Bates College SCARAB

Community Engaged Research Reports Environmental Studies

12-12-2013 Alewives on the Little Androscoggin: An Intersection of Politics and Ecology Jordan J. Buetow

Ashleen O'Brien

Benjamin James McCormack

Hallie Grossman

Follow this and additional works at: http://scarab.bates.edu/community_engaged_research

Recommended Citation Buetow, Jordan J.; O'Brien, Ashleen; McCormack, Benjamin James; and Grossman, Hallie, "Alewives on the Little Androscoggin: An Intersection of Politics and Ecology" (2013). Community Engaged Research Reports. 5. http://scarab.bates.edu/community_engaged_research/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies at SCARAB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Community Engaged Research Reports by an authorized administrator of SCARAB. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Alewives on the Little Androscoggin: An Intersection of Politics and Ecology

Jordan Buetow, Ashleen O’Brien, Ben McCormack, Hallie Grossman ENVR 417 12/12/13

1 Executive Summary In cooperation with the Androscoggin River Alliance (ARA) our capstone group undertook an assignment to work towards restoring alewives to the Little Androscoggin watershed. In 1995, due to the concern of negative impacts to the economically important bass fishery, a state law was passed that banned the stocking of alewives in Hogan and Whitney Ponds. In 2019 the first two dams on the Little Androscoggin River, Lower and Upper Barker Dams, will be up for relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and fish passages will likely be installed to allow Atlantic salmon to migrate upstream. Since alewives will be able to pass the dams as well and enter the Little Androscoggin watershed, it is necessary to overturn the anti-alewife legislation to prevent any conflict. To aid the ARA in these efforts various research regarding the issue was conducted. The legislative history of the 1995 alewife bill and a similar anti-alewife case on the St. Croix River were gathered from the Maine State Law and Legislative Library. Detailed research was also done on the ecological, economic, and historical values of alewives through review of primary literature, and interviews with biologists and fisheries specialists to be summarized in an education pamphlet for distribution in Oxford County. Landowner information for plots on Hogan and Whitney Ponds was gathered so pamphlets could be mailed to the owners. Research revealed that alewives have no negative impact on water quality or bass fisheries. They are actually beneficial to water quality and critical species to the food chain and many ecosystem functions, such as restoring the depleted marine groundfish fisheries. They also are a historically important fish to the state of maine and have the potential to create a profitable industry if restored. In the legislative histories for the Hogan and Whitney Pond case of 1995 and St. Croix River case of 2013, the 1995 case showed what ideas and evidence the ARA must combat to overturn the legislation. The 2013 case provided scientific evidence that shows alewives do not harm the ecosystem or bass fisheries. The finding of this research suggest that if planned well, there should be enough scientific and historical data to change the minds of alewife antagonists. Looking ahead, the ARA plans to spend the next two years focusing on educating elected officials and the public about alewives as much as possible so that overturning the legislation can be as fast and possible and be met with minimal resistance. Some more scientific research to investigate is the effects of a fully restored population of alewives on zooplankton communities, which are responsible for the uptake of phosphorus in lakes. This is important information to know before making claims that alewives will reduce phosphorus loading and algal blooms in the Little Androscoggin watershed. Eventually, a bill will be proposed that will hopefully overturn the current legislation, and when fish ladders are installed in the dams on the Little Androscoggin River the watershed will once again support a robust population of alewives whose benefits will be widespread through the ecosystem and community.

2 Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………...2

Separate Lists of Tables and Figures……………………………………………………………………..3

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 4

Methodological Approach…………………………………………………………………………………… 6

Results and Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………7

Outcomes and Implications………………………………………………………………………………...20

Future Steps………………………………………………………………………………………………...…….21

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………..26

Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………………………………...26

Detailed Methods ………………………………………………………………………………………………36

Graphs ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………40

Map …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42

Informational Brochure …………………………………………………………………………………..…43

Legislative Summaries ……………………………………………………………………………………… 44

Landowner Database ……………..…………………………………………………………………….……55

Separate List of Tables and Figures (Appendix C)

Figure 1. Land use of properties surrounding Hogan and Whitney Ponds…………….40

Figure 2. State residency of plot owners…………………………………………………………….40

Figure 3. Full time residents on property ………………………………………………………….41

Figure 4. Map of Hogan and Whitney Pond Landowners. ……………………………………42

3 Introduction

In 2019 two of the lower dams on the Little Androscoggin River, upper and lower Barker Dams, are up for relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC). Part of the FERC relicensing project will likely include discussion of fish passage, because neither of these hydroelectric dams currently allow for fish passage. On the federal level, fish passage will likely be required at these dams because Atlantic salmon, which are listed under the Endangered Species

Act, have been tracked spending significant amounts of time at the base of Lower

Barker Dam (Ward, personal communication 12/10/13). This behavior is evidence of a desire for the salmon to move upstream and demands the installation of a fish passage by the Endangered Species Act (Ward, personal communication 12/10/13).

The problem is that the waters of the Little Androscoggin are connected to the waters of Hogan, Whitney, and Tripp Ponds in Oxford, Maine. In 1995, state legislation was passed which banned the stocking of alewives in these ponds and their adjacent waters, but a fish passage would allow all types of fish to swim up the

Little Androscoggin. This poses a conflict of state and federal laws.

To combat this problem, the Androscoggin River Alliance (ARA) hopes to overturn the Maine state legislation disallowing reintroduction of alewives in Hogan and Whitney ponds, with the goal of preventing conflicting laws from impeding a swift process of dam relicensing and fish passageway construction. This is part of the ARA’s larger goal of ecosystem restoration in the Androscoggin. It is important to eliminate this legislative conflict and to engage the community in a discussion about the restoration of alewives for three main reasons. The first is ecological - as a

4 buffer species, a net exporter of phosphorous, and a source of food for larger species

(Townsend 2013), alewives are an integral piece of restoring a functioning

Androscoggin ecosystem to the same level that existed before the large-scale development of mills. The restoration of the ecosystem is in the best interest of the river itself, the people living around the river, and the functioning of the connected marine ecosystem. The second reason is economic, as alewives have the potential to be a small though profitable industry for Androscoggin fishermen (Brown et al.

2010). The third has to do with engaging the community in environmental issues that impact them. By providing the resources to educate community members and take a political stance on the restoration of alewives, our work with the ARA will have the effect of creating a dialogue among stakeholders about the possibilities of native species restoration as a whole. This will encourage individuals to consider their relationship to their environment (specifically their river) in a political and ecological sense.

As a group, we undertook a series of research and product-oriented tasks to address the goal of educating landowners about the importance of alewives in the

Androscoggin watershed. In order to educate these landowners, we undertook three main projects: gathering and summarizing legislative documents (see appendix F) creating a landowner database (see appendix G), and creating educational materials for landowners (see appendix E). The final goal for the dissemination of this information is to overturn the law which bans alewives from Hogan and Whitney ponds, which carries vast implications that touch on the education of the community, ecosystem health, and economic increase.

5 Methodological Approach

To create the database for landowner information around Hogan and

Whitney Ponds we had to take a couple trips to the Oxford town office. There we began by finding the maps of Hogan and Whitney Ponds with the property lots labeled. Each waterfront property parcel was looked up in a book and data was recorded for map number, lot number, landowner name, property address, land use, owner’s primary mailing address, date of last transfer, assessed land value, total property value, and taxes paid on the property. All data was compiled in an Excel spreadsheet. To analyze the data, graphs were made looking at what percentage of people live on the land year-round, as well what proportion of plot owners were from Oxford, in-state, or out-of-state (see appendix C). Lastly, using ArcGIS a map was made that coded each plot by its land use (see appendix D). These were created as means for both our group and Neil to better understand the landowner data we collected.

To create extensive and accurate informational materials, we had two main methodological processes. First, we contacted local alewife specialists Claire

Enterline, Naomi Schalit, Michael Brown, and John Lichter. We developed interview questions for these individuals. We asked a broad set of questions to all, then asked questions specific to each individuals’ speciality. Second, we researched primary literature on the importance of alewives in three main categories: ecological, economic, and historical. We then synthesized this information to extract the most important points to include in our informational pamphlet. The informational materials are a combination of information we gathered from Enterline and from

6 our independent research. To supplement both our knowledge and the brochure, we attended two educational talks at Bates, one by Steve Shepard, about FERC and the relicensing process, and one by Colin Apse and Dave Owen about the ecology, politics, and legality behind dam removal.

To create our legislative histories, we contacted the Maine State Law and

Legislative Reference Library, who emailed and snail mailed the legislation and testimony to us. We examined the documents and created summary materials for each set of law. In our summaries, we state the language of the bill then list the testifiers, a brief summary of the testimony, and, if possible, whether they are an opponent or proponent of the bill in question.

Results and Discussion

The pamphlet we created is intended to serve as informational material for the landowners of the plots around Hogan and Whitney Ponds as well as other Oxford community members. Those who own land surrounding the ponds that the legislation concerns will not only be able to testify for the bill to reverse the anti- alewife legislation is put forward, but are also the people most likely to have a vested interest in the pond ecosystems. This may prompt them to create a more organized community of stakeholders who want to act to achieve alewife restoration. If the landowner resides on his/her plot, he/she may be motivated to take political action on behalf of alewife restoration because they likely place some value on the health of the environment they live around, as they interact with it on a daily basis. For those who own vacant plots, they too likely have some interest in the

7 health of the ponds because elements of surrounding environment can have an effect on the real-estate value of the land. To appeal to these two groups, we designed the pamphlet with the goal of illustrating why alewives are important specifically in freshwater ponds and in the Androscoggin.

Deciding on what content to include in the pamphlet was the part of the process that took the most thought. A crucial decision we had to make was whether or not to include information about the legislation that exists banning alewives from

Hogan and Whitney or the ARA’s plans to bring forward a bill to overturn the current law. Including this information would have the benefit of helping readers to understand the status of the fish population in their area, and provide them with more incentive and a more defined course of action if they desire to become involved in restoration efforts. However, it would also mean that we would have less space to provide factual information about alewives and that we may run the risk of overloading readers with small sections with different types of information.

Moreover, Neil expressed concern that including information about the legislation may alert bass fisherman and other oppositional groups to the intention of the ARA.

If the ARA decides to send out the informational materials with legislative information before their bill has been proposed, this may give opposition groups a chance to organize to fight the ARA’s efforts. Because of Neil’s concerns and our desire to keep the content of the pamphlet cohesive and accessible, we decided not to include information about the legislation.

We decided to convey the importance of alewives through three interrelated sections; their historical, political, and economic value to the area. In each of these

8 sections, we had to summarize a larger body of research we had examined and condense it into a small blurb. For the section on the economic value of alewives, we wanted to emphasize the specific profit that could be derived from a restored alewife population. These numbers could be important for community members interested in the fishing industry, or fishermen looking to expand their business, or those who are simply economically oriented. We also sought to convey that alewife restoration has positive economic benefits for other fisheries, as alewives are both a buffer species and prey for larger fish species. This is an additional piece of data that may appeal to fishermen beyond those with a desire to become directly involved with alewives, as well as consumers and those who care about the pond ecosystems.

For the section on ecological value, we wanted to stress that alewives are not only valuable in and of themselves, but that they contribute to the survival and prosperity of other species. We also wanted to make mention of recent studies that have been conducted on the St. Croix river so that readers are clear about the fact that alewives do not have pernicious effects on smallmouth bass. The landowners that have owned their plots since the time of the original legislation may be aware of the reservations expressed by both the bass and trout fishing communities in Maine.

