DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on the River Herring Data Collection Standardization Workshop

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on the River Herring Data Collection Standardization Workshop Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Report on the River Herring Data Collection Standardization Workshop March 2016 Vision: Sustainably Managing Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Attendees Dr. Cindy Breau, Canada Department of Lindsey Aubart, North Carolina Division of Fisheries and Oceans Marine Fisheries Dr. Jamie Gibson, Canada Department of Jeremy McCargo, North Carolina Wildlife Fisheries and Oceans Resources Commission Oliver Cox, Maine Department of Marine Bill Post, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (Webinar) Resources Mike Dionne, New Hampshire Department of Reid Hyle, Florida Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Kevin Sullivan, New Hampshire Department of Dr. Kiersten Curti, NOAA/Northeast Fisheries Fish and Wildlife Science Center Ben Gahagan, Massachusetts Division of Walter (Tripp) Boltin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Marine Fisheries Service/Southeast Region Phil Edwards, Rhode Island Department of Dr. Michael Bailey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Environmental Management Service/Northeast Region Steve Gephard, Connecticut Department of Ken Sprankle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Energy and Environmental Protection Service/Northeast Region David Ellis, Connecticut Department of Energy Kirby Rootes‐Murdy, Atlantic States Marine and Environmental Protection Fisheries Commission Kathy Hattala, New York State Department of Dr. Katie Drew, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Environmental Conservation Commission Robert Adams, New York State Department of Jeff Kipp, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Environmental Conservation Commission Heather Corbett, New Jersey Division of Fish Diane Borggaard, NOAA/Greater Atlantic and Wildlife Regional Fisheries Office Daryl Pierce, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Theo Willis, Passamaquoddy Tribe Commission Johnny Moore, Delaware Division of Fish and Members of the Public Wildlife Asha Ajmani, Passamaquoddy Tribe Genine Lipkey, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Glenn Chamberlain, NOAA/Northeast Fisheries Science Center Alan Weaver, Virginia Department of Inland Fisheries Kristen Gustafson, NOAA/Northeast Fisheries Science Center Dr. Pat McGrath, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Webinar) Albert Spells, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ii Acknowledgements This report is the result of a workshop on Data Collection Standardization held November 18‐20, 2015 in Linthicum Heights, MD (The Sheraton at BWI). The meeting was convened and organized by ASMFC Staff: Kirby Rootes‐Murdy, Jeff Kipp, and Dr. Katie Drew. Workshop funding was provided by NOAA Fisheries. Public feedback at the meeting was solicited and appreciated. Special thanks are extended to the participants whose commitment of time and effort helped make the meeting a success. Cover photo courtesy of Jerry Prezioso, NOAA Fisheries. iii Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Fishery‐Independent Survey Design ........................................................................................................... 2 Run Counts .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Visual Run Counts ................................................................................................................................ 3 Electronic Run Counts .......................................................................................................................... 4 Video Run Counts ................................................................................................................................ 4 Hydroacoustic Run Counts .................................................................................................................. 5 Other Run Count .................................................................................................................................. 5 Traditional Fishery‐Independent Surveys ............................................................................................... 6 Electrofishing ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Seines ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Gillnets ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Trawls ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Push Nets ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Tagging Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Biological Sampling ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Biological Sampling Design ...................................................................................................................... 9 Population Identification ......................................................................................................................... 9 Genetic Samples .................................................................................................................................. 9 Species Identification ............................................................................................................................ 10 Length .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Weight ................................................................................................................................................... 10 Age Structure ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Sex ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Maturity ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Spawning Condition .............................................................................................................................. 11 Sample Storage ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 12 iv Appendix A. Surveys by Gear Type and Agency Contact Information ...................................................... 