Exhibit EN-LWB-1

American Fisheries Society Society Monograph Monograph 9:287-317,9:287-317, 2004 286 MULLANEYMUllANEY © 2004 by thethe AmericanAmerican FisheriesFisheries SocietySociety

Connecticut, 1969-88. U.S.U.S. GeologicalGeological SurveySurvey Connecticut and Massachusetts portionportion ofof Tham Thameses, Water-Resources InvestigationsInvestigations ReportReport 9~161,96-4161, Connecticut, andand HousatonicHousatonic river river basins. basins. PresentedPresented Hartford, Connecticut. before the Natural ResourcesResources andand Power Power Subcom- Subcom­ Trench, E. C. T. 2000. Nutrient sources and loads in mittee of the House CommitteeCommittee onon Government,Government, 4 Salmon the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames riverriver October 1963,1963, U.S.U.S. DepartmentDepartment of of Health, Health, Educa-Educa­ An Overview ofof thethe ProgramProgram toto RestoreRestore AtlanticAtlantic Salmon basins. U.S. Geological SurveySurvey Water-Resources tion and Welfare, Region I, Boston. and OtherOther DiadromousDiadromous Fishes to the Connecticut RiverRiver withwith Investigations Report 99-4236, East Hartford,Hartford, Vecchia, A. V. 1985.1985. PeriodicPeriodic autoregressive-movinautoregressive-movingg Connecticut. average (PARMA)(PARMA) modeling withwith applicationsapplications toto Notes on the CurrentCurrent Status o~of thesethese Species inin thethe RiverRiver Trench, E.E. C.C. T., and A. V. Vecchia.Vecchia. 2002.2002. Water-qualityWater-quality water resources.resources. WaterWater ResourcesResources BulletinBulletin design for streams in 21(5):721-730. trend analysis and sampling design for streams in STEPHEN GEPHARD*GEPHARD* Connecticut, 1968-98. U.S.U.S. GeologicalGeological SurveySurvey Vecchia, A. V. 2000. Water-quality trendtrend analysisanalysis andand Connecticut Department ofof Environmental Protection, Inland Fisheries Division Water-Resources Investigations ReportReport 02--4011,02-4011, sampling design forfor thethe Souris River,River, Saskatchewan,Saskatchewan, Connecticut Department Post Office Box 719, Old Lyme, Connecticut06371,Connecticut 06371, USA East Hartford, Connecticut. North Dakota, andand Manitoba.Manitoba. U.S.U.S. GeologicalGeological Sur-Sur­ Post Office Box U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1963. vey Water- Resources InvestigationsInvestigations ReportReport 00- Statement on water quality management, states of 4019, Bismarck, North Dakota. JAMES McMENEMYMCMENE/vIY Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Springfield Regional Office 100 Mineral Street, Suite 302, Springfield, Vermont 05156, USA

11114- 0 Abstract.-AAbstract.—A federal and multi-state cooperative program to restorerestore AmericanAmerican shadAlosashadAlosa sapidissima N[1111111111111M has evolved and Atlantic salmon Salmo salar to the Connecticut River basin was begun in 1967 and has evolved 11111111i111111111111 to include many other species. The program began inin the last years oftheof the ConnecticutConnecticut River Ecologi­Ecologi- cal Study, but most of itsits activitiesactivities havehave occurredoccurred sincesince thethe studystudy ended.ended. TheThe ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver INm Atlantic Salmon Commission managesmanages thethe program. Emphasis has been placed on the provision of fish passage at barrier dams. Early fishwaysfishways were justified on the basis of existing American shad runs, and later upriver fishfishways ways were built to support future salmon runs. FishFishways ways exist at fivefive main­main- IIIIINIIIlillilllilllli stem dams and eight tributarytributary dams, with facilities for downstream fish passage provided at many additional dams. Salmon restoration has been pursued with stockingstocking of hatchery-rearedhatchery-reared fry and additional dams. Salmon 11I111 111111111114111111N11!111111 smolts, catch prohibitions, kelt reconditioning, fish health management, and various genetic manage­manage- ment and marking schemes. Annual runs typically have numbered in the hundreds but recently have lfYIIIYNIII declined to less than 100 at the same timetime runsruns elsewhereelsewhere throughthrough thethe species'species' range have also declined. Annual runsruns ofof American shad,shad, blueback herringherring A. aestivalis, and alewife A. pseudoharengus increased but recently experienced declines, for which stock recovery of the striped bass MoroneMarone saxatilis is thoughtthought toto bebe atat leastleast partiallypartially responsible.responsible. Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum and hickory shad A. mediocris experienced significant range extensions into the Connecticut River basin IIY since the 1990s,1990s, and thethe numbernumber ofof nonspawningnonspawning striped bass that enter thethe riverriver annuallyannually has since the IIY of the status in the Connecticut ~~~---­ increased dramatically during thethe same timetime period. Brief reviews of the status in the Connecticut 1111IIIIIINIIIIIKIIilllllllllllllllmll~ River basin of these anadromous species as well as of the shortnose sturgeonAcipensersturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum, Atlantic sturgeon A. oxyrinchus, white perch MoroneMarone americana, rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax, I 1111111INRIN WXtlI sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, midand sea-run brown trout Salmo trutta and the catadromous Ameri­Ameri- can eel Anguilla rostrata are provided.

Introduction cending many tributaries of the river untiluntil gener-gener­ ally stoppedstopped by waterfallswaterfalls (Atkins(Atkins 1874).1874). RunsRuns Diadromousfish fish speciesspecies were very abundantabundant were extirpated in southernsouthern tributariestributaries beginningbeginning throughouftthe the Connecticut Connecticut River River basinbasin prior to in thethe earlyearly toto mid-1700smid-1700s duedue toto thethe constructionconstruction Europeancontact contact (Moffitt (Moffitt etet al.al. 1982). Atlantic of damsdams to powerpower millsmills andand factories.factories. The first Balloon Salmo salar are reported to havehave ascendedascended dam that completelycompletely blocked the main-stemmain-stem river the riverapproximately approximately 615 615 kmkm toto the presentpresent· was built in 17981798 near the present day site of Turn-Turn­ day citeof of Beechers Beechers Falls,Falls, VermontVermont (Atkins(Atkins 1874; ers Falls, Massachusetts,Massachusetts, and it resulted in thethe Kkimiall1935; 1935; Moffitt Moffitt et et al. al. 1982), 1982), asas well as- extirpation of the last run ofof AtlanticAtlantic salmonsalmon to the riverriver (Atkins(Atkins 1874;1874; CRASCCRASC 1998).1998). EveryEvery Corresponding author: [email protected] other diadromous fish species was able to survivesurvive

287 Exhibit EN-LWB-1

288 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTic SALMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 289 but apparently in greatly reduced numbers, even each state and federal agency. It was charged with as downstream dams were built in Holyoke, Mas­ carrying out the necessary field activities (culture sachusetts and Enfield, Connecticut (Figure 1) and stocking of juvenile salmon, adult capture, because some spawning habitat for these species transport, holding, and spawning, egg incubation, remained accessible downstream of all of the dams. etc.). The states typically funded their activities through Sport Fish Restoration Funds (authorized by the "Dingell-Johnson Act" and later the "Wal­ Early History of Restoration lop-Breaux Act"). Dams Tributaries Efforts The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Leesville 1. Eidl.mttnile River provided a river program coordinator to expedite The first effort to restore runs of fish to the Con­ 2. Salmon River communication among the partners and coordi­ Rainbow 3.F~nRiver necticut River was initiated in 1867 when the 4. Westfield River nate their efforts. In a sense, the coordinator was a 5. Manhan River newly created Fish Commissions of the four Con­ Enfield 6; Mill River one-person staff for the program. The four states necticut River states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, 7. MillRiver helped fund the coordinator's office. DSI 8. Fort River New Hampshire, Vermont) met to organize the ef­ 9. Sawmill River During the final years of the Connecticut River fort (CRASC 1998). The restoration program re­ Holyoke 10, DEierfield River Ecological Study, the restoration program was get­ 11. Filii River sulted in hundreds of salmon returning to the 12'. Millms River ting organized, and the Policy and Technical com­ Turners Falls 13. Four Mile Brook Connecticut, but the effort was abandoned after 14. Mill Brook · mittees were in negotiation with the power Vernon 15. Ashuelot River 25 years due to the lack of effective fish passage t 16. West River companies about the provision of fish passage at at the dams and the failure to protect the return­ 17. Cold River the Holyoke, Turners Falls, Vernon, Bellows Falls, Bellows Falls N l8., Saxtons River ing salmon from harvesting (Foster 1991). There and Wilder dams (dams 5 through 9 in Figure 1) 19. Willlains River is no indication that the program increased runs Wilder .20. Black River (Foster 1991). However, by the time the study con­ 21. Little Sugar River of other species to the river. 22. Sugar River cluded in 1972, only token numbers of salmon Ryegate The Connecticut River suffered from severe 23. Ottauqu:echee River had actually been stocked, no adult returns had .24. BloodS Brook water pollution and heavy exploitation of remnant 25. Mascoma River been documented, and virtually no efforts had been 26. Wbfte River · runs of fish throughout much of the 1900s, but expended on behalf of other diadromous fish spe­ .28.27. ~.· _poRi:!l:'Panoosuc R much of the original habitat for salmon and other ulllls · ver cies. Fisheries biologists from the USFWS and in­ 29. Wells River diadromous fish species remained, due to the rural dividual state agencies along with experienced ao. Ammonoosuc River character of much of the basin. In 1965, the U.S. 31. Stevens River salmon anglers assessed the habitat upstream of 32. Passumpsic Rivet Congress passed the Anadromous Fish Conserva­ 33. Johns River the dams to confirm that suitable habitat for Atlan­ 34. Israel River '-'' tion Act (Public Law 89-304) that provided fed­ 35. Upper Anu:nonoosuc R. tic salmon persisted after nearly 200 years of hu­ eral funds to states that joined cooperatively to 36. P.iw Stream. man impacts. This effort resulted in the targeting :Jl.NuJheganRiver restore anadromous fish runs to their rivers. There of five major tributaries for the program: Salmon 38. Mohawk: River had been growing interest since the 1940s to at­ River (#2 in Figure 1), Farmington River (#3), tempt to restore Atlantic salmon to the river. The Westfield River (#4), Deerfield River (#10), West availability of federal funds in 1967 prompted the River (#16), White River (#26), and Ammono~suc <:: four states to once again unite to create an anadro­ River (#30). The locations of these targeted tnbu­ mous fish restoration program for the Connecticut taries determined which dams were targeted for fish River (Foster 1991). The original governing body passage. Other tributaries were targeted for restora­ of the restoration program was named "The Policy tion later in the program. Committee for Fisheries Management of the Con­ necticut River Basin" (the Policy Committee). It