The St. Croix study contains important supporting evidence about the lack of validity of the bass and trout communities claims. Additionally, we provided information about how alewives can have positive impacts on water quality by exporting phosphorous and thereby decreasing the potential for algal bloom, as algae problems are common in many freshwater bodies in Maine.

9 We included a section about the historical role alewives have played in the

Androscoggin and in the state of Maine in order to convey to readers how different peoples have interacted with the species, and thus the different potentials for their human use. We also wanted to illustrate how the decline of alewives in Maine has been a direct result of human activity, and thus hope to inspire community members to consider how river and freshwater development is impacting their local ecosystem, economy, and culture. We included a visual timeline of events relating to decline of the alewife in Maine and to their restoration in the Androscoggin watershed. We did this in part because our research on effective brochure-making revealed that readers are attracted to visual representations of information and can absorb information better when it is organized graphically.

In addition to sections about the different ways alewives are valuable, we also had small blurbs informing readers about what alewives are, how citizens can participate in restoration efforts, and where to find more in-depth information about the issue. We included the blurb defining alewives in order to make the pamphlet accessible to all readers. The suggestions for further reading section will provide opportunities for those seeking a more in-depth or scientific understanding of alewives. We included the section about how community members can help to encourage political action for alewife restoration, and to provide outlets for them to do so.

The database that we created will provide the Androscoggin River Alliance

(ARA) with information about the people who own residences or land on the shore of Hogan and Whitney Pond. These owners are an immediate group of stakeholders

10 in the situation and therefore it would be helpful for the ARA to be able to contact them about their plans for alewife restoration. The ARA would like to have community support with their efforts and engaging those who live or own property on the ponds is the first step to this approach. The database holds information that includes the name, pond residence address, and primary residence of the owners of land on the ponds. We also gathered information about the last date of sale which will allow the ARA to see if the current owners of the plots of land were proprietors during the time that the legislation which banned alewives occurred. In addition, we also gathered data about the property taxes for the plots of land which signifies how much each parcel is worth and may provide insight as to the economic status of the owner.

With the information gathered from the database we were able to create a map using GIS as well as varying graphs that summarize different aspects of the collected data. The map focuses on the area of Oxford, Maine that includes both

Hogan and Whitney Ponds and is layered with the plots of land that are established in the town. The map only displays the plots of land that border the waterfront. Each plot is color coded depending on three different categories of land status: vacant, primary residency, or non-primary residency. This will help synthesize the information from the database into a visual demonstration that will be easier to comprehend and hopefully be more effective for the ARA compared to looking at raw data. This visual aid will allow the ARA to see exactly what the use of each plot of land is. It will be a helpful guide to see which plots of land are home to primary residences as these inhabitants are the most likely to take an interest in the

11 happenings of the Ponds and Oxford Maine. The map will also show the last name of the plot owner which will enable the ARA to efficiently match up the alphabetical database information with the visual plots of land and determine information like plot address and tax data.

The graphs will also be an effective visual tool for the ARA as it summarizes various aspects of the database information and provides demographic information about the landowners on Hogan and Whitney Ponds. The graphs synthesize the information in an efficient manner that allows the ARA to comprehend the data in a concrete manner. For instance, it is significant that 80% of plot owners do not actually live on the land for this would seem to imply that they may not have as much of a stake in a possible alewife restoration process (Figure 3). However, when the graph displaying the state residency of the plot owners is taken into context, one can see that only about 30% of the plot owners actually live out of state, with 70% of the owners living outside of Oxford in the state of Maine (Figure 2). Since the legislature banning alewife reintroduction into the ponds in Oxford is state legislature and most of the proprietors live in Maine, this means that these owners will presumably have a higher potential to desire to get involved in the process and will be possibly still be able to come to meetings or discussions about the issue. Another significant finding is the graph that exhibits information about land use on the pond plots. It shows that about 80% of the plots are residential compared to just 15% that are vacant (Figure 1). Since the majority of the plots on the lake exist for human use this will make it easier for the ARA to contact and engage the residents about their goals for alewife reintroduction in the future.

12 In order to better understand why stocking alewives is banned in Hogan,

Whitney, and Tripp Ponds, we looked at the legislative history for this law, passed in

1997 by the 118th Maine State Legislature. We hoped this would provide us with critical information about who supported and opposed the law and for what reasons. This is important because it crafts a jumping off point for Neil to make further headway in the project by connecting with these lawmakers. By collecting the legislative history, we were able to procure the names of those who supported and opposed the law. We also gathered testimony from the hearing of the bill so we are able to understand individual reasons for and against the proposed legislation.

The piece of law is called “An Act to Prohibit the Stocking of Alewives in

Tripp Lake,” presented by Representative Underwood of Oxford, and Cosponsored by Senator Hall of Piscataquis, Senator Bennett of Oxford, and Representatives

Snowe- Mello of Poland. There were eleven testifiers at the legislative meeting on

March 12, 1997. Seven testified in favor of the bill, while three testified against it.

The Department of Marine Resources (DMR) provides a narrative about alewives in the Androscoggin River, and concludes that “based on current knowledge of alewife stocking densities and follow up surveys of effects on freshwater fisheries, there was no impact from the introduction of six alewives per acre on freshwater fisheries and/or water quality (LD 993 1997: 7). The study conducted by Kircheis et al. in 2004 on Lake George arrives at the same conclusion: that alewives in these areas create no negative impact on water quality. Instead, they discern that total phosphorous levels were lower in the years that alewives were stocked, which is a benefit to the water quality.

13 A fishery research biologist from Maine, Frederick Kircheis, testified that based on his research. He admits that bass fishing may have been less productive in the previous years in Hogan and Whitney Ponds, but he suggests that there are other factors at play beside the stocking of alewives, such as the limited habitat in the ponds and the increased fishing (LD 993:17). His testimony is presumably reliable because it is based in scientific fact.

A paper titled “Predation by Alewives in Lake Trout Fry in Lake Ontario: Role of an Exotic Species in Preventing Restoration of a Native Species” is presented as testimony (LD 993 1997: 24). This is rather irrelevant evidence to provide because alewives are native to the Androscoggin river,whereas they are not in Lake Ontario, making this study not overly applicable due to the geographic disparities. The results of the study found that alewife predation may have caused “substantial mortality to lake trout fry from spawning areas in Lake Ontario where alewives were abundant” as well as in other areas in Lakes Michigan and Huron (LD 993

1997: 24). Two subsequent articles detail vitamin deficiencies that cause salmon and trout reproductive failure because their diets are made up of alewives. Once again, these studies are from other areas, including Lake Ontario and Lake Erie (LD

993 1997: 34-37).

One piece of testimony is presented which discusses public precedent and public policy in regards to future anadromous fish stocking procedure (LD 993

1997: 50). This is presented by the executive director of Coastal Conservation

Association-Maine, Pat Keliher, who provides scientific studies that proves that there are no adverse effects from alewife stocking and rather that alewives benefit

14 the health of freshwater specifies. Keliher discusses alewives and their economic benefit to the state of Maine. This testimony is presented by Trout Unlimited of

Maine (LD 993 1997: 53). In addition to addressing the misunderstanding of alewives, it discusses the commercial value of alewives and concludes with a plea to allow a native species to be reintroduced into its native territory (LD 993 1997: 53).

One of the cosponsors of the bill, Lois Snowe-Mello, bases her testimony on research done in a non-matching context: where alewives are non-native species and the location is the Midwest, which seems to decrease the some of the legitimacy of this testimony. It is concerning that Representative Snowe- Mello is a cosponsor of this bill, yet does not cite research that is done in the ponds she is testifying about.

A piece of testimony that is provided by an Oxford resident provides blatantly incorrect information, calling alewives an “exotic species” in the ponds in more than one instance (LD 993 1997: 54, 55). He claims that the reintroduction of alewives is cause to a diminishing amount of “native” species in the ponds because “I haven’t seen the numbers of perch fins as the feed on the water surface in the evening” (LD 993 1997: 54). He provides further egregious facts about native and nonnative species, as well as cites studies from geographically disparate habitats

(LD 993 1997: 54). This testifier believes that alewives “are a huge part of our native fish diminishing in numbers and a real threat to the future existence of our entire fisheries” (LD 993 1997: 55). These claims have been discredited by research conducted Dr. Theo Willis. He found that there was change in the size or growth of smallmouth bass in years that alewives were present, in fact, growth was higher in

15 some cases (Willis 2006). Research shows that alewives are not predators of bass because the alewife diet is primarily zooplankton and benthic amphipods (Scott and

Crossman 1973, Willis 2006). Additionally, Kircheis et al. found no change in size or growth of bass or other major or minor sport fish when alewives were stocked in

Lake George (2004). This literature works to disprove the testimony of Mr. Varney.

It concerns us that if other in attendance had not done their own research and believed what Mr. Varney said to be correct. Hopefully, these incorrect observational claims are not pervasive in the community, but if they are it may provide some explanation for large support in passing the bill to disallow alewife stocking.

There is a piece of testimony which appeals to the fact that alewives have a long standing history on the Androscoggin. In his testimony, Lewis Flagg, director of the Anadromous Fish Division, writes about evidence of alewives on the

Androscoggin as early as 1809. This information is supported by Shalit’s report that discusses the plentiful amount of alewives in the 1800s along the river (Shalit et al.

2003).

One piece of testimony that reports on research done in Lake George concludes that “what [has been] examined so far has shown no difference between before and after alewife stocking” but cautions that more analysis must be done (LD

993 1997: 59). The legislative history concludes with the final draft of the bill being passed into action, to disallow alewife stocking in Hogan and Whitney Ponds.

To conclude our discussion of the Androscoggin River legislation of the mid

1990s, we suggest that there are vast array of opinions regarding alewives in Maine

16 watersheds. Some opinions are based in science, while others are based on emotional and observational claims. We must be skeptical as we read the testimony, for not everything presented at the hearing was correct. It concerns us that fallacious information was presented. Having this knowledge in our arsenal makes us, and the ARA, more prepared in overturning this legislation, because we now know where weaknesses may lie.

We gathered the St. Croix legislation for several reasons. First, it shows that progress can be made in the realm of alewives and the ARA is embarking on is attainable mission. The St. Croix case demonstrates a legal battle that was won in favor of the alewives. Second, the St. Croix case provides us with critical scientific information. The testimony is rife with research scientific evidence citing the importance of alewives in the St Croix River.

Similar to some of the Androscoggin testimonies, there are some pieces of testimony based on hearsay that lack scientific or true observational backing. These speeches are concerning if they are capable of swaying people’s emotions and votes.

Representative Turner claims that “the proponents haven’t proven their case that the alewives were there or that it wouldn’t hurt the economy in northern

Washington County so will always err on the side of caution” (LD 72 2013: 11).

Representative Doak spoke briefly on the alewife issue, citing emotional connections in a positive light. He worked to prove the long history of alewives in the watershed by harkening back to his days as a child on the Passagassawakeag, where he “speared and dipped alewives” (LD 72 2013: 12). He urges others to vote for the passage of the bill for the future of the alewives and the “additional revenue

17 because of bait for lobster fishermen” (LD 72 2013: 12). This raises the question of the extent to which emotional and historical claims should be given credence in native species restoration.

The next testifier spoke about science reported by the DMR about the evidence demonstrating that “the presence of alewives in the St. Croix River will not harm the smallmouth bass fishery, and, in fact, there was some evidence showing that it might actually be enhanced by some kind of ecological magic” (LD 72 2013:

11). This testimony presents information about the historic presence of alewife runs in the St. Croix River and the Gulf of Maine. It speaks to the economic importance of alewives as lobster bait and as a food source for other species in the Gulf of Maine.