14 Appendix B. Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans River Herring Monitoring Programs ............ 18 Appendix C. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department River Herring Monitoring Programs ............. 25 Appendix D. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries River Herring Monitoring Programs .............. 29 Appendix E. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management River Herring Monitoring Programs ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Connecticut River River Herring Monitoring Program .......... 42 Appendix G. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection River Herring Monitoring Programs ................................................................................................................................ 46 Appendix H. New York State Department of Environmental River Herring Monitoring Programs ......... 49 Appendix I. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife River Herring Monitoring Programs ..................... 53 Appendix J. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission River Herring Monitoring Programs .................... 56 Appendix K. Delaware River Fish and Wildlife Management Co‐operative River Herring Monitoring Programs ................................................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix L. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife River Herring Monitoring Programs ........................ 65 Appendix M. Maryland Department of Natural Resources River Herring Monitoring Programs ............ 68 Appendix N. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries River Herring Monitoring Programs ... 79 Appendix O. Virginia Institute of Marine Science River Herring Monitoring Programs ........................... 93 Appendix P. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries River Herring Monitoring Programs ............... 96 Appendix Q. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission River Herring Monitoring Programs ........ 99 Appendix S. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission River Herring Monitoring Programs . 106 Appendix T. Guidelines for genetics sample collection .......................................................................... 112 Appendix U. Meeting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Important Northeast Fish Provides Bait & Forage Needs
    Species Profile: Atlantic Herring Atlantic Herring Clupea harengus Important Northeast Fish Provides Bait & Forage Needs Introduction Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) is a member of the clupeid family, which are typically small, schooling marine fishes, such as menhaden, shad, and sardines. This species is also known as sea herring because it spends its entire life cycle in the ASMFC Management Area: ME - NJ ocean (unlike the anadromous river herring). Atlantic herring inhabits the coastal Common Names: Sea herring, sar- waters of the United States from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina through Labra- dine, herring dor, Canada, and also off the coasts of Europe. Herring form the base of the food web as a forage fish for marine mammals, seabirds, and many fish throughout the Interesting Facts: * Atlantic sea herring are often Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. They are an effective and affordable bait source for confused with river herring. Sea lobster, blue crab, and tuna fishermen, and were historically sold by fish canneries herring spend their entire life at as sardines. Whale watching/ecotourism and salt retailers are indirectly dependent sea, while river herring migrate on a steady supply of herring because whales migrate inshore in pursuit of schooling annually to freshwater to spawn. * Atlantic and Pacific herring have herring and fishermen buy salt to preserve their fish. Overseas, frozen and salted been found to produce a burst herring are a valued commodity. of sound, called a Fast Repetitive Tick, at night. Its believed that The Commission’s Atlantic Herring Section manages herring in state waters (0 - 3 this high-pitched click-like sound miles from shore), while the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is used by herring to signal their location, thereby making it easier regulates the stock in federal waters (3 - 200 miles from shore).
    [Show full text]
  • Alewives and Blueback Herring Juila Beaty University of Maine
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Maine Sea Grant Publications Maine Sea Grant 2014 Fisheries Then: Alewives and Blueback Herring Juila Beaty University of Maine Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/seagrant_pub Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Repository Citation Beaty, Juila, "Fisheries Then: Alewives and Blueback Herring" (2014). Maine Sea Grant Publications. 71. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/seagrant_pub/71 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Sea Grant Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. (http://www.downeastfisheriestrail.org) Alewives and Blueback Herring Fisheries Then: Alewives and Blueback Herring (i.e. River Herring) By Julia Beaty and Natalie Springuel Reviewed by Chris Bartlett, Dan Kircheis The term “river herring” collectively refers to two species: Alosa pseudoharengus, commonly known as alewife, and the closely related Alosa aestivalis, commonly known as blueback herring, or simply bluebacks. Records dating back to the early nineteenth century indicate that fishermen could tell the difference between alewives and bluebacks, which look very similar; however, historically they have been harvested together with little regard to the differences between the two (Collette and Klein­MacPhee 2002). Alewives are the more common of the two species in most rivers in Maine (Collette and Klien­ MacPhee 2002). Fishermen in Maine often use the word “alewife” to refer to both alewives and bluebacks. Both alewives and bluebacks are anadromous fish, meaning that they are born in fresh water, but spend the majority of their adult lives at sea.
