented yet? How could they have made a decision?" The aim of the project, he says, is in part to highlight to the public the importance of the clamming industry and problems being faced with predators and other issues.
Addressing some of the statements made by Cox and Maddox, Beal says that it would be more than possible to keep the spat within the city. He would need enough students and volunteers to help count and measure representative samples. "If the town wants to retain the clams, we can put them back."
Cox had stated that the flats closed by the state because of pollution could not have anyone do anything on them, when Peacock had suggested using that type of flat for studies. However, Leighton explains, "If Brian gets a special research permit for the project from the [DMR] commissioner's office, then yes, he would be able to do the project in a state pollution closure."
Stewarding the public resource
The flats are a public resource, Beal explains. The public resource status goes all the way back to a 1649 colonial ordinance that allows the intertidal area to be used for navigation, fowling and fishing, which includes clamming and worming, even when the intertidal area is privately owned. "Coastal towns and the state are charged with its stewardship. Both now co-manage the public resource of soft‑shell clams. Most communities are very interested in stewarding soft‑shell clams." Municipalities and their shellfish committees report annually to the DMR on ordinance‑mandated activities, including the management of the flats.
Many communities would consider Eastport's clam flat acreage a significant asset for income‑producing jobs, suggests Beal. However, because there is no way for the public to measure how many clams are actually being harvested by Eastport's 11 commercial diggers because of the DMR confidentiality rule, it's difficult for the public to determine if the flats could handle an expansion of licensed diggers.
In theory and practice, the stewardship of the flats by the municipality and the state is as a public, that is state, resource. The DMR confidentiality rule issue has come up in other communities, Leighton explains, but even so, it can still be problematic to tie landings to sales numbers because the DMR doesn't collect information on diggers selling directly to restaurants and individuals. Leighton says that Eastport has very few full‑time licensed diggers.
Even with the shortcomings of its landings information, DMR numbers that are collected paint a picture of what an industry's potential can hold with good management. Freeport, with 800 acres, had a reported 2018 DMR harvest of almost $1 million. For the same year, Lubec is reported to have sold $430,077 worth of clams to dealers; Jonesport, $407,500; Jonesboro, $136,000; Pembroke, $289,000; Perry, $70,000; and Whiting, $4,700.
Leighton says of the city's decision to not support Beal's study, "DMR would prefer to see towns working together," sharing resources to enhance the health and productivity of the flats. She adds, "It's unfortunate because the research is beneficial to everyone."