This “ecological magic” may be referencing alewives ability to function as improvers of water quality. Once again, the research by Kircheis et al. pertaining to alewives having the ability to lower phosphorus levels (2004). The mechanism for this is in the development of young alewives. As the juveniles grow they incorporate phosphorus into their bodies, which they then carry with them as they return to the ocean. Since a major cause of algal blooms and eutrophication is phosphorus loading

(Schindler 1977), Enterline and Gray (2013) and West et al. (2010) view alewives as having the potential to mitigate these problems in freshwater systems.

Representative Soctomah of the Passamaquoddy Tribe also spoke to the historic presence of alewives on the St Croix. She first presents evidence of alewives in Maine more than 4000 years ago, based on archeological work. There is numerical evidence about alewives dating back before 1825, when they were so abundant that they were harvested in excess of 700,000 adults per year (LD 72

18 2013: 12). Representative Soctomah testified to the ecological importance of alewives and their role as a keystone species. They are important in freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments (LD 72 2013: 12). She eschews popular misconceptions about alewives being detrimental to smallmouth bass population.

Her testimony seems reliable because it is grounded in science and she presents the reports from which the evidence is derived. It is out of hope that constituents are more likely to believe this sort of information as opposed to information that is grounded in erroneous emotional and observational claims.

The final piece of testimony is interesting because it is presented on behalf of an individual who played a crucial role in damming the St. Croix in 1995. He wishes to rescind his wrongful support of prior legislation that prevented fish passage.

The St. Croix legislation is important to our work and the ARA’s work because it examines another case of successful alewife passage. The timeline of events chronicled through newspapers articles which we accessed through the

Maine State Law and Legislative Library, because this provide some ideas for one option for a course of action for the ARA.

19 Outcomes and Implications

The work that we have done for Neil is the beginning of what we hope will be a strong concerted effort by the ARA to help restore alewives to the Little

Androscoggin watershed. Our project deliverables will contribute to the community outreach portion of the ARA’s goal. The legislative information we collected and summarized will give the ARA a better idea of the types of ideas that exist in the legislature and the community. This gives the organization a better idea of what type of research is necessary to fill any information gap that exists. The landowner database and different analyses we did of the landowner statistics will provide the

ARA with the information they need to send educational materials out, as well as how to structure educational programs that best engage the different demographics

(i.e. residents vs. non-residents). Lastly, the informational pamphlet can be sent out and distributed to different parties. The accompanying body of research we compiled in order to create the pamphlet can also be drawn upon to create more educational materials for more targeted demographics, and can be used to identify areas that need to be investigated further. On a broad scale, the fact that we were able to compile as much information as we did about the legislation and ecology surrounding alewife restoration in Maine implies that the foundation has been laid for the ARA’s goal of community involvement and engagement in the issue of alewife restoration. If the ARA is successful in prompting the necessary ecological research on the Little Androscoggin and engaging community members as well as the scientific community in a discussion, the repealing of this legislation is definitely feasible, as evidenced by the St. Croix case.

20 Future Steps

To address what we have identified as the implications of our project, a number of steps should be taken by Neil, the ARA, and the intern they have hired to continue our outreach work. In the legislative arena, it will be beneficial to identify the individuals that are still in office that testified for or against the alewife legislation. This will help educate the ARA in more depth about why the law was passed. The ARA can see if these individuals still hold the same views about alewives and the Androscoggin River. In addition, the ARA should meet with current representatives to discuss their views on alewife restoration. The ARA can provide educational materials and sessions to teach lawmakers about the importance of alewives, or get them in touch with experts in the field of alewife restoration.

Through this process, the ARA may ultimately be able to find a sponsor for a new bill to overturn the current legislation.

In order for our educational brochure to have an effect, it must be put into action. It must be mailed to the landowners around Hogan and Whitney ponds.

Additionally, the education materials could perhaps be left at a view locations in

Oxford for other residents to peruse while passing through. These locations may include the Town Office, the Freeland Holmes Library, the Oxford Plains Speedway, and the Irving gas station on Main Street. The gas station and Speedway seem like high traffic areas, while the Town Office and Library are appealing because they are places people go in search of information.

Another useful next step may include a survey for landowners around Hogan and Whitney ponds, and even landowners on other parts of the Little Androscoggin

21 that would experience the effects of alewife restoration. This survey would be useful in gauging the interest and knowledge of the residents in relationship to alewives. It could ask landowners a variety of questions including: Are you a full time resident?

If not, where else do you live? Do you use the pond you live on? If so, for what? recreation? fishing? relaxing on the water’s edge? excercise? other uses? This survey could help the ARA target later informational materials.

As per the discussion at the conclusion of our presentation, more research should be conducted about the ecological implications of alewife restoration. When the bill to overturn existing legislation is actually put forward, it will be necessary to either use previously developed models or conduct site-specific research in the

Little Androscoggin in order to gain a more exact understanding of how the reintroduction of alewives would affect the ecosystem functioning as a whole.

Specifically, studies should be conducted to determine what the relationship of alewives would be to the levels of phosphorous and other elements of water quality as well as to the populations of groundfish in the freshwater ponds on the little

Androscoggin. Holly brought up the point that both of these impacts are hard to generalize among all locations, and depend on different circumstances that vary based on a number of factors. Even though alewife reintroduction may be beneficial to the St. Croix, Sebasticook, and Lake George ecosystems, it is not sufficient to use this fact to say that because this is the case they will also be beneficial to Hogan,

Whitney, and Tripp Pond. Additionally, a stronger argument could be made for alewife reintroduction if enough further research is done to assign a monetary value

22 to the total benefit of alewives in the Androscoggin watershed, which would include alewives benefit to other fisheries and the ecosystem as a whole.

References Cited

Brown, Michael E., Vaughn Crandall, and Lewis Flagg. “Androscoggin River

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program.” Maine Department of Marine

Resources: Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries & Habitat, Augusta, ME, (2010).

Clinton , Townsend. "Restoration of the Alewife." Natural History Magazine (2013).

Enterline, Claire, e-mail communication, November 19th, 2013.

Enterline, Claire, and Nate Gray. Restoring River Herring Runs: Kennebec River

Milestones. State of Maine, USFWS (2013).

Flagg, Lewis N. "Historical and current distribution and abundance of the

anadromous alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) in the St Croix River." Atlantic

Salmon Commission. 14 May 2012, (2007).

Gurevitch, J. and Padilla D. K. Are Invasive Species a Major Cause of

Extinctions? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, (2004): 470-474.

Hanson, S. Dale, and R. Allen Curry. "Effects of size structure on trophic interactions

between age-0 smallmouth bass and juvenile anadromous alewives."

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134.2 (2005): 356-368.

Harvey, Harold, and Paul Fleming. "The Readability and Audience Acceptance of

Printed Health Promotion Materials Used by Environmental Health

Departments." Journal of Environmental Health. no. 6 (2005): 22-28.

23 Nedeau, Ethan. The Amazing Alewife. Gulf of Maine Times, Science Insights, 7(3)

(2003).

Kircheis, F. W., Trial, J. G., Boucher, D. P., Mower, B., Squires, T., Gray, N., ... &

Stahlnecker, J. Analysis of impacts related to the introduction of

anadromous alewives into a small freshwater lake in central Maine, USA.

Maine Department of Marine Resources, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries

and Wildlife, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Interagency

Report Series, (2002): 02-1.

Kotowski, Michael, Sandi Smith, Patti Johnstone, and Erin Pritt. "Using the Extended

Parallel Process Model to create and evaluate the effectiveness of brochures

to reduce the risk for noise- induced hearing loss in college students." Noise

and Health. no. 53 (2011): 261-271.

Lipsey, M. K., and Child, M. F. Combining the Fields of Reintroduction Biology and

Restoration Ecology. Conservation Biology 21 (2007): 1387-1388.

Larson, B. M. H. The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing Invasion Biology. Frontiers in

the Ecology and the Environment 3 (2005): 495-500.

Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: current knowledge and

future challenges. Science 294 (2001): 804-808

Parker, I. M., Et al. Impact : Toward a Framework For Understanding the Ecological

Effects of invaders. Biological Invasion 1: 3-19

Polak, Tal and Saltz, David. 2011. Reintroduction As an Ecosystem Restoration

Technique. Conservation Biology 25 (1999): 424

24 Saunders, Rory, Michael A. Hachey, and Clem W. Fay. "Maine's diadromous fish

community: past, present, and implications for Atlantic salmon

recovery."Fisheries 31.11 (2006): 537-547.

Schindler, D. W. "Evolution of phosphorus limitation in lakes." Science 195, no. 4275

(1977): 260-262.

Schlaepfer, Martin et al. The Potential Conservation Value of Non-Native

Species. Conservation Biology 25 (2011): 428-437

Schmitt, Catherine. University of Maine, "Alewives: Feast of the Season." (2008).

Scott, W. B., & Crossman, E. J. Freshwater fishes of Canada.Fisheries Research Board

of Canada Bulletin 184 (1973).

Schalit, Naomi, Lois Winter, and Gail Wippelhauser. Maine Department of Marine

Resources, "All About Alewives." (2003).

Seddon, Philip J., Armstrong, Doug P., and Maloney, Richard F. Developing Science of

Reintroduction Biology. Conservation Biology 21 (2001): 303-312

Slobodkin, L. B.,The Good, The Bad, and The Reified. Evolutionary Ecology Research

3 (2001):1-13.

Strenski, James. "Public Relations Programs Help Safeguard the World's Water

Supply." Public Relations Quarterly. (1996): 33-35.

Svenning, M-A., et al. The impact of marine fish predation on Atlantic salmon smolts

(Salmo salar) in the Tana estuary, North Norway, in the presence of an

alternative prey, lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus). Fisheries research

76.3 (2005): 466-474.

25 Stromberg, J. C. et al. Changing Perceptions of Change : the role of scientists in

Tamarix and river management. Restoration Ecology 17 (2009): 177-186.

Ward, Neil, personal communication, September 13th, 2013.

West, D. C., Walters, A. W., Gephard, S., & Post, D. M. Nutrient loading by anadromous

alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus): contemporary patterns and predictions for

restoration efforts. Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences, 67(8)

(2010): 1211-1220.

Viggers, K. L., Lindenmayer, D. B., and Spratt, D. M. The Importance of Disease in

Reintroduction Programs. Wildlife Research 20 (1993): 687-698

Willis, T. V., P. Bentzen, and I. G. Paterson. "Two Reports on Alewives in the St. Croix

River." (2006).

Young, Charlotte, and John Witter. "Developing Effective Brochures for Increasing

Knowledge of Environmental Problems: The case of the Gypsy Moth."

Journal of Environmental Education. (1994): 27-34.

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Literature Review

Economic and Historical Information

Alewives have been an important fixture of life on the Androscoggin River since the surrounding land was occupied by Native American peoples. Alewives were a main source of nutrition in the indigenous peoples’ diet; their bones have been found in Maine that date back 4,000 years. Alewives were consumed fresh and

26 smoked and were used for trade with Canadians (Townsend 2013). They were also very valuable to colonial and post-colonial settlers on the Androscoggin. One history of the towns of Gardiner and Pittston, written in 1852, claims that “alewives were so plentiful there at the time the country was settled that bears, and later swine, fed on them in the water” and that “they were crowded ashore by the thousands” (Schalit et al. 2003). However, since the turn of the 20th century, the effects of overfishing, the creation of dams lacking fish passages, and water pollution have resulted in alewives not being able to reproduce and the populations in Maine becoming severely depleted. The Maine DMR has been engaged in restoration efforts for over forty years, which has proved to be a controversial process (Brown et al. 2010).