consisted of fish and game commissioners from Creation of the "Commission" Scale ... 1:2,000;000 each of the four states as well as high level admin­ 1\,filp by1he U. a Floh &. Wildlffl, Service The program partners sought congresswn· a! au­. Connecllcu~ Rlwr Coon~Jmotar'e Office. istrators from the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries . · · whtch (later to become the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) thorization for an mterstate commtsswn, and the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (later they received in 1983 when Congress passed P.L. 1. Connecticut River basin with key dams and tributary watersheds. to become the NOAA-Fisheries). The Policy Com­ 98-138 and the states passed related State Acts, mittee received scientific advice from the "Tech­ creating the Connecticut River Atlantic Sal~on was similar, adding one private sector nical Committee for Fisheries Management of the Commission. The commission met for the first tu~e from each state (appointed by the state's P_rime focus of CRASC, but management deci­ Connecticut River Basin" (Technical Committee), in January of 1984 (Foster 1991). The comnus­ The current membership of the CRAse swn_s concerning other diadromous species are sion commonly referred to by its acron~mts . abbreviations used in this paper are rout~nely made by CRASC. The original act au­ which was comprised of a fisheries biologist from ' · but 1 CRASC, replaced the Policy Commtttee, In Table 1. Atlantic salmon remains the thonzed CRASC to exist for 20 years. In 2002, Congress passed P.L. 107-171, which re-autho- Exhibit EN-LWB-1

290 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM 1D RESTORE AT LANTIC SALMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 291 TABLE 1. Members of the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission and active partners of the commission dam_other than CRASC resolutions opposing vari­ presence of an observation window in the flu in the restoration program. (Abbreviations in parenthesis are used throughout the text.) ous mformal proposals to rebuild it. allowed enumeration. Other fishways were b~~ Partners A fish elevator installed at the 10-m-hi h Voting members between the late 1970s and early 1990s (Table 2) Holyo~e ~am (rkm 139, #5 in Figure 1) beg!n United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest ~hese opened the lower 440 km of the main-ste~ State of Connecticut, Department of operatw? m 1955 primarily to provide passage Service (USFS) nver and portions of targeted lower tributaries to Environmental Protection (CTDEP) of Amencan shad Alosa sapidissima (Moffitt et State of Massachusetts, Division of Fisheries United States Department oflnterior, U.S. Geological fish passage. Most of these facilities were built by al. _1982). By modem standards, the elevator was and Wildlife (MADFW) Survey, Biological Resources Division (USGS­ th~ po~er companies as a result of project rudm~entary. Workers were required to push lifted State of Massachusetts, Division of Marine BRD) rehcensmg requirements of the Federal Ener United States Department of Defense, U.S. Army shad m handcarts to the headpond for release. It Fisheries Regulatory. (FERC) following fisf. allowed succ~ssfu~ spawning of shad above the C~mmission State of Vermont, Department ofFish and Wildlife Corps of Engineers way prescnptwns by the USFWS or a result of dam for the fust time since 1849 Th H I k (VTDFW) Northeast Utilities f T . e o yo e settlement agreements between the companies Pacific Gas and Electric Company . act tty was expanded in 1975 to a two-lift facil- State of New Hampshire, Fish and Game and the states/federal government D · · Connecticut River Watershed Council tt! and I_TIOdified so that the lift hoppers emptied b . · ectswns to Department (NHFGD) mid most of these fishways were made befo Connecticut River Salmon Association ?trectly mto an exit flume, allowing fish to swim United States, Department of Interior, U.S. Fish a_ny adult Atlantic salmon had returned to t~e Trout Unlimited mto the headpond of their own volition. This & Wildlife Service (USFWS) nver. Justification for all fishways downstream o~ United States, Department of Commerce, National Various watershed councils focused on tributary upgrad~ was a result of negotiations by the Policy Bellows Falls, Vermont (rkm 280) was based o Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, watersheds Committee (Stephen Rideout U S G I . I , . . eo ogtca the need to pass the sizeable existing run of Ameri~ National Marine Fisheries Service Survey [USGS], Director- Conte Anadromous Fish can shad (Moffitt et al. 1982). Fishways at the ~Ill! (NOAA-Fisheries) Research Center, personal communication). The dams at Bellows Falls (#8 in Figure 1) and Wilder

rized CRASC for another 20 years. During its first reared smolts, and expected future adult returns in the range of 900-15,000 (CRASC 1998). Figure 1 20 years, CRASC received no federal appropria­ D TABLE 2. Status of upstream fish passage facilities at key dams in the Connecticut River basin tions and had no budget. It accomplished neces­ shows the tributary streams targeted for salmon res­ sary tasks of the restoration program through the toration as well as the dams that currently have fish Year installed passage and dams targeted for future fish passage Holyoke Connecticut Holyoke, MA funded activities of its member agencies. Not all Hydro 2004A Lift 1955,1976, facilities (CRASC 1998). Other fisheries manage­ restoration activities for diadromous species in 2003 modi­ ment plans were adopted for other diadromous spe­ the watershed are conducted by CRASC. Turners Falls fications cies and will be discussed later. Connecticut Turners Falls, The Technical Committee continues its Hydro 1889A Ice Harbor 1980 MA mandate within CRASC, working with a number Vernon Connecticut Vernon, VT of subcommittees (Salmon Studies, Shad Stud­ Fish Passage Facilities Hydro 1904A Ice Harbor/ 1981 II ies, Genetics, Smolt Advisory, and Fish Passage) Bellows Falls vertical slot Connecticut Rockingham, Hydro staffed by committee members as well as col­ Provision of fish passage is the foundation of the 1855A vertical slot 1984 '•I I VT leagues from their agencies and others, includ­ restoration program. The basin contains more than Wilder Connecticut Hartford, VT Hydro ing researchers. CRASC typically meets twice a 1,000 dams, many which are located within the 1892A modified Ice 1987 ' Harbor year and the Technical Committee three or four historical range of diadromous species. The first Ryegate Connecticut Ryegate, VT Hydro 8011A times a year, and the workgroups regularly, as fishways on the river were built prior to the initia­ n.a. Scheduled for tion of the restoration program. A ramp was in­ future• needed. McColloch RowlandBrk OldLyme,CT Aesthetics n.a. pool and weir The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) stalled in the 2-m-high Enfield Dam (river Mary Steube MillBrook OldLyme,CT Aesthetics n.a. steeppass program coordinator now serves as executive sec­ kilometer [rkm] 110, #3 in Figure 1) in 1933 Moulson Pond Eightmile Lyme,CT Hydro n.a. steeppass 1997 retary for CRASC, works with the Technical Com­ (Moffitt et al. 1982). This timber crib-stone dam Lower Pond Joshua Creek Lyme,CT Aesthetics n.a. pool and weir/ mittee, coordinates the activities of all of the has always been overtopped by water and some steeppass partners, acts as the primary means of communi­ fish were always able to surmount it. The effec­ Leesville Salmon East Haddam, Fisheries n.a. De nil 1980 cation among the partners, and serves as the con­ tiveness of the ramp was never clearly documented. CT tact person for the restoration program. The dam continually deteriorated during the Farmington Windsor,CT Hydro n.a. vertical slot 1976 The Atlantic salmon restoration effort has been 1950s-1970s (Robert A. Jones, Director, Con­ Westfield Westfield, MA Hydro 2608A Denil 1996 necticut Department of Environmental Protection! Deerfield Shelburne, MA Hydro guided by a strategic plan, developed in 1980 and 2323A n.a. Scheduled for Fisheries Division-retired, personal communica­ revised in 1982 and 1998 (CRASC 1998). It iden­ future• tion) and a large section of the dam washed out in West Townshend, VT tified the habitat within the basin targeted for Flood n.a. trap& truck 1993 salmon restoration, identified the dams requiring 1978, at which time the dam ceased to be an im­ pediment to fish migration. No further manage­ fish passage, set the annual Atlantic salmon stock­ Deferred ing target of 10 million fry and 100,000 hatchery- ment actions have been taken in regards to this Exhibit EN-LWB-1

GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY 292 AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTICATLANTIC SALMON SALMON AND AND OTHER OTHER DIADROMOUSDIADROMOUS FISHES 293

(rkm 350, #9 in FigureFigure 1)1) werewere justified by thethe cal ResourceResource Discipline (BRD) and hashas aa nationalnational stream have fishwaysfishways thatthat werewere designeddesigned sources of Atlantic salmonsalmon eggs availableavailable to need to passpass adultadult AtlanticAtlantic salmon,salmon, whichwhich hadhad focus, but itsits locationlocation onon thethe ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver primarily for upstream passage ofof AmericanAmerican the program, and out ofof necessity,necessity, eggseggs werewere begun to returnreturn whenwhen thesethese decisionsdecisions werewere made.made. has resulted in itsits intimateintimate involvementinvolvement withwith manymany shad. These cancan easilyeasily accommodateaccommodate Atlan- imported from wherever they werewere available,available, These dams are above the historic range of Ameri-Ameri­ fish passagepassage challenges that CRASC faces on thethe tic salmon. Fish ladders at Bellows Falls (rkm usually in smallsmall numbers.numbers. SinceSince salmonsalmon im-im­ can shadshad in thethe river.river. Additional fishways at main-main­ Connecticut River.River. 280, #8) and Wilder (rkm 350, #9) dams were print on the chemicalchemical signature of the water in stem dams upstream of thethe WilderWilder DamDam areare built specifically for Atlantic salmon. All fish-fish­ which they smoltify (Hasler and ScholzScholz 1983),1983), planned if and whenwhen Atlantic salmon run sizessizes Status of Diadromous Fishes in ways planned forfor main-stemmain-stem damsdams upstreamupstream salmon stockedstocked into thethe ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver increase to a pointpoint thatthat justifiesjustifies thisthis action.action. of Bel­ with Summaries of of Wilder and tributary dams upstream of Bel- were expected to return toto thethe ConnecticutConnecticut Fishways were justified on the basis of thesethese the Basin with Summaries of lows Falls and on thethe Deerfield River are pri-pri­ rather than theirtheir riverriver of geneticgenetic origin.origin. SmallSmall anadromous speciesspecies but it waswas recognizedrecognized that Restoration Activities marily for salmon. Tributary fishways on the numbers of salmon fry, parr, and smolts werewere nonanadromous (riverine) species would benefitbenefit Eightmile, Salmon,Salmon, Farmington,Farmington, andand West-West­ stocked beginning in 19671967 (Table(Table 3). from these facilities and largelarge numbersnumbers of whitewhite Atlantic Salmon field rivers were constructed for a varietyvariety of a. HatcheryHatchery smoltsmolt stocking—Hatcherystocking-Hatchery smolts sucker Catastomus commersonii, common carp anadromous fish including salmon. A "trap survival rates and Status PriorPrior to Restoration ProgramProgram anadromous have high egg-to-smoltegg-to-smolt survival rates and Cyprinus carpio, centrarchids, and other fishes and truck" facilityfacility hashas providedprovided upstreamupstream can be releasedreleased belowbelow dams.dams. TheThe USFWSUSFWS are passed annually and were considered in the are passed Atlantic salmon was nativenative toto thethe ConnecticutConnecticut passage for salmonsalmon atat thethe TownshendTownshend DamDam had previousprevious experienceexperience growinggrowing AtlanticAtlantic design capacity of the facilities.facilities. River, one of the southernmostsouthernmost riversrivers withinwithin NorthNorth on thethe WestWest River.River. Collectively,Collectively, these up-up­ salmon smolts at twotwo salmonsalmon hatcherieshatcheries in that downstream mi­ It waswas initiallyinitially assumedassumed that downstream mi- America in which thethe speciesspecies waswas foundfound (Atkins(Atkins stream passage facilities allow salmon to as-as­ Maine and began raising smolts for the Con-Con­ America in which ill grants would either use thethe fishwaysfishways designeddesigned for species cend the main-stemmain-stem river toto RyegateRyegate DamDam necticut River program at the Pittsford Na-Na­ 1874; MacCrimmon and Gots 1979).1979). TheThe species II' upstream migrants oror safely pass over the spill-spill­ IN upstream was extirpated from the basin after thethe firstfirst damdam (rkm 440) and allow access to much or all of tional Fish Hatchery (PNFH)(PNFH) inin Vermont. The ways. Years of operating experience and data analy-analy­ ways. across the main-stem river was constructedconstructed inin 17981798 the Eightmile,Eightmile, Salmon,Salmon, Farmington,Farmington, West-West­ states produced some smolts at existing trout sis have shown thatthat manymany downstreamdownstream migrantsmigrants sis have shown near the presentpresent dayday sitesite ofof Turners Turners Falls,Falls, Massa-Massa­ field, West, and White river systems and por-por­ hatcheries. Initially, most hatchery smoltssmolts passed through the turbines (Bell and Kynard 1985; con­ iuill chusetts (Atkins 1874;1874; Moffitt et al.al. 1982).1982). AnAn tions of manymany otherother tributaries.tributaries. were 2 years old. In 1981,1981, thethe USFWSUSFWS con- 0jll Taylor and Kynard 1985; Stier and KynardKynard 1986;1986; Taylor and earlier attempt to restorerestore thethe speciesspecies duringduring thethe b. DownstreamDownstream passage—Mostpassage-Most of thethe existingexisting structed the WhiteWhite RiverRiver NationalNational FishFish McMenemy and Kynard 1988).1988). EstimatedEstimated turbineturbine ba­ latter half ofof thethe 1800s1800s failedfailed (Foster(Foster 1991),1991), andand salmon habitat in thethe ConnecticutConnecticut River ba- Hatchery (WRNFH), aa large facility in jlrl mortality rates at Holyoke were 12-14% for Atlan-Atlan­ mortality rates at only occasional stray salmon were reportedreported in thethe sin is locatedlocated aboveabove dams,dams, oftenoften manymany dams. Bethel, Vermont dedicated to salmon pro-pro­ tic salmon smolts (Stier(Stier andand KynardKynard 1986),1986), 22%22% tic salmon river during thethe 1900s1900s priorprior toto thethe present-daypresent-day Downstream passage, particularly at hydro-hydro­ duction. When WRNFHWRNFH began operation, for adult American shad (Bell(Bell andand KynardKynard 1985),1985), j(ll for adult American restoration program (Merriman and JeanJean 1949).1949). electric dams, is thereforetherefore essential to suc-suc­ PNFH reverted to production for the GreatGreat and and 62-82% forfor juvenilejuvenile clupeidsclupeids (Taylor(Taylor and cessful smoltsmolt emigration.emigration. TheThe ConnecticutConnecticut Lakes programs. A decision to increase the Kynard 1985). Downstream fish passage facilities River Atlantic SalmonSalmon CommissionCommission signedsigned numbers of smolts switchedswitched thethe productionproduction 01011111 main Restoration Strategies were subsequently installed at all dams on the main memoranda of agreement with two utilityutility from 2-year smolts to yearlings in 1983. This and including Ryegate and stem downstream of and including Ryegate and 1. Targeted Habitat. It seemsseems likelylikely thatthat littlelittle ofof companies in 19901990 to provideprovide passage at the accelerated rearing regime also resulted in The delay in providing iw many dams on tributaries.tributaries. The delay in providing the main-stemmain-stem ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver downstreamdownstream five lowermostlowermost main-stemmain-stem dams and thethe the stockingstocking of largelarge numbersnumbers of parr thatthat passage significantly 1111 effective downstream fish passage significantly of the present-day site of thethe Ryegate Dam (rkm(rkm Northfield Mountain pumped storage plant were graded out andand stockedstocked becausebecause theythey slowed the pace ofof thethe restorationrestoration program.program. SomeSome supported (Massachusetts). The need forfor downstreamdownstream were too small to becomebecome smolts in 11 year.year. 440, #10 inin FigureFigure 1)1) historicallyhistorically supported (Massachusetts). were too pN11~1 downstream passage facilities were effective from and on the main stem and Atlantic salmon rearing habitat. Most of thethe passage on tributaries and on the main stem These fish experiencedexperienced poor survivalsurvival and 11111el Rainbow Dam), but most re­ the beginning (e.g., Rainbow Dam), but most re- rearing habitat was located in thethe river'sriver's manymany upstream of thethe WilderWilder DamDam increasedincreased withwith produced very few adult returns. The WhiteWhite satisfactory perfor­ IIIII quired modification to achieveachieve satisfactory perfor- tributaries. SomeSome historicalhistorical AtlanticAtlantic salmonsalmon the dramatic expansion of fryfry stockingstocking inin River National FishFish Hatchery,Hatchery, KensingtonKensington Dam) (Kynard and O'Leary mance (e.g., Holyoke Dam) (Kynard and O'Leary habitat has beenbeen permanentlypermanently lost due toto hu-hu­ the earlyearly 1990s.1990s. Currently,Currently, downstreamdownstream pas-pas­ State Salmon Hatchery (KSSH) in Connecti-Connecti­ passage for shortnose sturgeon 1993).1993 ). Downstream passage for shortnose sturgeon man activities suchsuch asas damdam constructionconstruction andand sage facilitiesfacilities exist atat thethe lowermostlowermost seven cut, andand thethe RogerRoger ReedReed StateState FishFish Hatch-Hatch­ and American eel Anguilla Acipenser brevirostrumbrevirostrum and American eel Anguilla water diversions. Most of thethe remainingremaining salmonsalmon dams on the mainmain stemstem and atat 4848 tributarytributary ery (RRSFH)(RRSFH) inin MassachusettsMassachusetts providedprovided Facilities are opened, rostrata remains problematic. Facilities are opened, habitat in thethe basinbasin isis currentlycurrently beingbeing stockedstocked dams. TheThe ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver AtlanticAtlantic yearling smolt production for thethe programprogram to an annual oper­ operated, and closed according to an annual oper- as part of the restoration program. StockedStocked habi-habi­ Salmon Commission has stated that some of from 19831983 to 1995.1995. TheThe RogerRoger Reed StateState by the CRASC. ating scheduleschedule developed by the CRASC. tat rangesranges fromfrom thethe EightmileEightmile RiverRiver inin south-south­ these facilitiesfacilities require improvementsimprovements and an Fish Hatchery was converted from smolt to 1990 of the Silvio Conte The construction in 1990 of the Silvio Conte ern ConnecticutConnecticut to thethe MohawkMohawk RiverRiver inin additional 1515 dams requirerequire downstreamdownstream pas-pas­ broodstock production in 1987 because of Center (SCAFRC) (ad­ Anadromous Fish Research Center (SCAFRC) (ad- northern New Hampshire (#1 and # 38,38, respec-respec­ sage. There areare nono significantsignificant diversionsdiversions of its limitedlimited capacitycapacity andand thethe program'sprogram's Dam in Turners Falls, jacent toto thethe TurnersTurners FallsFalls Dam in Turners Falls, tively, inin Figure 1). Much of thisthis habitathabitat isis notnot water other than for hydroelectricity that pose greater need for eggs for fryfry stocking.stocking. Poor added research ca­ Massachusetts) by the USFWS added research ca- currently accessible to adultadult salmonsalmon becausebecause a riskrisk forfor down-down- streamstream migratingmigrating fishes in adult returns from KSSH smolts (likely(likely due Connecticut River. pability for fish passage onon thethe Connecticut River. of thethe presencepresence of manymany dams.dams. the ConnecticutConnecticut River system.system. to thethe constantconstant waterwater temperaturetemperature of 10°C10°C allow full-scale mod­ Its engineering facilities that allow full-scale mod- 2. Fish Passage.Passage. 3. Reintroduction into Habitat. The native stocksstocks that impededimpeded full smolti-fication)smolti-fication) ledled to thethe testing with actively migrat­ els ofof fishwaysfishways andand testing with actively migrat- a. UpstreamUpstream passage—Allpassage-All main-stem damsdams of Connecticut River Atlantic salmon had been conversion of KSSH from smolt to captivecaptive are unique in the world. ing diadromousdiadromous fishes are unique in the world. from VernonVernon (rkm(rkm 228,228, #7#7 inin Figure 1)1) down- extinct for more than 150150 years when the res-res­ broodstock production in 19931993 to supplysupply The laboratorylaboratory isis nownow partpart of of the the USGS—Biologi- USGS-Biologi- toration programprogram began. There werewere fewfew eggs for fry stocking.stocking. The White River Na- Exhibit EN-LWB-1