    [Show full text]
  • New Hampshire Fish and Game Department NEW HAMPSHIRE SALTWATER FISHING 2021 DIGEST
    New Hampshire Fish and Game Department NEW HAMPSHIRE SALTWATER FISHING 2021 DIGEST Fish the Coast! The Official New Hampshire Digest of Regulations fishnh.com A Legacy of High Performance NEW! SARAGOSA SW REEL Infinity Drive Technology increases this reel’s winding torque under load compared to its TERAMAR XX SW RODS predecessor to give anglers a distinct advantage Shimano’s Spiral X and Hi-Power X technologies enhance power over hard fighting game fish. Combined with transmission through the rod blank for increased casting distance a battle-tested rigid HAGANE Body that won’t and lifting power as well as reduced blank twist during tough flex under immense loads and the battles. Whether fishing for stripers in the Northeast, reds in the HAGANE Gear to create eternally smooth reeling. Southeast or Southwest, or salmon on the West Coast, there is a Cross Carbon drag and X-Protect offer high-level Teramar XX rod to fit your fishing needs. water resistance to create long-lasting durability. No matter whether anglers are fishing inshore or offshore, jigging for bottom fish or casting baits at tailing fish, they can count on — just like they always have — the Saragosa SW to stay smooth no matter the conditions and perform when TREVALA PX RODS needed most. The bar is raised for saltwater spinning reels. Incorporates a redesigned rod blank with Shimano’s Hi-Power X reinforcing technology to increase overall strength and control while also enhancing rod twist resistance when jigging or fighting a fish. Save the date! FISHINGFEST® 2021 ~ April 1-4 Quality components for enhanced performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Herring
    Species Profile: Atlantic Herring New Stock Assessment Could Lead to Species Snapshot Management Changes Introduction Atlantic Herring Until recently, the Atlantic herring stock had been considered healthy and fully rebuilt from a Clupea harengus collapsed stock in the 1980s. However, the results of the 2018 benchmark stock assessment have raised new concerns about the Atlantic herring resource. While the stock remains not Management Unit: Maine through New Jersey overfished and was not experiencing overfishing in the terminal year (2017) of the assess- ment, the assessment did show very low levels of recruitment over the past five years. These Common Names: Sea herring, sardine, sild, results will likely have management implications for the species as regulators work to prevent common herring, Labrador herring, sperling overfishing from occurring in the coming years. Diminished stock size and, in turn, lowered catch limits will also impact fisheries that rely on Atlantic herring as an important source of Interesting Facts: bait, such as American lobster, blue crab, tuna, and striped bass fisheries. • Atlantic herring and other clupeid fish have exceptional hearing. They can detect sound Life History frequencies up to 40 kilohertz, beyond the Atlantic sea herring is one of 200 species in the clupeid family, which includes menhaden, range of most fish. This allows schooling fish shad, and river herring. It inhabits coastal waters of the U.S. from Cape Hatteras, North Caro- to communicate while avoiding detection by lina through Labrador, Canada, and off the coast of Europe. Herring form the base of the food predatory fish. web as a forage species for many animals, from starfish and whelk to economically import- • While most members of the clupeid family are ant fish such as haddock, cod, and flounder.
    [Show full text]
  • LIS Impervious Surface Final Report
    PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Mapping and Monitoring Changes in Impervious Surfaces in the Long Island Sound Watershed March 2006 James D. Hurd, Research Associate Daniel L. Civco, Principal Investigator Sandy Prisloe, Co-Investigator Chester Arnold, Co-Investigator Center for Land use Education And Research (CLEAR) Department of Natural Resources Management & Engineering College of Agriculture and Natural Resources The University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-4087 Table of Contents Introduction . 4 Study Area and Data . 5 Land Cover Classification . 7 Sub-pixel Classification Overview . 8 Initial Sub-pixel Classification . 10 Post-classification Processing . 10 Validation . 13 Reseults and Discussion. 15 References . 18 Appendix A: Per Pixel Comparison of Planimetric and Estimated Percent Impervious Surfaces .. 21 Appendix B: Comparison of Planimetric and Estimated Percent Impervious Surfaces Summarized Over Grid Cells of Various Sizes. 34 Appendix C: Summary of Impervious Surfaces per Sub-regional Watershed . 46 Appendix D: Table of Deliverables . 56 i List of Figures Figure 1. Hydrologic impact of urbanization flowchart . 5 Figure 2. Study area . 6 Figure 3. Examples of land cover for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 . 8 Figure 4. IMAGINE Sub-pixel Classifier process . 9 Figure 5. Examples of raw impervious surface estimates for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 11 Figure 6. Examples of final impervious surface estimates for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 14 Figure A-1. 1990 West Hartford validation data (area 1) and difference graph . 22 Figure A-2. 1990 West Hartford validation data (area 2) and difference graph . 23 Figure A-3. 1995 Marlborough validation data and difference graph . 24 Figure A-4. 1995 Waterford validation data (area 1) and difference graph .