The restoration of alewives to their historical levels would create the potential for a small but significant fishery industry on the Androscoggin and in the state of Maine. Since the mid-2000s, the Maine Department of Marine Resources has routinely conducted studies estimating the potential economic value of the alewife industry in the Androscoggin watershed. These estimates are based off the number of alewives that would exist were the species to be restored to its optimal capacity within its historical habitat. Using data on average size and market value, the DMR’s most recent prediction is that the total economic value of the industry would be between $160,740 and $177,660 (Enterline 2013). This estimate refers to the alewife industry alone, and does not reflect the economic benefits of alewives as population-boosters for other commercially fished species. The specific value of alewives as population-boosters in both the Androscoggin and the ocean would be

27 difficult to measure, but is likely substantial as native species restoration typically improves the functioning of an entire ecosystem.

Presently alewives are primarily used as lobster bait due to the fact that they are inexpensive and last a long time in traps. They are also used to make fish meal and fish oil, and as an ingredient in certain pet foods (Townsend 2013, Schmitt

2008). Although there is not currently a large industry for alewives as a food for people, this could be a valuable industry in the future. Alewives are inexpensive and have high fat and omega-3 content. They can be a valuable source of nutrients when other food sources are low. For these reasons, communities in New England historically have provided alewife meat to poor and elderly populations (Townsend

2013).

Ecology of Maine Alewives

As anadromous fish, alewives tie together the ocean, rivers, and lakes, providing nutrients and forage to support a healthy watershed. There is therefore tremendous ecological value in restoring a healthy population. (Maine DMR River

Herring Fact Sheet 2008). Numerous studies and reports note the significance that alewives have in the food chain and as a Gulf of Maine Times issue states, essentially everything eats alewives (Nedeau 2003). Fish, birds, and mammals prey on them in different ecosystems and at different times of the year in accordance with the migration of the alewives. In their River Herring Fact Sheet the Maine DMR actually provides a list of the many predators of alewives which includes striped bass, bluefish, tuna, cod, haddock, American eel, brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, salmon, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, pickerel, pike, white and yellow perch,

28 seabirds, bald eagle, osprey, great blue heron, gulls, terns, cormorants, seals, whales, otter, mink, fox, raccoon, skunk, weasel, fisher, and turtles (2008).

Of particular importance is the relationship between alewives and marine groundfish. Cod, haddock, and striped bass rely heavily on alewives as forage.

Nedeau (2003) reports that many scientists speculate that alewife population decline from river damming was a large contributor to the decline of these important marine fisheries. The Maine DMR (2008) also recognizes this and states that the recovery of these species depends on restored populations of alewives.

Hanson and Curry (2005) cite alewives’ important ecological role as members at the bottom of the food chain as potential to help restore countless other species to the

Androscoggin (Hanson and Curry 2005).

Alewife predation is of course very important to predators as a source of nutrition, but it is also of great importance to other species of prey, especially the

Atlantic salmon. Saunders et al. (2006) write that during a few different time periods in a salmon’s life, alewives serve as an alternative source of food for the numerous opportunistic birds that prey upon migrating fish. In congruence, the

Maine DMR reports that alewives serve as a buffer species for salmon in the springtime when alewives are swimming upstream to spawn and salmon smolt are traveling out to sea. The same prey buffering occurs again in the fall when adult alewives are traveling back down river and mature salmon are swimming up to spawn (DMR 2008). Analogous interactions have been observed by Svenning et al.

(2005) in Norway where lesser sandeel was suspected to serve as an alternative food source for groundfish, reducing the mortality of Atlantic salmon. The study

29 identified the stomach contents of cod, haddock, and several other potential predators of salmon during and after the smolt run to identify the primary prey during this time. In our research we have not found any similar studies in Maine that directly investigate interactions between alewives, salmon, and predators, but it could be useful to prove the value of alewives in restoring Atlantic salmon populations.

Another documented ecosystem function of alewives is in the cycling of nutrients between freshwater and marine sources. The Gulf of Maine Times reports that spawning alewives provide an influx of marine-derived nutrients to freshwater ecosystems in the form of eggs, sperm, and their dead bodies (Nedeau 2003).

Zooplankton, insect larvae, bryozoans, and various scavengers can then utilize these materials for growth. While the supply of nutrients to freshwater systems is important, an increasingly valuable function is what alewives are capable of removing.

There has been some concern on the impact that reintroducing alewives could have on water quality. Multiple studies have been conducted in the state of

Maine on this and none have found any negative impacts to overall water quality after reintroducing alewives (Kircheis it al. 2004, Maine DMR 2008). In fact, Kircheis et al. (2004) found that total phosphorous levels were lower in the years that alewives were stocked than either before or after they were present. The mechanism for this is in the development of young alewives. As the juveniles grow they incorporate phosphorus into their bodies, which they then carry with them as they return to the ocean. Since a major cause of algal blooms and eutrophication is

30 phosphorus loading (Schindler 1977), Enterline and Gray (2013) and West et al.

(2010) view alewives as having the potential to mitigate these problems in freshwater systems.

Another concern of reestablishing alewives in Maine is the effect that they would have on the economically critical smallmouth bass fishery. To address this concern, Maine Rivers sponsored a study conducted by Dr. Theo Willis on the interaction between smallmouth bass and alewives. By stocking several lakes with alewives for 3 years and studying both species of fish, Willis (2006) reported the following findings: There was no difference in the size or growth of young-of-year

(YOY) or adult smallmouths during the years when alewives were present. Growth was actually slightly higher in some cases. In freshwater, alewives consume less than 0.15% of fish for food so alewives were not significant predators of bass. This is consistent with Scott and Crossman (1973) who identify the diet of alewives to consist of primarily zooplankton and benthic amphipods, while occasionally consuming small fish or fish eggs during the time when they are spawning. Findings of both Hanson and Curry (2005) and Willis (2006) also included that YOY alewives and bass had insignificant diet overlap so they were not competing for food. Lastly, smallmouth bass fishing tournaments generated similar returns from lakes with and without alewives, indicating no significant difference in the quality of sport fishing in lakes with, or without alewives (Willis 2006).

The Kircheis et al. (2004) report also found no change in size or growth of bass or other major or minor sportfish when alewives were stocked in Lake George.

In one instance, YOY rainbow trout grew significantly faster when alewives were

31 present in the lake, which clearly denotes a beneficial species interaction. These comprehensive studies strongly indicate that reintroducing alewives will not negatively impact the smallmouth bass population as feared, nor any other sport fisheries.

Outreach Material Creation

Since one of the main products of this project was an informational pamphlet, we researched the merits of brochures what makes an effective one.

Made primarily for the purpose of educating people, brochures and other written materials have been deemed useful methods for the dissemination of information

(Harvey et al 2003 Young et al. 1994, Strengski 2001, Kotowski et al. 2011).

Brochures have been found to have the potential to promote environmentally responsible behavior because they increase knowledge about environmental problems (Young et al. 1994). In a large corporation, it is often the role of the public relations department to develop effective communication and educational materials

(Strenski 2001). It is not enough to simply present information; it must be done in a tactful that optimizes absorption of the information and encourages future action

(Young et al. 1994). There are some general guidelines for pamphlet creation:

Endres et al. (2002) states that information should be written between the fourth and sixth grade level, so it is accessible to all. This allows information to be understood by the broadest possible range of readers. The research by Young et al.

(1994) about developing effective brochures for increasing knowledge of environmental problems found that length, or the amount of words in the brochure, did not seem to greatly change its effectiveness. What they found to be important to

32 facilitate learning was to make the brochures highly mysterious by promising new information (Young et al. 1994). This method keeps readers engaged with the information because they are not sure what is coming next. Young et al. (1994) and

Harvey et al. (2005) state that brochures should be free of jargon, written clearly and concisely, and s for greatest effects have a section that explains what people can do to help the situation. This is connected to the discussion by Kotokski et al. (2011) on perceived efficacy, which creates the perception that a situation can be avoided or ameliorated by performing a task. Young et al. (1994) show that headings and subheadings are important for brochure comprehension, as are keys, photographs, and charts . Once we were assured of the legitimacy and effectiveness of a brochure, we proceeded to learn how to make such a product.

Native Species Restoration

Research and papers about the reintroduction of native species have continuously been on the rise since the early 1990s. As more non-native species infiltrate ecosystems and certain species are lost due to human involvement, scientists have become more involved in projects that deal with these issues. However, animal reintroductions are still typically focused on restoring the population of one species instead of improving an ecosystem as a whole (Seddon et al. 2007). Species reintroduction is a complex process that requires extensive research because the introduction of any species can have rippling effects on other species and aspects of ecosystems (Lipsey and Child 2007). Information on the effect of a species loss in an ecosystem is difficult to obtain because there usually is not any data gathered prior to the loss of the species (Loreau et al.

33 2001). Therefore, it is imperative not to assume that the reintroduction of a species is inherently positive as there are multiple issues that could arise with the efforts to bring a species back into a system that has adapted to its absence. There are several prominent issues that warrant discussion. One issue that needs to be acknowledged is the possible transmission of diseases to local species that would not otherwise be exposed to such viruses (Viggers et al. 1993). A second major issue that needs to be investigated is the interactions of the introduced species with other local species and any potential resource competition between the species. In addition, the reintroduced species can actively predate on other local species as well as change the general ecology of the systems they are introduced to. These could all have major implications for ecosystems and therefore require in-depth examination

(Carrera et al. 2008).

It is important to acknowledge that species reintroduction research may be biased. As Schlaepfer et al. (2011) note, several authors have discussed the issue that despite the effort of scientists to present bias-free work, a bias against non- native species can permeate their work as part of a broader cultural prejudice

(Slobodkin 2001; Gurevitch and Padilla 2004; Stromber et al. 2009). These biases are often apparent in the expectations about the “fundamental values of nonnative species, the language used to describe them, and the types of studies conducted” in general (Schlaepfer et al. 2011). One example that Schlaepfer et al. (2011) discuss is a landmark study in which the response of “biological diversity to several natural and anthropogenic drivers were predicted and non-native species were only considered as potential threats”, not as contributors to an area’s abundance of

34 life. This can also be seen in studies when an “index of biotic integrity” is used and the presence of non-native species lowers the index, even when they have little or no measurable ecological effect (Parker et al. 1999). Even vocabulary used to describe non-native species in scientific literature is regularly dispersed with military words like “invasive” (Larson 2005). It is not necessarily clear what effects these biases could have but it can be assumed that as a result there is more research aimed at proving the negative effects of non-native species than the potential economic or ecological benefits they could have. As Polak and Saltz (2001) state,

“we believe a systematic approach to examining the effects of reintroductions on ecosystem functions is no less important than conserving the reintroduced species”.

Seddon et al. (2007) discuss how there is space to improve reintroduction biology through increased use of modeling and experiments. They cite several examples as to how to improve approaches to reintroduction such as research that includes experimental studies of captive-bred animals as well as simulation and spatial models that help isolate factors affecting the success of reintroduced populations. Seddon et al. (2007) recommend that researchers who are anticipating reintroducing species in the future need to “carefully determine prior goals, overall ecological purpose, and inherent technical and biological limitations of a given reintroduction and that the evaluation processes incorporate both experimental and modeling approaches”. They also suggest that interdisciplinary work will allow the most progress to be made as resource managers, communities, and scientists collaborate together for the best results (Seddon et al. 2007).

35 APPENDIX B: Detailed Methods

Interviews-

We reached out to a number of local specialists to discuss with them their thoughts alewives, as pertaining to their field of knowledge. Unfortunately, we were not overwhelmingly successful in getting responses to our questions. We tried to contact Claire Enterline, Naomi Schalit, Michael Brown, and John Lichter. We made these contacts based on recommendations both other individuals, primarily Neil.