294 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTIC SALMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 295

TABLE 3. Summary of the stocking and adult return rates of Atlantic salmon fry and hatchery-reared smolts. rupted in 2000-2002 by an outbreak of fu­ in the lower basin. Fry stocking continued Atlantic salmon smolts Atlantic salmon fry runculosis at the facility. Smolt production to expand as egg supplies from Connecti­ resumed in 2002 with 90,000 smolts sched­ cut River captive broodstock increased and %'' Stocked Returned Stocked Returned •'' uled for stocking in 2003 and a goal of Year (in 1,000s) (per 1,000) (in 1,000s) (per 1,000) by 1998, close to 10 million fry were being 100,000 smolts stocked annually, thereafter. stocked annually (Table 3). Most of the fry 1967 0 0 3 0 b. Fry stocking-Salmon stocked as fry have are stocked when their yolk sacs are nearly 1968 5 0 50 0 lower egg-to-smolt survival than hatchery absorbed and they are about to begin exog­ 0 1969 11 0 0 smolts because of high natural mortality enous feeding. Fry produced at KSSH are 0 0 0 1970 0 experienced in the wild before smolt migra­ fed because warm wellwater results in yolk 18 0 60 0 1971 tion (McMenemy 1995). However, they also sac absorption before stream conditions al­ 1972 18 0.06 0 0 have much higher smolt-to-adult survival low for successful stocking. Studies have 1973 33 0.09 0 0 than hatchery smolts. Early studies in the shown little difference in survival between 1974 54 0.04 16 0 Farmington River, Connecticut (Orciari et fed and unfed fry (McMenemy 1995; 1975 73 0.10 32 0 al. 1994) revealed that fry stocking was an 1976 35 2.57 27 0 Whalen and LaBar 1998). Rates of produc­ effective means of producing smolts in the 1977 99 0.61 50 0 tion and probably overwinter survival vary extensive nursery habitat in the basin. The 1978 94 1.89 50 1.40 greatly over time and space within the ba­ 1979 145 3.57 54 0.56 1982 Restoration Plan was modified to high­ sin; however, stocked fry have generally per­ ill 1980 52 1.21 286 0.63 light fry stocking throughout the basin with formed well with survival rates and density 1981 79 0.53 168 1.13 a goal of maximizing wild smolt produc­ estimates similar to those reported in the lit­ 1982 209 0.31 294 1.57 tion. However, fry were stocked into only erature from other regions (Orciari et al. 1994; I ill 1983 98 3.06 226 0.09 minor portions of the available habitat prior McMenemy 1995; CRASC, unpublished 1984 312 0.90 584 0.05 to 1987 because of limited numbers of avail­ data). Wild smolt production increased in 1985 255 1.35 422 1.11 able eggs. Fry stocking exceeded one mil­ response to increased fry stocking (Figure 1986 291 0.32 176 1.59 lion fry for the first time in 1987 and 2). The numbers shown in Figure 2 summa­ 1987 206 0.29 1,169 0.44 included major portions of most tributaries rize estimates derived from electrofishing as- 1988 395 0.58 1,310 0.83 1989 218 0.78 1,243 0.54 1990 476 0.74 1,346 0.51 1991 351 0.40 1,724 0.20 1992 313 0.84 2,009 0.59 0.42 4,147 0.45 1993 383 Ci) "C 1994 375 0.39 5,979 0.49 <::: 1 0 6,818 0.21 "'::! 1995 "'0 1996 12 0 6,675 0.15 :S 1997 1 0 8,526 0.04• §. 2 0 9,119 0.05" .....~ 1998 0 6,428 ::;;; 1999 23 0 o· rJ) HI !I 1 - b z 2000 49 0.08 9,328 0 b ::;;; 2001 0 0 9,585 - ..... 1 b C1.i 2002 0 0 7,278 - u.. 0 cr: • Additional adult returns are possible for the 2000 year-class of hatchery smolts and for the 1997 year-class of LU CQ 1 fry. Additional adult returns are likely for all fry year-classes subsequent to 1998. ::;;; ::;) b Adult returns have not yet begun for fry year-classes 2000-2002. z Cl LU !;( ::;;; CRASC searched for alternative facilities i= tional Fish Hatchery initiated captive rJ) broodstock production in addition to smolt for smolt production. LU production in 1992 also to support the In 1998, the USFWS agreed to raise 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 program's expanding need for fry (see be- 100,000 smolts (primarily 2 year old) for the low). Smolt production ceased at WRNFH program at PNFH. In 1999, the larger mem- SMOLT MIGRATION YEAR in 1994 due to disease and budgetary is- bers of that cohort were stocked as yearlings. sues. No hatchery smolts were reared be- The remaining fish were stocked as 2 year FIGURE 2. Index of Atlantic salmon smolts produced from stocking fry in the Connecticut River basin (CRASC, unpublished data). tween 1994 and 1999. During this period, olds in 2000. This smolt program was inter- Exhibit EN-LWB-1

GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY OTIIER DIADROMOUS FISHES 296 AN OVERVIEW OF TilETHE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTICATLANTIC SALMON SALMON AND AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 297

is not southern New England, ledled toto thethe decisiondecision sessments by the four states because it is not southern New England, Meyers 1994).1994). Fry-to-adult return rates have had effectiveeffective broodstockbroodstock collectioncollection infrastruc-infrastruc­ for egg production. possible to enumerateenumerate all smoltssmolts departingdeparting to reconditionrecondition thethe keltskelts for egg production. exceeded one per 1010 thousandthousand in earlyearly years tureture (Ed(Ed Baum,Baum, MaineMaine AtlanticAtlantic SalmonSalmon Com-Com­ in Nova Scotia the river,river, but increasesincreases inin productionproduction havehave This processprocess waswas pioneeredpioneered in Nova Scotia when numbers of fry released were relatively mission—retired,mission-retired, personal personal communication).communication). The were in the late 1970s (Ron(Ron Gray, Gray, CanadaCanada DFO,DFO, been obvious. Increased numbers of fry were in the late 1970s low, but have not exceeded one per 1010 thou-thou­ restoration program on the Penobscot River had and was recom­ used to stockstock habitathabitat previouslypreviously unstocked,unstocked, personal communication)communication) and was recom- sand sincesince 1986.1986. Fry toto adultadult survivalsurvival has begun only 2 yearsyears previous to the start of thethe in mended to CRASC earlyearly inin thethe program program and the increaseincrease inin productionproduction depicteddepicted in mended to CRASC declined precipitously since 19951995 despitedespite Connecticut River program, and there were no (Calaprice and HogsettHogsett 1975).1975). TheThe Con-Con­ Figure 2 reflects the increaseincrease in thethe amountamount (Calaprice and high survival of fryfry andand parrparr inin freshwaterfreshwater sparespare eggs toto shareshare withwith thethe ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver necticut Department ofof Environmental Environmental Pro-Pro­ of productiveproductive habitat.habitat. necticut Department and continualcontinual improvementsimprovements inin downstreamdownstream program (R. A. Jones,Jones, Director,Director, CTDEP/Fisher-CTDEP/Fisher­ tection (CTDEP) initiatedinitiated aa pilotpilot projectproject atat 4. Sea Returns.Returns. tection (CTDEP) passage. This decline is believed to be duedue iesies Division—retired,Division-retired, personalpersonal communication). rearing the Quinebaug ValleyValley TroutTrout HatcheryHatchery inin a. Broodstock capture strategy—Thestrategy-The rearing the Quinebaug toto marinemarine conditionsconditions sincesince similarsimilar trendstrends The first salmon eggs used by the program origi-origi­ a strain 1980. The program waswas transferredtransferred toto thethe program was designed to develop a strain 1980. The program have been observedobserved elsewhereelsewhere in thethe rangerange nated from rivers in Newfoundland and the Gulf Whittemore Salmon station in 19811981 andand hashas of salmonsalmon that is adaptedadapted toto thethe particularparticular Whittemore Salmon of AtlanticAtlantic salmon.salmon. ComparisonComparison of returnreturn of St.St. LawrenceLawrence (Rideout(Rideout andand StolteStolte 1988),1988), and maintained between 20 andand 100100 kelts.kelts. TheThe conditions of thethe ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver and maintained rates for smolts and fry is difficult since there which are geographicallygeographically distant from the Con-Con­ in USFWS began reconditioning kelts atat thethe nearshore environment. Salmon reared in USFWS began isis muchmuch naturalnatural mortalitymortality ofof fishfish betweenbetween necticut River. Only 1111 adultadult salmonsalmon returnedreturned as Berkshire National FishFish HatcheryHatchery inin GreatGreat the wild from fry and returned toto the river as Berkshire National thethe fryfry andand smoltsmolt stagesstages and therethere is no reli-reli­ toto thethe ConnecticutConnecticut River during all of thethe yearsyears and Barrington, MassachusettsMassachusetts inin 1982.1982. WhenWhen by adults have survivedsurvived thesethese conditionsconditions and Barrington, able wayway ofof countingcounting smoltssmolts producedproduced by prior to thethe useuse ofof the the PenobscotPenobscot RiverRiver stockstock than that facility waswas closedclosed inin 1994,1994, thethe programprogram presumably have more adaptive genes than that facility fry stockingstocking asas theythey leaveleave thethe river.river. (PRS),(PRS), which first returnedreturned toto thethe ConnecticutConnecticut to was transferred toto thethe NorthNorth AttleboroAttleboro Na-Na­ ~IIIII did stockedstocked fish that diddid notnot survivesurvive to was transferred 5. Genetic Considerations.Considerations. Managing the geneticgenetic River in 1978,1978, whenwhen 9090 salmonsalmon returned.returned. fish tional Fish Hatchery inin North North Attleboro, Attleboro, oil adulthood. The use of thesethese returningreturning fish tional Fish Hatchery resources of a salmonsalmon populationpopulation may be thethe A thoroughthorough discussion of thethe geneticgenetic back-back­ lead to Massachusetts. It hashas maintainedmaintained aa keltkelt popu-popu­ ill :Ill as broodstockbroodstock over generations will lead to Massachusetts. most important task for managersmanagers seeking to re-re­ ground and managementmanagement of thethe restorationrestoration pro-pro­ salmon lation between 100100 andand 200.200. TheseThese keltkelt fa-fa­ its the development of a newnew strainstrain ofof salmon lation establish a run of salmonsalmon into a river that lost its gram is beyond thethe scopescope ofof this this paper.paper. However,However, adapted to thethe ConnecticutConnecticut River.River. Return-Return­ cilities havehave annuallyannually producedproduced between between River presents great Iill~ adapted to native run. The Connecticut River presents great severalseveral important points can be made:made: If! IIIII ing adultadult salmonsalmon capturedcaptured at fishwaysfishways atat 310,000 and 670,000670,000 eggs.eggs. challenges for geneticgenetic managementmanagement because it re­ • Many of thethe earlyearly returnsreturns fromfrom nonPenob-nonPenob­ the HolyokeHolyoke Dam andand Salmon,Salmon, Farmington,Farmington, Male kelts werewere rarelyrarely successfullysuccessfully re- isis aa large,large, diversediverse watershed.watershed. TheThe environmentsenvironments • Many males were scot River stocksstocks (NPRS)(NPRS) did notnot survivesurvive itilllil!l lilllf and Westfield rivers are routinely used for conditioned and, asas aa result,result, fewfew males were of the southernsouthern tributariestributaries (e.g.,(e.g., Salmon River at spawning until spawningspawning due to fishfish healthhealth prob-prob­ broodstock. retained. EffortsEfforts toto synchronizesynchronize spawning rkm 26, latitudelatitude 41°N)41 °N) areare considerablyconsiderably differ-differ­ begun in lemslems in hatcheries,hatcheries, andand thereforetherefore theirtheir 111111111111111111 b. Spawning escapement—Theescapement-The importance of time by useuse ofof hormone hormone implantsimplants begun in ent thanthan thosethose ofof thethe northernnorthern tributariestributaries (e.g.,(e.g., the suc­ genes did notnot contributecontribute toto futurefuture genera-genera­ returning salmon for broodstockbroodstock and thethe 2001 showshow promisepromise forfor increasingincreasing the suc- Ammonoosuc River at rkm 428, latitudelatitude 44°N).44°N). River Stock cess rate of malemale reconditioning.reconditioning. tions ofof thethe ConnecticutConnecticut River Stock 11111111111 limited numbers of returns have led to thethe cess rate of The native run ofof salmonsalmon mostmost likelylikely includedincluded 11111111 return (CRS).