    [Show full text]
  • CT DEEP 2018 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 1 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus Punctatus) 4/26/2018 Brown Trout (Salmo Trutta)
    CT DEEP 2018 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 1 Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 4/26/2018 Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) YOU CAN FIND US DIRECTLY ON FACEBOOK. This page features a variety of information on fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching in Connecticut. The address is www.facebook.com/CTFishandWildlife. INLAND REPORT OPENING DAY – We had a short blast of warm air temperatures that gave anglers a comfortable Opening Day, however, water temperatures were very cold, possibly contributing to difficult catching for many. Fisheries staff were out at eight of the twelve Trout Parks were stocked on Opening Day and the many kids Connecticut’s Trout & Salmon Stamp: Connecticut present enjoyed helping us stock. Catch percentage has implemented a Trout and Salmon Stamp. 100% was from 60 to 80% at a number of the Trout Parks of the revenue from your investment comes to the including Stratton Brook, Black Rock, Kent Falls, DEEP Bureau of Natural Resources for Fisheries Chatfield Hollow, Valley Falls Park, Southford Falls, and programs. Great Hollow. Many other locations, both river and The Trout and Salmon Stamp is $5 for anyone age 18 stream as well as lake and pond did not give up their or older, including those 65 or older, and $3 for CT recently stocked trout so easily. residents age 16-17. The Stamp is required for the harvest (keeping) of Over 300,000 trout were stocked before Opening Day trout or salmon. into nearly 100 lakes and ponds and over 120 rivers The Stamp is required to FISH in one of these places: and streams located throughout Connecticut.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019
    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Hydrilla Control Project Five-Year Management Plan
    Connecticut River Hydrilla Control Project Five-Year Management Plan Salmon Cove, Haddam/East Haddam, CT (M. Burns, RiverCOG) Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel April 2020 1 Executive Summary The federally listed noxious weed Hydrilla verticillata (monoecious biotype) was first discovered in the Connecticut River in 2016 near Keeney Cove and Glastonbury. In 2017 it was found in Enfield, Wethersfield Cove, and Crow Point Cove and the Mattabesset River. Surveys conducted in 2018-2019 indicate that the that infestation extends from Agawam, Massachusetts southward to Old Lyme, Connecticut within five miles of Long Island Sound. in scattered coves, creeks, and shoreline areas. Without a concerted multi-state control effort Vermont and New Hampshire may also be at risk of hydrilla infestation in their portion of the Connecticut River via transient boaters navigating upstream through the river system, or by visiting multiple launch sites along the river, or by the natural flow of water currents. Hydrilla is a high-priority species for prevention and early detection efforts for many New England states because once it becomes established it alters native habitats, impacts fisheries, prohibits water recreation, affects local economies and is extremely difficult and expensive to remove. Hydrilla is also found in Coventry Lake, several small private ponds, and Silvermine River in Connecticut and ten other waterbodies in Massachusetts (Coachlace Pond, Hobomock Pond, Long Pond, Lower Woburn Street Pond, Magoun Pond, Oakman Pond, Mossy Pond, Mystic
    [Show full text]
  • Precision-Built High Performance Big Game Fishing Tackle Committed To
    Precision-Built High Performance Big Game Fishing Tackle Committed To Preserving Our Marine Resources • High Performance Big Game Fishing Tackle • A Tradition Of Excellence • A Spirit Of Innovation • A Commitment To Marine Conservation THE AFTCO STORY It all originated with J. C. Axelson, an avid angler with a state of the art machine shop in the basement of his double-lot, bay-front home on Lido Island in Newport Beach, California. In 1958, having not found a roller guide and top on the market that met his standards for quality and manufacturing excellence, J. C. established the Axelson Fishing Tackle Company. In his endeavor, he spared no expense in developing legendary AFTCO® roller guides and tops in that now famous basement. Over time, Axelson’s company became known simply as AFTCO® and our logo became widely recognized AFTCO founder J. C. Axelson was an avid fisherman around the big-game fishing world. Increasingly, people began (above left), but he was even more passionate about his ® work in developing now legendary AFTCO roller guides. to assume that AFTCO meant the “American Fishing Tackle Company”, so rather than fight that belief, the company officially dropped the “Axelson” name and adopted American Fishing Tackle Company® as the official meaning of AFTCO®. In 1973 Milt and Peggie Shedd purchased AFTCO® and a new company evolved with a concern for both the fishing customer and marine resources. Milt was not only a successful Milt Shedd gets an affectionate greeting from Shamu at businessman and legendary Southern California angler and Sea World. Co-founder and Board Chairman of Sea World, Inc., and founder of the Hubbs-Sea World captain, but also a noted marine conservationist.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs
    little fish BIG IMPACT Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs A report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force The Lenfest Ocean Program invests in scientific research on the environmental, economic, and social impacts of fishing, fisheries management, and aquaculture. Supported research projects result in peer-reviewed publications in leading scientific journals. The Program works with the scientists to ensure that research results are delivered effectively to decision makers and the public, who can take action based on the findings. The program was established in 2004 by the Lenfest Foundation and is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts (www.lenfestocean.org, Twitter handle: @LenfestOcean). The Institute for Ocean Conservation Science (IOCS) is part of the Stony Brook University School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. It is dedicated to advancing ocean conservation through science. IOCS conducts world-class scientific research that increases knowledge about critical threats to oceans and their inhabitants, provides the foundation for smarter ocean policy, and establishes new frameworks for improved ocean conservation. Suggested citation: Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. Cover photo illustration: shoal of forage fish (center), surrounded by (clockwise from top), humpback whale, Cape gannet, Steller sea lions, Atlantic puffins, sardines and black-legged kittiwake. Credits Cover (center) and title page: © Jason Pickering/SeaPics.com Banner, pages ii–1: © Brandon Cole Design: Janin/Cliff Design Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for the Mattabesset River Regional Basin
    A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for the Mattabesset River Regional Basin Final – May 19, 2005 This document has been established pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act JANE K. STAHL 6/1/05 ___________________________ ________ Jane Stahl, Deputy Commissioner Date Air, Waste & Water Programs YVONNE BOLTON 5/31/05 __________________________ ________ Yvonne Bolton, Chief Date Bureau of Water Management STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3020 Gina McCarthy, Commissioner TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Priority Ranking 2 Description of Waterbody 3 Pollutant of Concern and Pollutant Sources 3 Applicable Surface Water Quality Standards 4 Numeric Water Quality Target 5 Total Maximum Daily Load Waste Load Allocation to Point Sources Load Allocation to Nonpoint Sources Margin of Safety 6 Seasonal Analysis 7 TMDL Implementation Plan 7 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 8 Reasonable Assurance 10 Provisions for Revising the TMDL 10 Public Participation 11 References 11 TABLES Table 1 The status of impairment for each of the subject waterbodies based on the 2004 List Table 2 Potential sources of bacteria for each of the subject waterbodies Table 3 Applicable indicator bacteria criteria for the subject waterbodies Table 4 Summary of the TMDL analysis FIGURES Figure 1 Basin Location Map Figure 2 Designated MS4 Areas Map Figure 3 Basin Land Use and TMDL Percent Reductions Map APPENDICIES Appendix A Site Specific Information and TMDL Calculations Appendix B Technical Support Document for the Cumulative Distribution Function Method Final E.coli TMDL i Mattabesset River Regional Basin May 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis was completed for indicator bacteria in the Mattabesset River Regional Basin (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River American Shad Management Plan
    CONNECTICUT RIVER AMERICAN SHAD MANAGEMENT PLAN Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission 103 East Plumtree Road Sunderland, Massachusetts 01375 Management Plan Approved June 9, 2017 Addendum on Fish Passage Performance Approved February 28, 2020 INTRODUCTION The Connecticut River population of American Shad has been cooperatively managed by the basin state and federal fishery agencies since 1967. In that year the “Policy Committee for Fishery Management of the Connecticut River Basin” was formed in response to the passage of the 1965 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (Public Law 89-304) by the U.S. Congress. This committee was replaced by the more formal “Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission” (CRASC), which was created by act of Congress (P.L. 98-138) in 1983 (Gephard and McMenemy 2004) and coordinates restoration and management activities with American Shad (http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/). The CRASC American Shad Management Plan had a stated objective of 1.5 to 2.0 million fish entering the river mouth annually (CRASC 1992). Diverse legislative authorities for the basin state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, including formal agreements to restore and manage American Shad, have been approved over time and are listed in Appendix A. The following Plan updates the existing CRASC Management Plan for American Shad in the Connecticut River Basin (1992), in order to reflect current restoration and management priorities and new information. An overview of American Shad life history and biology is provided in Appendix B. Annual estimates of adult returns to the river mouth for the period 1966-2015 have ranged from 226,000 to 1,628,000, with an annual mean of 638,504 fish (Appendix C).
    [Show full text]