This speaks to the importance of making and keeping connections in the world of work and research.

When reaching out to community members, we first introduced our project and ourselves. We stated that we are a group of Environmental Studies students from Bates College working on a Community Engaged Research Project. We explained that we are working with the Androscoggin River Alliance and Neil Ward to learn more about alewives in Maine, especially pertaining to their reintroduction.

We never explicitly stated that we were working to provide the ARA with information to eventually overturn the legislation. We gave experts the option to communicate with us by phone, email, or in person.

The following questions are what we initially asked to each specialist, and were then followed by questions more pertinent to their field.

1. Do you know the impetus behind the 1995 legislation involving Hogan and

Whitney Pond?

2. What do you think would be the effect of alewife restoration on water quality?

36 3. Do you think there is any relationship among the bass population and bass fisheries and alewives?

4. What do you think the biggest positive and negative effects of alewife reintroduction are on the ecosystem? On the economy?

5. Who do you think the main stakeholders are in the alewife reintroduction issue?

And opponents of change?

6. Can you provide us with any studies done on the St. Croix river?

7. Is there any relevant information that you can recommend for our research?

Other information sources

As a group, we also attended several information sessions that directly or indirectly related to our project, in order to expand our knowledge.

We all attended a discussion with Steve Shepard of the US Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS), related to FERC licensing. On November 13, 2013. Below are the main points we discussed.

-St. Croix river history: alewives, bass, bass fishermen, dams, dam removal

- the politics of legislation regarding natural issues

-Dams on Little Androscoggin- regulations, exemptions, settlements

-Presumscot River, Sebasticook Lake, Gulf Island Pond

-Cost of fish passage in a dam

-Ecosystem based management vs. Endangered Species Act

37 Two of us attended a talk by Colin Apse and Dave Owen called “The Penobscot River

Restoration Project and the Future of Hydropower Policy and Law” on November

11, 2013. Below are the main points of the talk as related to our project.

-dam removal on the Penobscot-success

- alewives as critical for lobster bait in the spring

-overall, provided pertinent information about dam removal in ecological,

political, and legal realms.

Landowner Information

In order to gather landowner information, we made two trips to the Oxford Town office on October 30 and November 1, 2013. The Oxford Code Enforcer, Rodney

Smith, was crucial in gathering this information because he showed us how to gather the information and answered our questions. Below is our gathering process.

1. Look at large map to discern which sections border Hogan and Whitney ponds-

U19-U23, U27-U31.

2. Look at smaller map, connect parcel number to landowner information in

Landowner Binder and record information on spreadsheet. See Figure 1.

3. Connect landowner name to tax information. Record information on spreadsheet.

4. Compile final spreadsheet. See appendix G

5. The information recorded is:

a. Landowner name

b. Property address

c. Vacant or residential

38 d. Owner’s primary address

e. Data of last transfer of ownership

f. Assessed land value

g. Assessed total value

h. Tax value

Legislation

In order to gather the exact legislation and testimony, we contacted the Maine State

Law and Legislative Reference Library. They gave us information about the

Androscoggin and St. Croix Legislation. There was too much information to email for the Androscoggin legislation, so it was sent to us through the mail on a CD.

See Appendix F for summaries of legislation and testimonies.

39 APPENDIX C: Graphs

Figure 1 shows the percentage of properties around Hogan and Whitney Ponds that are vacant relative to those that are residential. Over three quarters of the land is residential.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of properties around Hogan and Whitney Ponds that are owned by Maine residents relative to the percentage that are owned by out-of- staters. Over two thirds of the plots are owned by Mainers.

40

Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of landowners that live on their land relative to the percentage of landowners that live elsewhere. The orange section of the chart represents the percentage of people whose residential address was not listed, but have an Oxford PO box. We are making the assumption that this group of people lives on the land. Even considering this group, the number of landowners who live on their land year round is less than 25%.

41 APPENDIX D, Figure 4. Map

42

APPENDIX E: Pamphlet

What is an alewife?

Alewives are an anadramous species of river herring. Maine alewives spend the majority of their lives in the Atlantic Ocean, but return to fresh waters as adults to spawn in the same lakes and ponds where they were born. They feed primarily on small invertebrate zooplankton and do not tend to grow longer than twelve inches. Getting to know your river Males generally reach maturity at four years old and females at five. The How you can help Importance of To voice support for alewife restoration, Alewives contact your local state representative or senator. To become involved in efforts in your community, contact the Androscoggin Androscoggin River Watershed River Alliance via their website: http://www.cleanandroscoggin.org/

Further Reading

To learn more about the importance of Landowner ME Oxford O alewives in Maine, visit these websites:

http://www.seagrant.umaine.edu/files/pdf- global/08CSalewivesMBHH.pdf

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/perspect

ives/262286/restoration-of-the-alewife

http://www.maine.gov/dmr/searunfish/alewi , ME

[Fax] fe/

ARA Ward Neil Leeds [Telephone] Fax

43

Economic value Ecological value Historical role

Relationships with other species As a native species, alewives have been an important fixture of Androscoggin life Alewives are an important buffer species. since before the Colonial Era. Alewives That is, when alewives are present in large have a high fat and omega-3 content, and numbers, predators such as osprey, were a crucial food source for settlers in eagles, and gulls will prey on them. This the spring months when other food stocks makes it less likely that predators will have were low. Since this time, industrialization a significant effect on populations of other has taken a toll on the alewife population in species, such as salmon, trout, and bass. the Androscoggin, especially with water pollution and the construction of dams. Alewives are also an important forage Fortunately though, as a result of species. They are preyed on by larger Alewives in the St. Croix River: photo taken increasing regulations such as the Clean in 2012 by John Burrows groundfish. Bass fishermen have Water Act of 1972, the potential now exists expressed some concern that alewives for alewives to be restored to their native prey on juvenile smallmouth bass. habitat. Presently, alewives are primarily However, recent investigations in the St. used as lobster bait because they are Croix river show that at no stage in their Since the mid-2000s, the Maine inexpensive and last a long time in traps. development do alewives prey on Department of Marine Resources has They are also used in some pet foods and smallmouth bass, and in fact smallmouth routinely conducted studies estimating the to make fish meal and fish oil. bass prey on alewives throughout their potential economic value of the alewife lifecycle. industry in the Androscoggin watershed. Alewives in Maine These estimates are based on the number Impacts on water quality of alewives that would exist were the species to be restored to its optimal Studies conducted in the St. Croix River, capacity within its historical habitat. Lake George, and Sebasticook Lake reveal Using data on average size and market that alewives have no negative affect on value, the DMR’s most recent prediction is water quality. Alewives are net exporters of that the total economic value of the phosphorous. Phosphorous loading in industry would be between $160,740 and lakes and ponds can lead to algal blooms $177,660. This estimate refers to the and eutrophication. The presence of alewife industry alone, and does not reflect alewives can work to mitigate threats in the economic benefits of alewives as areas with high phosphorous levels, which population-boosters for other species. can lead to algal blooms and compromise ecosystem health.

APPENDIX F: Legislative Summaries

Summary Androscoggin Alewife Legislation 1. Language of the proposed amendment: “alewives may not be stocked in Hogan Pond or Whitney Pond in the Town of Oxford.” Additionally, alewives may not be stocked in any waters that drain into Hogan Pond, Whitney Pond, or Tripp Pond, into the brook that goes into these ponds, or in the Little Androscoggin upstream of Welchville Dam. 2. Testimony Sign- In Name Affiliation Proponent or Opponent Rep Underwood Sponsor Proponent Rep Snowe- Mello Co sponsor Proponent Glen Steves Smulter (moderately Proponent illegible) Ken Record Norway, ME Proponent Norm Staples Oxford, ME Proponent Richard Varney 2 lakes camping Oxford Proponent ME Miriam Foster Oxford, ME Proponent Pat Kelliher CCA Opponent Lewis Flagg Scientist DMR Opponent

44 Matt Scott IFW deputy Opponent commissioner The following sections are testimony. To the best of our abilities, we have tried to indicate whether the testimony is for, against, or neutral to the legislation. 3. History of DMR alewife research. Concludes with “Based on current knowledge of alewife stocking densities and follow-up surveys on effects on fresh water fisheries, there was no impact from the introduction of six alewives per acre on fresh water fisheries and/ or water quality.” Includes map of ponds and scientific data a. Opponent of legislation 4. Letter to Lewis Staples from John Boland, Regional Fishery Biologist. a. Does not attribute decreased large bass population alewife stocking, but adds that there is not enough data to provide a wholly accurate picture of all fish populations in these waters i. Opponent of legislation 5. The fisheries and fishery industries in the United States a. Provides alewife information specific to Maine waterways. i. Neutral to legislation 6. Informational page about alewives- with names and contact information handwritten in a. Neutral 7. “Predation by Alewives on Lake Trout Fry in Lake Ontario. Role of Exotic Species in Preventing Restoration of a Native Species” a. Research that shows alewives inhibit Lake Trout restoration. The two contexts to no match because alewives are native to the Androscoggin and not to Lake Ontario. i. Proponent of legislation 8. “Naturally Occurring Thiamine Deficiency Causing Reproductive Failure in Finger Lakes Atlantic Salmon and Great Lakes Lake Trout” a. research that shows a vitamin deficiency causes complete reproduction failure of an animal population, presumably because this population eats alewives, which are non native forage fishes that exhibit high thiaminase activity. i. Proponent of legislation 9. “Effect of B- Vitamins on a Swim- Up Syndrome in Lake Ontario Lake Trout” a. Presence of swim-up syndrome in Lake Trout is related to presence of alewives who have ahigh thiaminase content in their diet. Discusses Lake Trout reproductive failure. i. Proponent of legislation 10. “A Tale from the Boneyard” a. Article from Field and Stream about abundance of salmon i. Neutral to legislation 11. Amendment to LD 993 Offered by Representative Underwood March 12, 19967 a. Proposes ideas on allowing restocking of alewives in Ponds with very specific stipulations: by February 1st of each year, must submit report to

45 Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife about pond name, number of alewives proposed, purpose of stocking, and biological justification i. Proponent of legislation 12. Testimony by Pat Keliher, executive director of Coastal Conservation Association a. Opponent of legislation b. Sets bad precedent for prohibition of future anadramous fish stocking programs c. Attached studies that show no adverse effects of alewives, only benefits. Need to do work based on science, not misunderstanding i. Opponent of legislation 13. Testimony by Representative Lois Snowe- Mello a. Believes the legislation should be enacted to “preserve the health and to protect other fish that are in danger because of alewives” b. Provides some scientific backing i. Proponent of legislation 14. Testimony by Trout Unlimited State Council Chairman, Sean McCormick a. Discusses lack of understanding of issue by individuals that proposed the bill, cites study from Lake George, speaks to commercial value, and importance of reintroducing a native species. i. Opponent of legislation 15. Testimony by Oxford resident: Richard Varney a. Speaks primarily emotional and observational experience i. Proponent of legislation 16. Information by Lewis Flagg, Director of Anadromous Fish Division a. Provides historical evidence of alewives in Hogan Pond i. Opponent of legislation 17. Information from Frederick Kircheis, Fishery Research Biologist a. Report on alewife introduction study from Lake George b. Preliminary results that state alewives have no effect on water quality, but more analysis of results must be done. i. Opponent of legislation 18. Committee Amendment that “prohibits the stocking of alewives in Tripp Pond in Poland, in Hogan Pond and Whitney Pond in Oxford, in an waters that drain into those ponds, in the brook the drains those ponds and in the Little Androscoggin River upstream of the Welchville dam.” 19. Committee Voting Tally Sheet a. Ought to pass as amended March 26, 1007 Name Vote in favor? Absent? Sen Kilkelly X Sen Ruhlin X Sen Hall X Rep Paul X Rep Clark X Rep Chick X Rep Dunlap X

46 Rep Underwood X Rep True X Rep Usher X Rep Goodwin X Rep Cross X Rep Perkins X TOTALS 9 4

20. Decision: Ought to pass as amended by Committee Amendment

Summary St. Croix Legislation Summary of St. Croix Alewife Legislation- 1. Language of the proposed amendment: LD-0072- “By May 1, 2013, the commissioner and the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife shall ensure that the fishways on the Woodland Dam and the Grand Falls Dam located on the St. Croix River are configured or operated in a manner that allows the unconstrained passage of river herring” 2. Bill presented by Representative Soctomah of the Passamaquoddy Tribe.