(CRS). decision to release fewfew adultadult salmonsalmon up-up­ d. Adult returnreturn rates—Adultrates-Adult salmon return multiple stocks. In addition,addition, thethe ConnecticutConnecticut • of re­ stream from the fishways.fishways. BeginningBeginning inin from thethe oceanocean asas aa resultresult fromfrom stockingstocking ei-ei­ of the species' • We assume that a largelarge percentagepercentage of re- stream from the River is nearnear thethe southernsouthern edge of the species' 111 im­ 1111111111111111 salmon reaching ther hatchery-produced fry oror smoltssmolts intointo migrants turnsturns to thethe riverriver afterafter 19771977 werewere from im- 1987,1987, 10%10% of returningreturning salmon reaching North American range and requires all migrants plmtUrr· I by ported Maine stocks. In addition to thethe Holyoke Dam were released after capturecapture the habitat.habitat. ReturnReturn ratesrates areare calculatedcalculated by toto pass throughthrough marinemarine waterswaters thatthat reachreach higherhigher 1111111111lllilllllfi source (as PRS, fish from the Union River stock (URS) and data andand tissuetissue samplingsampling andand allowedallowed dividing the adultsadults fromfrom eacheach source (as temperatures thanthan anywhere elseelse inin the species'species' tag re­ from Maine were used.used . 111111111111111111111 ...... to migratemigrate upstream.upstream. These "releases" atat determined by scalescale analysisanalysis and/orand/or tag re- global distribution. ItIt is possible that the nativenative of each • In years whenwhen PRS, URSURS andand NPRSNPRS stocksstocks 111111111111111111111 Holyoke havehave resultedresulted inin asas fewfew as 4 to as covery) by thethe numbernumber ofof juveniles juveniles of each stocksstocks possessed unique genes that are now lost.lost. • In previous would have been expected to return, thethe 1111Ill I1II 111 IIIIi11 Cc:: many as 38 salmonsalmon released annually.annually. Moni-Moni­ source stockedstocked inin thethe appropriateappropriate previous Saunders (1981)( 1981) recognized the specialspecial require-require­ smolts have marking of individual stocksstocks waswas ineffec-ineffec­ toring thethe movementmovement of thesethese releasedreleased year. Return ratesrates ofof hatchery hatchery smolts have ments of aa stockstock adaptedadapted toto thethe ConnecticutConnecticut tive, and itit isis impossibleimpossible toto concludeconclude howhow salmon was limited to observationsobservations at up-up­ been lowerlower thanthan thosethose observedobserved inin thethe River. tive, and but follow the many representatives of each groupgroup con-con­ streamstream fishways and limitedlimited snorkeling sur-sur­ Penobscot River, Maine,Maine, but follow the The PolicyPolicy CommitteeCommittee commissionedcommissioned a re-re­ year (Friedland tributed to futurefuture generationsgenerations of thethe CRS.CRS. veys through 1997. Beginning in 1998,1998, most same trends fromfrom yearyear toto year (Friedland port to makemake recommendationsrecommendations on geneticgenetic poli-poli­ at over three per • All contributions from outside river stocksstocks adult salmon released at HolyokeHolyoke have been 1994).1994). Return ratesrates peakedpeaked at over three per cies forfor thethe restoration.restoration. CalapriceCalaprice andand HogsettHogsett • 1979 and 1983 ceased after 19941994 and allall subsequentsubsequent stock-stock­ radio-tagged. These have been trackedtracked both thousand smolts stockedstocked inin 1979 and 1983 (1975)(1975) recommended that eggs used toto gener-gener­ smolt per thou­ ingsings havehave beenbeen CRS-basedCRS-based (i.e., all par-par­ upstream and downstreamdownstream into tributarytributary but havehave notnot exceededexceeded oneone smolt per thou- ate fryfry andand smoltssmolts bebe imported:imported: (1)(1) fromfrom stocksstocks return rates have ents returnedreturned toto thethe ConnecticutConnecticut River).River). systems in allall fourfour states.states. SuccessfulSuccessful spawn-spawn­ sand sincesince 1985.1985. InIn general,general, return rates have originating from the geographicallygeographically closest riv-riv­ both in the • The genetic backgrounds of the PRS andand ing has beenbeen confirmedconfirmed inin thethe WestWest RiverRiver declined over the last 3030 yearsyears both in the ers, (2)(2) fromfrom multiplemultiple stocksstocks toto allowallow naturalnatural • much of URS are complicated.complicated. Both werewere stockedstocked (#16 in FigureFigure 1),1), thethe WestfieldWestfield RiverRiver (#4),(#4), Connecticut River andand throughoutthroughout much of selection to act upon aa widewide diversitydiversity ofof genes.genes. URS salmon (Friedland with fish fromfrom thethe MachiasMachias andand Narragua-Narragua­ and the SalmonSalmon River (#2).(#2). the rangerange ofof Atlantic Atlantic salmon (Friedland Following the firstfirst recommendationrecommendation was diffi-diffi­ are lower, but ma­ gus rivers in MaineMaine as wellwell asas eacheach otherother c. Kelt reconditioning—Thereconditioning-The high value of sea-sea­ 1994).1994). Return ratesrates forfor fryfry are lower, but ma- cult because at thatthat timetime AtlanticAtlantic salmonsalmon runsruns produced from (Baum(Baum 1997;1997; MichaelMichael Hendrix,Hendrix, USFWS-USFWS­ return adult salmonsalmon combined with the ex-ex­ rine survivalsurvival ofof smolts smolts produced from had been extirpated from all nearbynearby rivers in times higher than Craig Brook NFH, unpublishedunpublished data). The tremely low return rate of keltskelts (post-(post­ stocked fry isis aboutabout 1010 times higher than southern New England and all butbut sevenseven smallsmall and Stolte 1988; Penobscot, Machias, and Narraguagus riv- spawned adult salmon), particularly in hatchery smoltssmolts (Rideout(Rideout and Stolte 1988; rivers in easterneastern Maine.Maine. None of thosethose riversrivers Exhibit EN-LWB-1