Cosponsored by Senators Jackson of Aroostook, Dutremble of York and Representatives: Ayotte of Caswell, Bear of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Beaudoin of Biddeford, Berry of Bowdoinham, Doak of Columbia Falls, Mitchell of the Penobscot Nation, Parry of Arundel, 3. Testimony Sign-In- Name or Organization Affiliation Proponent or Opponent Rep Madonna Soctomah sponsor Proponent Senator David C. Burns District 29 Neither Rep Katherine Cassidy District 32 Proponent Rep Bruce MacDonald District 61 Proponent Rep Beth Turner Joint Standing Committee Opponent on Marine Resources Tribal Rep Henry John Cosponsor/ Band of Proponent Bear Maliseet Indians Dennis Damon Trenton Proponent Roger Wheeler Director of Friends of Proponent Sebago Lake Government of Canada Canada Proponent Lana Pollack United Sates Chair in Fish Proponent and wildlife Services Richard Behr Smallmouth Bass Guide Proponent Paul Laney owner of Laney’s Guide Opponent Service

47 Don Kleiner Executive Director of Opponent Maine Professional Guides Association Alicia Heyburn citizen Proponent Patrice McCarron Executive Director of Proponent Maine Lobsterman’s Association Andrew Cadot citizen Proponent Maine Coast Heritage Trust Maine Coast Heritage Proponent Trust Natural Resources Council Natural Resources Council Proponent of Maine of Maine Landis Hudson Executive Director of Proponent Maine Rivers Sheila Dassat Executive Director of Proponent Downeast Lobsterman’s Association Conservation Law Conservation Law Proponent Foundation Foundation The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy Proponent Peter Roberts Chairman of Phippsburg Proponent Center Pond Alewife Committee Harry Bailey owner of Bailey’s Camp Opponent Jamie Lewey Maine Indian Tribal state Proponent Commission Chair Diane Cowen Senior scientist for the Proponent Lobster Conservancy Dr. Theodore Willis USM Environmental Proponent Science Professor Edward Bassett member of the Proponent Passamaquoddy Tribe Ben Martens Executive Director of Proponent Maine Coast Fisherman’s Association George Lapointe 12 Years as Commissioner Proponent of Marine Resources Jeffrey Pierce alewife fisherman Proponent Anne Burt Director of Maine Council Proponent of Churches Dale Tobey Vice President of Maine Opponent Professional Guide Association

48 John Burrows Director of the New Proponent Brunswick Programs for the Atlantic Salmon Federation Macauley Lord registered fishing guide Proponent Brenda Commander Tribal Chief of Houlton Proponent Band of Maliseet Indians 4. Testimony of Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Madonna Soctomah A. Proponent B. River herring have held importance for her people for hundreds of years. C. River herring don’t interfere with small mouth bass populations and the misguided legislation blocks them from 98% of their spawning ground. 5. Testimony of Senator David C. Burns A. Neither for nor against but acknowledges that the issue is extremely complex and has many sides. 6. Testimony of Rep. Katherine Cassidy A. Proponent B. Was asked to reconsider position on bill by Maine fishing guides and sports camps. She is still for it and thinks the economic benefits will out way the costs for the fishing guide industry 7. Testimony of Rep. Bruce MacDonald A. Proponent B. Many scientific studies show that sea-run alewives do not pose a threat to sport fish like the small mouth bass. It is important to restore the ecology of the river and numerous native bird and mammal species depend on the alewife as a food source. 8. Map of St. Croix watershed 9. Testimony of Rep. Beth Turner from the Joint Standing Committee on Marine Resources A. Opponent B. Argues that the benefits of alewife restoration will not outweigh the potential damage that could happen. C. Commercial Sporting Camps and the Guiding industry are vital for the economic stability of the region. Could possibly spread the VEN virus to local fisheries and economically damage the sporting industries. 10. Picture of fly fishing on the river 11. Testimony of Tribal representative Henry John Bear, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians A. Proponent

49 B. Describes the historical and cultural importance of alewives to the Maliseet Indians as well as the description the Commissioner of Fisheries gave about the population plummet of anadromous fish in the 1800s as dams were constructed on the river. C. Says colonial government policy was to build dams so that the Wabanki peoples would be pushed to a more settle dependent way of life. 12. Testimony of Dennis Damon from Trenton, Maine A. Proponent B. Member of the Maine Sea Coast Mission and the Penobscot East Resource Center but speaking as a concerned citizen. The St Croix has the potential to host 22 million alewives and there is no scientific proof that they negatively affect other fish populations 13. Testimony of Roger Wheeler Director of Friends of Sebago Lake A. Proponent B. Blasts the findings that alewives damage ecosystems because they are a native species. Discusses the importance of alewives on diatoms because as bigger fish chase them they stir up silica which the diatoms need. 14. Letter from the Government of Canada A. Proponent B. Has long wanted the St Croix waters to be reopened for alewives and thinks it would benefit both countries. Says both American and Canadian research has shown that alewives play important role in ecology of water for both nutrients and food. 15. Cap Log Group report on economic benefits of alewives to bait fisheries from direct sale and cost savings to lobsterman. Improves ground fisheries, bird watching, and alewife runs could become attraction themselves. Lowers the risk of introducing diseases and pathogens by not having to import bait. Bait sales from optimal alewife population could be $1.8 million. 16. An Engineer’s Report by Steven J. Whitman. P.E./P.L.S. A. Reports about the St. Croix River, the falls, and the dams. Determining the velocity of the water throughout history by looking at old pictures and reports. B. Says that if there were anadromous alewives above Grand falls before the dams were built then there would be an established landlocked population in lakes, like in the Great Lakes after canal construction. 17. Appendix A – lists several pages of information about the lakes on the river/watershed such as depth and temperature. 18. Testimony of Lana Pollack, United Sates Chair in Fish and wildlife Services, United States Department of the Interior

50 A. Proponent of unfettered access for alewives as there is no scientific data to date that proves alewives have a negative impact on water quality, zooplankton populations, or smallmouth bass populations. 19. Richard Behr from Vassalboro, Maine A. Proponent B. He is a smallmouth bass guide who does not think that alewives inhibit bass fisheries but actually enhance them. 20. Testimony of Paul Laney, owner of Laney’s Guide Service A. Opponent B. Alewives eat all the plankton so that rainbow smelt get outcompeted and then the salmon fisheries decline in landlocked lakes 21. Testimony of Don Kleiner, Maine Professional guides Association Executive Director A. Opponent B. Even if alewives are historically native the habitat and ecosystem has changed so that it won’t be able to support the population of alewives that will exceed anything possible in the past. Worried about new diseases and drastically changing the stable ecosystem. 22. Alicia Heyburn, citizen A. Proponent B. They are valuable both culturally/historically and for the ecology and economy of Maine 23. Testimony of Patrice McCarron, Executive Director of Maine Lobsterman’s Association A. Proponent B. The primary source of bait for lobsterman is herring and menhaden whose fishing quotas have been cut in half. Lobster industry generates about a billion dollars in economic activity for Maine. Will hurt lobsterman industry if not enacted. 24. Andrew Cadot, citizen A. Proponent B. Osprey and eagle populations have soared where other Maine rivers have been opened for alewives. 25. Maine Coast Heritage Trust- proponent 26. Natural Resources Council of Maine A. Proponent B. Fish passageways are already there and just need to be opened. Would benefit lobsterman and has native tribal support

51 Attachment A: International Joint Commission discussed decline of eagle and osprey populations after law banning alewives Attachment B: IFW eagle biologist Charlie Todd describes the eagle and osprey populations are soaring in the Sebasticook River where alewives are recovering Attachment C: IFW survey of Weber Pond in Bremen. Alewives exist with a health smallmouth bass population Attachment D: Portland Press Herald Article backing up the legislation Attachment E: An opponent of alewife restoration, Don Kleiner who is Executive Director of Maine Professional Guides Association, is quoted as saying the alewives in St George River watershed help his small mouth bass guiding business 27. Testimony of Landis Hudson, Executive Driector of Maine Rivers A. Proponent B. Alewives are a keystone species and the comparisons of these alewives to the Great Lake alewife populations are not relevant as they are distinct species. 28. Testimony of Sheila Dassat, Executive Director of Downeast Lobsterman’s Association A. Proponent B. They think that sport fishing should not stand in the way of alewife introduction. Historically alewives would have been able to go past Grand falls because it was shallow waters that did not have a steep rise. 29. Conservation Law Foundation A. Proponent B. The original decision to ban alewives was made by fear, bad management, and bad science. 30. The Nature Conservancy A. Proponent B. Restoring native habitat for sea-running fish is one of their top priorities. They provide their scientific opinion that the bill will ensure compatibility in the ecosystem 31. Testimony of Peter Roberts, Chairman of Phippsburg Center Pond Alewife Committee A. Proponent B. Alewives have ecological and anthropological importance and the EPA dictated that the river needed to be opened to river herring. 32. Testimony of Harry Bailey, owner of Bailey’s Camp on Big Lake A. Opponent says the fishery increased after the dams were built and blocked alewives so its proof that alewives have a negative effect. Describes alewives as nonnative species

52 33. Jamie Lewey, Maine Indian Tribal state Commission Chair A. Proponent 34. Diane Cowen, Senior scientist for the Lobster Conservancy A. Proponent 35. Dr. Theodore Willis, USM Environmental Science Professor A. Proponent B. Argues that It made sense to close passageways to alewives as a precautionary measure but in the multiple decades since there has been enough science to warrant a reopening C. Present many graphs and scientific data 36. Handout titled The Amazing Alewife 37. Testimony of Edward Bassett, member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe A. Proponent B. Discusses his tales of fishing for Pollock with his Dad and his beliefs that alewives could help restore the Pollock population 38. Maps of the Passamaquoddy tribal land and information about their history 39. Testimony of Ben Martens, Executive Director of Maine Coast Fisherman’s Association A. Proponent B. Describes his belief that the restoration of alewives will be beneficial for ground fisheries and help the fishing industry 40. Testimony of George Lapointe, 12 Years as Commissioner of Marine Resources A. Proponent B. The original decrease in bass populations was due to a draw in the lake that limited fry habitat 41. Testimony of Jeffrey Pierce, alewife fisherman A. Proponent B. Distinguishes between landlocked alewives and sea run alewives which he argues are completely different 42. Testimony of Anne Burt, Director of Maine Council of Churches A. Proponent B. The Council runs a Fish and Loaves program which engages communities and offers them opportunities to have affordable food sources that also help the local economies of communities. They believe that alewives could be a healthy addition 43. Testimony of Dale Tobey, Vice President of Maine Professional Guide Association A. Opponent B. Argues that alewives will hurt the fisheries but doesn’t have any evidence

53 44. Testimony of John Burrows, Director of the New Brunswick Programs for the Atlantic Salmon Federation A. Proponent B. Discusses the history of alewives and their potential to reach up to 20 million fish in the watershed C. Alewives will help the Salmon population 45. Testimony of Macauley Lord, registered fishing guide A. Proponent B. The Kennebec and Sebasticook Rivers have an extremely healthy smallmouth bass populations and these are also places where alewives have been able to recover 46. Letters from NOAA regional directors A. They are an advocate for unfettered passage of river herring 47. Letter from the Wabanaki Chiefs asking Governor LePage to support the bill 48. Testimony of Brenda Commander, Tribal Chief of Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians A. Proponent B. Describes her tribe’s belief that everything is connected and we need to be stewards of the earth and therefore restore the ecosystem 49. A letter from the EPA proclaiming it’s support that passageway for river herring be uninterrupted as there is no science that warrants the blockage of passage 50. A list summarizing the points made by proponents and opponents of the bill 51. Maine river herring fact sheet 52. Graphs detailing different marine species landings over time 53. Decision: Bill Enacted A. Received an affirmative vote of 33 Members of the Senate, with no Senators voting in the negative B. The House voted 123-24 in favor of it C. Governor Lepage did not sign the bill

APPENDIX G: Landowner Database

54 ;A;B ;G8HDF ;;AH;A 7:G7HA 7:;FHB ;8GFHQ DABHFG 7:FHFA QD:HQG 7BG;HQA F78:H8A 7;D7HAF 7:QBH:F BA7GH:A 7F8AH7G ;GB7HQF ;F7BH;F 7:GBHGA ;AF8HFG ;A8:HDA 7;;GH:F 7:;AH;F ;QGBH7G ;QA7HAF ;GF:H;A ;QFBH:A 7EA7DH8F ;EAQAHAA ;EBDGHBG &"5$. T BED:: ;AEF:: 7FEB:: BDE::: B7E::: BQEA:: B7EB:: F8EA:: ;QEQ:: A7EF:: A;EQ:: 7:QE;:: 7:7EB:: ;GFEB:: ;:AEQ:: ;:DED:: ;FGE;:: ;;:EG:: ;F8EG:: ;ABE;:: 7D7ED:: ;8:E::: ;QDED:: 7A8E::: ;8DEB:: ;DAEQ:: 77BED:: ;QGEB:: 8BFEG:: ;BFEB:: ;ADEA:: ;:GEA:: ;8:EQ:: ;7AEA:: ;7DE::: ;7GE7:: ;87EB:: ;Q7EF:: ;F8EB:: ;FDEB:: ;ABED:: ;FFEG:: &*&"),4")/$ BED:: ;AEF:: 77E7:: 8BE;:: A8EB:: QGEB:: B7E::: B7E::: QAEA:: G8EQ:: Q8EF:: B7E::: BBEB:: F8EA:: ;QEQ:: ;AEF:: 7FE;:: 7BED:: G:ED:: 8AE::: 87E;:: BBE::: BDE;:: BBEB:: BBEB:: B:EB:: ;AGEA:: ;D;EG:: ;D;ED:: ;7BEB:: ;;AEQ:: ;;:E7:: ;F;EG:: ;;8E;:: ;:DED:: ;A7E8:: FGGE7:: ;:DED:: ;;:E7:: ;:7EQ:: ;::EG:: ;:;E8:: )"%-,4")/$ ;;[7[;7 8[77[:B ;7[7Q[;7 &#"%.3$# '"0),"--#$.. !>=?>@=A;B=>53*#-==?>@=7;7=>53*#-E=53*#-=53*#-=53*#-=53*#-=53*#-=53*#-=53*#-=53*#-=53*#-=53*#-==?*5==;FF=>53*#-E=53*#-=1$"%.0-$=I%=I$"K/$=J0&2E=\@=88A8F DQB=S"#-.1#"NN)$=M-=!*)"%-=53*#-==?>@=A;B=>53*#-=53*#-==?*5=A88=W#"2=

55 BBBHQ ;7H7A B78HFF 8AGH7G ;G8;HG ;7QBH; 77QHQF ;Q8AHG 7:BHDG 7F7H8A BFGHFA ;8BGHF ;AAGH7 8GDBHG F7DGH8 ;DGDH8 7:DHAG 7;GAHD ;Q:8H7 BF8H;F ;D:FHGA ;F7BH;F ;88:H;F ;QF7HBF QF;8HFF ;GDFHQQ ;F:7H;G 7FDDHQA ;:;8HBG ;DGFHDG ;FA;H;G ;Q8FHFA ;8DGH:G ;G::H8A F77AHDF 7G;GH8F ;AA:HGA 7:8;HDG ;8AAHDF 7D:BHAG ;GQAHQG 7:QAHFQ T T T ;E::: 8AE8:: Q;EB:: ;GEA:: G;EQ:: ;8E;:: 7:E7:: GFE;:: 8QEQ:: ;DE8:: ;DE8:: ;GE::: 8QEA:: ;;DEQ:: ;:8EA:: ;AGEQ:: ;FFEF:: ;A7EG:: ;:FEQ:: A;AE8:: ;A:EA:: ;FQEG:: ;:QEF:: ;B;ED:: ;7;E;:: ;DQEG:: ;78E7:: ;;:EF:: ;FQEQ:: ;D7E8:: QD:EG:: 787EF:: 7QAE7:: 7F:E;:: ;D7EQ:: ;QBE;:: ;AFEF:: 7:QE8:: ;A7EF:: ;7;E7:: ;7;E7:: ;QGEQ:: ;8GED:: ;F;E7:: ;E::: B:EB:: G8EQ:: B:EB:: GDE;:: QAEA:: ;QE;:: Q8EF:: 8AE::: ;GEA:: G8EA:: 8;E8:: ;8E;:: 7:E7:: 8FEQ:: Q:E::: Q:E::: G7EB:: F:EA:: QAEA:: G:ED:: GAEF:: 8BE;:: BAE;:: BAE;:: GBEB:: 7BEG:: G;E8:: G;E8:: ;GE::: 8QEA:: FG;EG:: ;D:E7:: ;7QEB:: F8FEQ:: ;D:EF:: ;;AEQ:: ;7BEB:: ;7;EG:: ;;FE::: ;;FE::: ;DAE8:: ;DQEF:: ;:AEG:: ;[7[:G ;;[7[:8 ;:[F[;7 7[;Q[:8 ;:[7:[:B ;:A=>"L.0-$=P#=X'0&Z&*+%=Va=;;8G8 ;;=Z$')*1L=I"%$=W#"2==?*5=Q;:=>53*#-==?*5=Q;:=>53*#-=53*#-==?*5=;D7=>53*#-==?*5=;:QFD=!*#&)"%-=53*#-==?*5=7:Q=>53*#-==?*5=Q7Q=>53*#-==?*5=DBA=>53*#-==?*5=;GD=>53*#-="L=S0))=M-=!*)"%-==?*5=8G8=>53*#-==?*5=B;=>53*#-=53*#-=#"%K$=YI=F7;7B F;=X*/&Z=C-K$+**-=M-=V0"%&01=J\=:QFA8 1[*=XZ"#*%=X*/12=!>=?*5=;A7A=U/N/#%=#)"%-*="%-=P"%0$)=X(/#)0%K ]/-0&Z=U2&$. P"40-=\*-$.1Z0%0=1[*=]/)0$=V$).*%E=Y0-/10"#2 S$0#.=*3=Y#"%L=!Z0)N#**L ; 7 F D A Q 8 G B ; 7 F D A Q 8 ;A ;Q ;8 ;G ;B 7: 7; 77 ;: ;; ;7 ;F ;D ;A ;Q ;8 ;G ;B 7: 7; 77 7F 7D 7A ;;" ;7" 697G 697G 697G 697G 697G 697G 697G 697G 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B &"5=0%3* 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 697B 69F: 69F: &"5=0%3* 69F: 69F: 69F: &"5=0%3* 69F: 69F: 67G9:;A9::: 67G9:;Q9::: 67G9:;89::: 67G9:;G9::: 67G9:;B9::: 67G9:7:9::: 67G9:7;9::: 67G9:779::: 67B9::;9::: 67B9::79::: 67B9::F9::: 67B9::D9::: 67B9::A9::: 67B9::Q9::: 67B9::89::: 67B9::G9::: 67B9::B9::: 67B9:;:9::: 67B9:;;9::: 67B9:;;9::U 67B9:;79::: 67B9:;79::U 67B9:;F9::: 67B9:;D9::: 67B9:;A9::: 67B9:;Q9::: 67B9:;89::: 67B9:;G9::: 67B9:;B9::: 67B9:7:9::: 67B9:7;9::: 67B9:779::: 67B9:779::? 67B9:7F9::: 67B9:7D9::: 6F:9::;9::: 6F:9::79::: 6F:9::F9::: 6F:9::D9::: 6F:9::A9::: 6F:9::Q9::: 6F:9::89:::