298 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTIC SALMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 299

ers were all stocked with New Brunswick In 1988, a decision was made to improve 2002). The North Atlantic Salmon Conserva­ native species, and the addition of many non­ stocks (NBS) such as the Miramichi River the management of the existing CRS by tion Organization has prohibited the taking of native species. Had a viable run of Atlantic prior to this mixing of stocks (Baum 1997) • using all available sea-returns, including Atlantic salmon in international waters and re­ salmon persisted to the present day, it may well and it is impossible to know which stock­ grilse, for mating; duced the annual harvest of Atlantic salmon in have adapted to these changes, as have runs in ings succeeded and which stocks contrib­ • randomizing and equalizing the use of all the West Greenland fishery from 870 tons in Spain and France at the southern extent of the uted significantly to the future identity of available broodstock; 1984 to 22-55 tons (depending upon early species' European range. The capacity to "ge­ the stocks. Spidle et al. (2003) found statis­ • using only fish that returned from the sea CPUE) in 2002. In some years (including 2002), netically engineer" a new strain of salmon tically significant genetic variation among as parents for future domestic broodstock; the harvest at West Greenland has been zero adapted to current conditions is extremely lim­ all anadromous Atlantic salmon popula­ • maximizing the number of crosses pos­ due to the "buy out" of the NASCO quota by ited. It remains to be seen whether the tradi­ tions in Maine and of those populations, sible, given the number of available private conservation organizations. Intercep­ tional selective breeding strategy of animal tor fisheries in Canada (e.g., Nova Scotia, New­ the Penobscot, Machias, and Narraguagus broodstock; husbandry will meet the challenge. rivers were genetically the most similar. • increasing the number of matings that cross foundland, and Labrador) have all been closed 2. Restoration during a Period of Global Decline Martinez et al. (2001) and Spidle et al. (in year classes (e.g., cross sea-returns with during the lifetime of the restoration program. in Atlantic Salmon Stocks. The causes of the press) concluded that the CRS is now sig­ kelts, mature parr, and younger and older Tagging studies reveal that Connecticut River extirpation of Atlantic salmon are to be found nificantly different than the PRS, which is year-classes of domestic broodstock); and salmon were caught in the West Greenland fish­ in its freshwater habitat. However, as these prob­ often considered as the largest contributor • maintaining a sea-run broodstock popu­ ery (Friedland 1994), but the current role of lems in the basin are addressed, it is clear that to the founding of the CRS although this lation equal to or greater than 50 pairs. any distant interceptor fishery in reducing the there are new problems for the species in its assumption may underestimate the contri­ returns to the Connecticut River is unclear. marine habitat. Atlantic salmon runs are de­ IIIII The randomized cross protocol (second bul­ 11111 butions of the URS. More research is needed clining worldwide, including runs from pris­ ~IW to determine whether this difference is due let above) was terminated in 1997 when DNA Current Status tine rivers (Parrish et al. 1998). There is much to adaptation or to different initial contri­ fingerprinting of sea-run broodstock made pos­ speculation that the source of the problem is butions to the two founding populations. sible the determination of the genetic relation­ Atlantic salmon is currently very abundant in ju­ marine in origin (Friedland et al. 1993; ship between captive adults (Letcher and King venile life stages in at least 33 tributary Friedland 1998). This makes the effort to re­ Several genetic management strategies have 1999, 2001). Currently in use is a nonrandom­ subdrainages throughout the basin due to fry store Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut River been considered in recent years with the goal ized (nonblind) mating scheme in which only stocking. Adults return to the river from the sea of improving return rates. These include start­ even more challenging because these marine broodstock that are not closely related (shar­ annually in varying numbers (Table 4), but the factors are beyond the control of CRASC. ing over with a completely new donor stock(s), ing a relatively large number of common indi­ long-term survival of this run is not assured. 3. Impacts to Salmon Restoration by the Connecti­ adding contributions from different stocks (in­ cator genes) are mated. cut Yankee Atomic Power Plant. No studies were cluding southern Europe) to the CRS, and con­ 6. Control of Harvest. Initially, rewards were of­ Discussion undertaken to determine the impact of the Con­ tinuing with the existing CRS. The addition fered to anyone capturing and reporting an adult of more stocks was rejected to avoid outbreed­ necticut Yankee Atomic power plant (CY) on Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River. This 1. Major Ecological Changes in the River since the Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River. ing depression. The addition of southern Eu­ was done to document any sea returns. Once sea the Time of Extirpation. Two major challenges ropean stocks may have contributed some No rearing habitat exists in the main-stem Con­ returns became common in the 1980s, all four confront the task of restoring Atlantic salmon necticut River anywhere near CY, and therefore genes adaptive to southern latitudes but also basin states and the state of New York enacted to the Connecticut River. First, the Connecti­ some genes maladaptive to North America. The any potential impact to salmon would be lim­ regulations that prohibited the taking of any cut River is at the southern extent of the range, ited primarily to effects on the outgoing smolts. decision to continue using the existing CRS life phase of Atlantic salmon by any means and the saltwater off of its mouth is warmer The original study documented that the was based on the fact that within the Connecticut River basin and Long than that of all other Atlantic salmon rivers in warmwater discharge of the plant created a lim­ • it has succeeded in generating adult returns; Island Sound. Occasional rod catches and the world. Moreover, the mouth of the river is ited and discreet thermal plume that adult Ameri­ • the closest salmon river to the Connecti­ catches in the in-river American shad drift gillnet geographically isolated and distant from the can shad could easily avoid (Leggett 2004 cut is the Penobscot; commercial fishery have occurred, but many of mouths of all other salmon rivers in North [1976], this volume). It is likely that adult At­ these fish were released alive and the resulting • there is evidence that the CRS has differen­ America. The native strain of Atlantic salmon lantic salmon can do likewise. Atlantic salmon mortality is believed to have been low. In 1987, tiated from the PRS and if such differences clearly possessed genes adapted to these smolts are known to migrate in the main river the New England Fisheries Management Coun­ are adaptive, re-injecting present day PRS unique conditions, but it is not known whether channel (Fried et al. 1978), which in the area of would equate to going backwards; cil adopted an Atlantic salmon manageme~t those genes (or other suitable ones) persist in CY is located on the opposite side of the river plan that prohibited the taking of AtlantiC • knowledge of Atlantic salmon genetics is the North American gene pool, much less the from the plant, causing most to avoid the plant's inadequate to allow informed choice of salmon in U.S. territorial waters (NEFMC 1987). Penobscot River gene pool on which the resto­ intake. During the years of 1968-1982 when In 1983, the U.S. signed an international stocks that would perform well in the Con­ ration program relies so heavily. Second, there CY impingement data were regularly reported, necticut River; and treaty as part of the creation of the N~rth ~t­ have been many changes in the Connecticut only eight Atlantic salmon smolts were reported lantic Salmon Conservation OrgamzatiOn • state, federal, and international fish health River basin since the extirpation of Atlantic from the plant (Jacobson et al. 2004b, this vol­ (NASCO). This regulated the taking of salmon and genetic concerns and agreements limit salmon in 1810, including massive deforesta­ ume) despite in excess of half a million Atlantic in international waters and negotiated harvest which stocks may now be transferred across tion, urbanization, loss of habitat, warming of salmon smolts migrating downstream during political boundaries (NASCO 2002). levels in key interceptor fisheries (NASCO fresh, estuarine, and salt waters, the loss of many those years. Exhibit EN-LWB-1

300 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTIC SALMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 301

Table 4. Documented adult returns of Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut River during the restoration program. first main-stem dams were constructed and im­ unutilized or underutilized habitat and creates Capture locations pressions of population size between the 1880s a subpopulation of fish that is imprinted to that and 1950s are based on fluctuating commercial portion of the basin. Adult shad have been Leesville< DSict Misc.• Total ~.~ Year Holyoke• Rainbowb landings (Mansueti and Kolb 1953). The species trucked into the main-stem Connecticut River 0 1967- 0 * * * 0 remained common in the river at the time the res­ between the Vernon and Bellows Falls dams, 1973 toration program was initiated. For more informa­ the Ashuelot River (New Hampshire), and the 1 1974 * * 0 tion on the history of the run, see Savoy et al. Farmington, Hockanum, and Eightmile rivers * 3 1975 1 * * 2 (2004, this volume) and Leggett et al. (2004,. this (Connecticut). * 2 1976 2 * * * 0 volume). 5 7 1977 2 0 * * 90 Current Status 1978 23 56 * * 11 7 58 Restoration Strategies 1979 19 32 * * American shad is very abundant in the basin and 22 175 1980 126 26 1 * I. Targeted Habitat. The entire native range of continues to support popular sport and commer­ 30 529 1981 319 62 118 * American shad within the main-stem river (the cial fisheries, although both fisheries have de­ 7 70 1982 11 41 11 * mouth up to Bellows Falls, Vermont) is targeted 0 39 clined in recent years for reasons beyond stock 1983 25 14 0 * for restoration as are significant portions of 92 abundance. A general trend of abundance over 1984 66 6 11 * 9 310 larger tributaries such as Eightmile, Matta­ time is reflected in the passage data from the 1985 285 9 5 * 11 318 besett, Hockanum, and Farmington rivers (Con­ Holyoke Dam Fishlift (Table 5). 1986 260 39 12 * 7 353 necticut), Westfield River (Massachusetts), 1987 208 126 10 * 9 4 95 West River (Vermont), and Ashuelot River (New 1988 72 14 5 * Discussion 2 109 Hampshire). 1989 80 24 3 * 263 2. Fish Passage. American shad is the primary tar­ American shad have migrated to the base of Bel­ 1990 188 37 36 * 2 203 get species for most fishways built in the Con­ lows Falls (the extent of its historical range) and 1991 152 33 11 * 7 3 490 necticut River basin, downstream of Bellows beyond (due to the Bellows Falls Fishway, built 1992 370 97 18 2 1111111111111 198 Falls, Vermont. American shad is a strong swim­ 1993 169 14 0 10 5 for Atlantic salmon), but the numbers that have 326 ming species that does not readily ascend many 1994 262 42 12 7 3 passed the Turners Falls, Vernon, and Bellows Falls 188 Jii!lllll!!ll 1995 151 22 7 6 2 types of fishways. Fishways in the basin that fishways are so small that the habitat in the pools 260 1996 202 29 4 21 4 effectively pass American shad always pass all upstream of these dams is very much underutilized 199 lilliil!llill 1997 96 60 3 39 1 other targeted anadromous fish species. There­ by the species. The restoration of American shad 300 1998 197 50 3 47 3 fore, shad is the focus of much fish passage to the Connecticut River has been delayed by the 154 1999 91 36 9 18 0 research. The greatest challenge in passing inability to provide satisfactory passage around 77 jlililllfllll 2000 52 6 8 11 0 American shad upstream has been at the 12-m­ the Turners Falls Dam. Only 2.45% (recent 6-year 40 fP' 2001 24 6 2 8 0 high Turners Falls Dam (Massachusetts, rkm average) of the shad passed at Holyoke Dam lillffllllllil 1 44 2002 34 4 0 5 198), where there are three fishways. Two of passed the Turners Falls Dam whereas 73.3% (same the three are "Ice Harbor style" pool-and-weir 1111111111111 * Trapping facilities not yet constructed. 6-year average) of those fish passed the next up­ fishways that have been modified over the '""'"'"'' a Holyoke Dam Fishlift, Connecticut Ri~er, Hol~oke, MA, rkm 139. stream dam at Vernon, Vermont. bRainbow Dam Fishway, Farmington Rtver, Wmdsor, CT, rkm 101. years to improve shad passage. More studies It is difficult to assess the role of fish passage ''"'""'"''

302 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTIC SAlMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 303