56 FAHAF 7ABH8 FQ8HA ;QDQHD ;8:AH7 ;AG7H8 7DDAH; ;Q:HFD ;D;FHQA ;DAGHBG ;AFQH;A ;AFBHGF 7ABDH8A 7;GDH;G FAQ;H:G F8G;HAG ;88BHBF ;AA:HGA ;B8FHDG 7:7;H7A ;DAQHAF ;8;QH7F 78:FHAG ;GGAH7G 7E7:;HFF ;E:AAHBA 7EQ7QHQ: 7E:F7H7G ;EA8AHFA 7E;D;HF: ;EG;;HAG ;EFAQH:G ;EQFDH;A ;E;Q;HF: ;E:DDHBF FE7A7HFG ;EQAQH7: ;E8:;HAF ;EQQ7HFF T 7EB:: 7;E7:: ;:EA:: GQE7:: F:E::: BDEG:: GAEF:: ;;AED:: ;FDED:: ;;BE;:: ;7AED:: ;7AE8:: 7;;E::: ;FBE7:: ;8GEF:: F::E8:: ;DAE7:: F:GE8:: ;DAEF:: ;7QEQ:: ;Q;E;:: ;QAE::: ;;GEB:: ;D:E;:: 7D7E7:: 77:E8:: ;8BE8:: ;AFEB:: 7;FEQ:: ;QAEB:: ;7GEQ:: ;8DEG:: ;D8EGGD ;;:E8:: ;FFED:: 7G;EA:: ;FAE7:: ;FGEB:: ;FAE8:: 7EB:: BBEB:: GAEF:: B7E::: BGE::: BAE::: 7;E7:: ;:EA:: QGEB:: 8AE::: F:E::: BAE;:: 88EG:: BBEB:: GGE8:: G:ED:: BAE;:: BAE;:: G:ED:: ;:FEB:: ;;FEF:: ;78ED:: ;FFEQ:: ;F8EA:: ;ADEQ:: ;DAEF:: ;;AEA:: ;DQEB:: ;A:E8:: ;:BED:: ;;QEF:: ;8FE8:: ;87E8:: ;D:EB:: ;;;EG:: ;:7EQ:: ;:QEG:: ;D8EGGD ;ABEA:: B[G[;; B[;D[;7 G[;:[;7 D[7A[:8 D[7:[;: 7[;7[BB B[;F[;; ;:[;A[:8 V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U GD=R$.&$#%=U4$=U/N/#%==?*5=D8:=>53*#-==?*5=78A=>53*#-=53*#-==?*5=8GA=>53*#-=53*#-E=53*#-E=53*#-E=53*#-E=53*#-E==?*5=DAA=?#/%.+01LE==?*5=A;D=\/#%$#E==?*5=A;D=\/#%$#E==V*#'"%=I$'0$/5=;AQ=<"0%=X&=U(&=b7:G=U/N/#%E==?*5=;Q7=>53*#- G7=O$##0))=M-=!*)"%-E=53*#- Q=\+0&1Z$))=I"%$=>53*#-E=53*#-E=53*#- :=<"##=I% G7=<"##=I"%$=>53*#- GQ=<"##=I"%$=>53*#- ;F=?0#1Z+**-=I"%$ 8=?0#1Z+**-=I"%$ F=?0#1Z+**-=I"%$ :=?0#1Z+**-=I"%$ GD=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-=>53*#- 8G=>"L=I%=>53*#- 8Q=>"L=I% 8D=>"L=I% \Z$)'"=\Z*'(.*% M*N$#&="%-=M01Z"#-=R0)). M01Z"#-=R0)). I$.&$#=J*NN U)3#$-=JZ01L M*N$#&=C'$#2 ]$"%=C'$#2 \"%2"=I*+$)) XZ"1L)$2="%-=J"#*%E=IIJ C-+0%=\Z"2$# I$+0.=X&"()$. !Z0)0(=]"1L.*% !#0.10))"=\Z/#)*+ I$.&$#=J*NN M*N$#&=C'$#2 ]$"%=C'$#2 C#0L=c%/-.*% C#0L=c%/-.*% JZ"#)$.=M"%L0% M01Z"#-=J2# M01Z"#-=J2# \Z$=M"%-"))=<=S*-.*%=M$1*4"N)$ P"40-=I2*% M"2'*%-=J*)N2=^M"2'*%-="%-=<"#0)2%$_ M"2'*%-=J*)N2=^M"2'*%-="%-=<"#0)2%$_ M"2'*%-=J*)N2=^M"2'*%-="%-=<"#0)2%$_ M"2'*%-=J*)N2=^M"2'*%-="%-=<"#0)2%$_ Y#$-=X"+2$# C)0`"N$&Z=g=!$&$#=R/*#0 ?$&Z=<1")0.$# ]=<1<*##*+ C-'/%-=X/1L*+ J"#)*.=g=P$N*#"Z=W"#10" W"0)=J"#40))$ W"0)=J"#40))$ M01Z"#-=?$%%$&& >53*#-=\0'N$#)"%-. ]"'$.=<"))*2 V$")=P*+=g=V"%12=I$$ XZ0#)$2=S0)&*%=^]=g=Y#"%L)0%=S0)&*%_ !"/)=I2-*% R")&$#=<*.Z$# <"/#01$=<$#10$# P"40-=g=U'2=UN$) !"
L=g=c"&Z$#0%$=<*2%0Z"% G B ; 7 F D A Q F Q 8 G B 7 ; F D A ;: ;; ;7 ;F ;D ;A ;Q ;8 ;G ;B ;: ;; ;7 ;D ;F ;8" ;B" Q" eeeD eeA FY 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F: &"5=0%3* 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F: 69F; 69F; 69F; 69F; 69F; 69F; 69F; 69;B 69;B 697: 697: 697: &"5=0%3* 697: 697: 697: 697: 697: 697: 697: 697: 697: 697; 697; 697; 697; 6F:9::G9::: 6F:9::B9::: 6F:9:;:9::: 6F:9:;;9::: 6F:9:;79::: 6F:9:;F9::: 6F:9:;D9::: 6F:9:;A9::: 6F:9:;Q9::: 6F:9:;89::: 6F:9:;89::U 6F:9:;G9::: 6F:9:;B9::: 6F:9:;B9::U 6F;9::;9::: 6F;9::79::: 6F;9::F9::: 6F;9::D9::: 6F;9::A9::: 6F;9::Q9::: 6F;9::Q9::U 6;B9::D9::: 6;B9::D9::C 6;B9::D9::Y 6;B9::D9::W 6;B9::F9::: 67:9::A9::: 67:9::Q9::: 67:9::89::: 67:9::G9::: 67:9::F9::? 67:9::B9::: 67:9:;:9::: 67:9::79::: 67:9:;;9::: 67:9:;79::: 67:9:;D9::: 67:9:;F9::: 67;9::;9::: 67;9::F9::: 67;9::D9::: 67;9::A9:::

57 QFH8 QBHGF QBHGF QBHGF A:H7F QBHGF B:HQA B:HQA QBHGF QBHGF QBHGF QBBHDG DE:FGHGF ;EFAQH:G ;EA:BH7: ;EFD;HFG ;E8B8H:G ;EGD7HD: ;EQ7AHAG ;ED:AH:G ;EAQQH8G ;E;:BHGA ;E:8FH;: ;EGQFH7F ;EA:DHF: 7EQADHAG ;EFAQH:G ;EAQQH8G ;E7;8HQA ;EADBHQF ;EF7DH7F 7EA:;H8B ;EG78H8: ;EQBAHD: 7EQ;BH:A ;EBF;HGF ;EADBHQF ;EBFBH;G ;E8;FH8G ;EFB:HFG FE;8;HAF 7E:7DHBF T T AE8:: AE8:: AE8:: DE;:: AE8:: 8ED:: 8ED:: AE8:: AE7:: AE8:: AE8:: A8E;:: B:EQ:: GQEA:: BBED:: F7BE8:: ;;:E8:: ;7FE7:: ;:BEA:: ;DQE8:: ;DQE8:: ;A:ED:: ;F7E8:: ;;DE8:: ;78EB:: ;A7E;:: ;77EG:: 7;QE8:: ;;:E8:: ;78EB:: ;7QEA:: ;:GE;:: 7:DE77G ;DBE7:: ;FGED:: 7;FEG:: ;A8E8:: ;7QEA:: ;AGE7:: ;FBEB:: ;;FEA:: 7AGEB:: ;QAEF:: AE8:: AE8:: AE8:: DE;:: AE8:: 8ED:: 8ED:: AE8:: AE7:: AE8:: AE8:: G:ED:: G:ED:: B7E::: ;QE;:: B7E::: BAE;:: BAE;:: BAE;:: G8EQ:: G8EQ:: G8EQ:: GQEA:: B8E::: G:ED:: 88EG:: G:ED:: B8E::: BAE;:: GGE8:: GGE8:: B:EB:: ;7DE8:: ;;8E;:: ;;:E7:: ;7GEQ7G ;F;E;:: ;;8EG:: ;:8E::: ;:8E::: ;:7EQ:: ;DFE7:: ;:;E8:: 8[;;[;7 V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U T V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U !>=?*5=7DQ:=X*/&Z=!*#&)"%-E==?*5=FA;=X/##2E=OU=7FGGF J[>=R0))0"'=I$-/1=ff=;=C)0`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d/0'N2=I"%$ A8=d/0'N2=I"%$ QQ=!"#�-K$=I"%$ QD=!"#�-K$=I"%$ Q7=!"#�-K$=I"%$ D8=!$#Z"'=I"%$ DA=!$#Z"'=I"%$ FB=!$#Z"'=I"%$ F8=!$#Z"'=I"%$ FA=!$#Z"'=I"%$ F;=!$#Z"'=I"%$ DD=W#$$%=?"%L.=I"%$ D7=W#$$-=?"%L.=I"%$ DF=RZ0&%$2=I"%$ D;=RZ0&%$2=I"%$ FB=RZ0&%$2=I"%$ FF=RZ0&%$2=I"%$ 7B=RZ0&%$2=I"%$ 78=RZ0&%$2=I"%$ 7A=RZ0&%$2=I"%$ ;B=RZ0&%$2=I"%$ X/."%=?*/1Z"#- M/&Z=J)"#L !" "=I"'*&& X/%.$&=!#*($#&0$. I*#$&&"=U/.N/#K$# !"/)0%$=c$%%0.*%=^J[>=\Z*'".=c$%%0.*%_ P"40-=>1*%%*# M01Z"#-=M$")0&2=\#/.& \$#$."=]*%$. C))0.=?$"% X&"%)$2=!"#.*%. X&"%)$2=!"#.*%. M"%-"))=JZ0)- U%0&"=!"&$%$"/-$ <"#h2=X$..0*%. R"2%$=\0$#%"% ]"'$.=U)-$% W/2=S"#& P*%")-=M*K$#. ]*Z%=]$%%$.. ]*Z%=X0'(.*% M*.L*=!$#Z"' P"40-=I$N)*%- R")&$#=J/#&0. JZ#0.=\"%%$# JZ#0.=\"%%$# JZ#0.=\"%%$# M01Z"#-=\"2'"% M01Z"#-=\"2'"% !$&$#=<*##0.*% !$&$#=<*##0.*% S$"&Z$#=<"10.""1 R")&$#=J/#&0. U)"%=<"2 c$%%$&Z=J*#%$)) X&$(Z$%=g=]*)0%$=I"&&$#2 U)N$#&=?"`0%$& U)N$#&=?"`0%$& ]*.$(Z=?/#L$ J#"0K=M$2%*)-.=^1*%.$#4"&*#_ C#01=?#*+% W"#2=W**-+0% M01L2=c0'N")) ?"#N"#"=<"1P*%")- Q 8 G B ; 7 F D A 8 ;: ;; ;7 ;F ;D ;G ;B 7: 7; 77 7F ;8 ;G ;B 7: 7; 7F 7D 7A 7Q 78 7G 7B D7 D; D: F; FB FG F8 779? M[R F79U 697; 697; 697; 697; 697; 697; %"'$=*%=&"5=.Z$$&=^7;9;;_ 697; 697; 697; 697; 697; 697; 697; 697; 697; 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 69:77 69:77 6977 6977 6977 69:77 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 6977 &"5=0%3* 6977 6977 67;9::Q9::: 67;9::89::: 67;9::G9::: 67;9::B9::: 67;9:;:9::: 67;9:;;9::: 67;9:;79::: 67;9:;F9::: 67;9:;D9::: 67;9:;G9::: 67;9:;B9::: 67;9:7:9::: 67;9:7;9::: 67;9:779::: 67;9:7F9::: 6779::;9::: 6779::79::: 6779::F9::: 6779::D9::: 6779::A9::: 6779::Q9::: 6779:;89::: 6779:;G9::: 6779:;B9::: 6779:7:9::: 6779:7;9::: 6779:779::? 6779:7F9::: 6779:7D9::: 6779:7A9::: 6779:7Q9::: 6779:789::: 6779:7G9::: 6779:7B9::: 6779: 6779:D79::: 6779:D;9::: 6779:D:9::: 6779:F;9::: 6779:FB9::: 6779:F79::U 6779:FG9::: 6779:F89:::

58 DEQ:QH:: 7EFG7HQF 7E:QQHAG 7E77DHQ: FE:BDHFA 7EAAQHAG 7EFGBHBG 7EDGFH:G 7E:87H8: 7EQ7AH;G ;EG:;HBG 7EFD:HBG 7E;GAHD: 7EQBBHB: 7EAG;H:G T V[U V[U F8QE::: ;BDEA:: ;QGE8:: ;G;EQ:: 7Q7EQ:: 7:GE8:: ;BAE;:: 7;GE8:: 7:7E8:: ;QBE7:: 7;DEF:: ;D8E;:: ;Q;EF:: ;B;E;:: ;QDE;:: ;8GED:: 77:ED:: 7;:E8:: ;D:EB:: ;DQEG:: ;D7EF:: ;7;ED:: ;D8EB:: ;;:E7:: ;D:E::: ;;QEF:: ;;QEF:: ;F;E;:: ;A8EA:: ;;FEF:: ;Q;EF:: ;AQEG:: ;QDE;:: ;DGEB:: ;7QEQ:: ;QBEG:: 8[;[;F ;:[7:[:G V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U V[U ."'$ F8=V*#&Z=<"0%=X&H=<$1Z"%01=Y")).E=#*%*E=53*#-E=53*#-E=

59