TABLE S.Adult returns of anadromous fish to the Holyoke Dam Fishlift, Holyoke, Massachusetts: 1955-2002 (0- TABLE S.Continued 999 to the nearest individual; 1,000--9,999 to the nearest 100; 10,000--99,9999 to the nearest 1,000; and greater than or equal to 100,000 to the nearest 10,000; all data except 2003 and for shortnose sturgeon are from Caleb Slater, t~ Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife; sturgeon data for 1955-1974 are from Robert Stira, Northeast Generation Services; sturgeon data for 1975-1996 are from Kynard (1998); sturgeon data for 1997-2002 and all data for 2003 are from Jan Rowan, USFWS; and sturgeon counts for 1955-1957 and 1968-1974 are not available). American Blueback Atlantic Striped Sea Gizzard Shortnose American Blueback Atlantic Striped Sea Gizzard Shortnose Year shad herring• salmon bass lampreyb shad sturgeon shad herring salmon bass lamprey shad sturgeon 1955 4,900 * 225,000 11,000 50 489 21,000 38,000 0 1956 7,700 * 273,000 11,000 25 1,200 49,000 5,500 4 1957 8,800 16 * 375,000 2,000 34 1,100 74,000 3,100 0 1958 5,700 29 2 0 Total 9,688,100 5,921,784 3,473 13,240 960,018 91,458 132 1959 15,000 20 73 0 •A los a aestivalis 1960 15,000 796 2 17 0 b Petromyzon marinus 1961 23,000 1,200 42 0 1962 21,000 19 209 1 1963 31,000 32 64 0 Ictalurus punctatus (Jacobs et al. 2004, this vol- outside of the state of Connecticut where ale- 1964 35,000 13 537 1 ume ), the increase in numbers of other introduced wife is known to spawn is Raspberry Brook, lllllllil\!ll 1965 34,000 53 26 2 predators such as northern pike Esox lucius, wall- just north of the Connecticut-Massachusetts !11111111~"'j

1966 16,000 54 2 1 eye Sander vitreus, and smallmouth bass Microp- border (Bruce Kindseth, Fanny Stebbins Na- 1111111111111 1967 19,000 356 46 0 terus dolomieu (Jacobs and Hyatt 2004), and the ture Preserve, East Long-meadow, Massachu- 1968 25,000 dramatic increase in numbers in the river by giz- setts; personal communication). CRASC has !1111111111 * (11111111~1~ 1969 45,000 10,000 * zard shad Dorosoma cepedianum and hickory shad not targeted additional waters for alewife res- 1970 66,000 1900 * Alosa mediocris (see below). It is possible that toration since there is no evidence that the illllilllilj 1971 53,000 302 * the recent decline of anadromous clupeids in the species is being denied access to any waters ! 1972 26,000 188 * Connecticut River may be due to the synergistic within its historic range within Massachusetts, 1973 25,000 302 * effects of marine factors such as striped bass re- Vermont, and New Hampshire. 1974 53,000 504 * covery, the colonization of the river by gizzard 2. Fish Passage. Seven of the eight fishways built 1975 110,000 1,600 23,000 5 shad, and fundamental changes in the river's food at dams on Connecticut tributaries are intended 1976 350,000 4,700 32,000 3 web. to pass alewife. Many more are planned. The 1977 200,000 33,000 2 52,000 0 "steeppass" design is commonly used at small 1978 140,000 38,000 23 43,000 1 dams. 1979 260,000 40,000 19 103 31,000 3 Alewife 1980 380,000 200,000 126 148 34,000 0 3. Reintroduction of Species into Habitat. The state :;IHIIII~ 1981 380,000 420,000 319 510 53,000 4 Status Prior to the Restoration of Connecticut is transplanting prespawned I adult alewife from the Pattaganset River in 1111111111~ 1982 290,000 590,000 11 231 26,000 4 Program 1111111111 1983 530,000 450,000 25 346 29,000 4 southeastern Connecticut into five Connecti- 1984 500,000 480,000 66 110 22,000 10 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus was common in cut River tributaries. Fish are seined and dipped iUIHIIII' 1985 480,000 630,000 285 369 40,000 6 the main-stem river south of the Enfield Dam (#3 from the donor stream, loaded into a transport 1986 350,000 520,000 260 187 20,000 27 13 in Figure 1). Early fishermen and fisheries agency truck at loads of 400, and released above dams 1987 280,000 360,000 208 521 23,000 94 3 officials tended to lump both alewife and blueback targeted for future fish passage. Fall visual sur- 1988 290,000 340,000 72 256 16,000 95 4 herring together as "alewife" or "river herring," so veys at dusk for surface-feeding juveniles usu- 1989 350,000 290,000 80 923 15,000 294 4 it is difficult to distinguish historical abundance ally confirm the presence of young-of-the-year 1990 360,000 390,000 188 1,000 22,000 956 5 of alewife and blueback herring. alewives in the recipient habitat, confirming 1991 520,000 410,000 152 1,200 41,000 486 0 successful reproduction. Transplants are con- 1992 720,000 310,000 368 327 28,000 1,100 4 Restoration Strategies ducted to allow upstream production in advance 1993 340,000 100,000 167 194 23,000 341 6 of fish passage projects and to accelerate resto- 1994 181,000 32,000 256 159 30,000 165 1 1. Targeted Habitat. The CTDEP has targeted ration programs in streams with fishways. 1995 190,000 110,000 150 1,300 18,000 2,000 1 portions of tributaries within Connecticut (in- 1996 276,000 55,000 202 537 45,000 1,100 16 eluding many small brooks) for alewife res to- Current Status 1997 299,000 64,000 94 679 32,000 2,100 0 ration. The Farmington River above the 1998 316,000 11,000 196 492 97,000 1,100 25 Rainbow Dam is the largest tributary targeted. While alewife are common, the population may 1999 194,000 2,700 91 859 20,000 35,000 1 The only tributary of the Connecticut River be declining. No population estimate is available Exhibit EN-LWB-1

304 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTIC SALMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 305

by the dipnetters than the blueback for alewife in the Connecticut River since the spe­ exploited less small numbers of blueback herring due to the ring numbers. In addition, blueback herring is also herring run. It appears from the little data avail­ cies does not ascend as far as the Holyoke Dam. design. There are plans to replace the vertical targeted by anglers who use dip nets to capture able that the alewife run has not experienced as The number of alewives entering the river annu­ slot fishway with a Denil fishway, which should herring, mostly for bait in the striped bass sport great of a decline as the blueback herring run. ally probably increased between 1967 and 1993, pass blueback herring more effectively. fishery. The blueback herring run appears to over­ The general trend of alewife populations size sum­ based on personal observations, but likely de­ Reintroduction of Species into Habitat. The lap with the striped bass run to a greater extent marized for the Connecticut River is also appar­ creased subsequent to 1993. Alewife has been able Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wild­ than does the alewife run, and the species appears ent throughout the rest of the state of Connecticut, to expand its range in four tributaries where fish­ life (MADFW) and the New Hampshire Fish to have been exploited more by the dipnetters ways have been constructed. However, these fish­ the Hudson River (K. A. Hattala, NYSDEC­ and Game Department, in cooperation with the than the alewife run. It appears that the blueback Bureau of Marine Resources, personal commu­ ways lack counting facilities so changes in USFWS, are transplanting prespawned adult herring run has experienced a greater decline than population size cannot be documented. nications) and parts of Rhode Island (Phil blueback herring from the lower Chicopee the alewife run. Edwards, RIDEC- Fish and Wildlife Division, per­ River (Massachusetts tributary) into the Commercial harvest in the Atlantic Ocean is sonal communication). The CTDEP imposed a Discussion Westfield River (#4, Figure 1) and the Ashuelot another possible cause of blueback herring decline. total statewide prohibition on the taking of either River (#15, Figure 1). This is done to acceler­ Since the recovery of Atlantic herring Clupea Alewife is one of the more difficult diadromous species of river herring, effective 1 March 2002, ate restoration programs in upstream tributar­ harengus stocks, both effort and landings of At­ species in the river to track because significant to conserve the dwindling stocks of river herring. ies by creating subpopulations that are lantic herring have increased (Anonymous 1998). numbers do not use any of the primary fish pas­ imprinted to these waters and will likely have The bycatch of blueback herring in this fishery is sage facilities (Holyoke Dam Fishlift, DSI Dam Blueback Herring a stronger urge to continue upstream. generally low and likely not significant to the coast­ Fishway, Rainbow Dam Fishway, and Leesville wide population of blueback herring, but the im­ Dam Fishway) that are used to monitor the size of Status Prior to the Restoration pact of bycatch by nearshore boats on homewater runs. The species' historical range extended up­ Current Status Program returns of nearby rivers is unknown (Bill Overholtz, stream only from the Rainbow Dam on the Blueback herring is common downstream of the NOAA Fisheries- NEFC, personal communication). Farmington River, but the passage of alewife at Blueback herring were common in the main-stem Thmers Falls Dam and the first dam on most tribu­ There has also been an increase in the landings of this facility is so low and inconsistent (due to river and tributaries up to natural falls. The native taries, but in serious decline (Table 5). It is present blueback herring from offshore fisheries in Con­ improper fishway design) that it cannot be used range on the main stem extended to Bellows Falls, in low numbers between the Turners Falls Dam necticut during the 1990s (CTDEP/Marine Fisher­ to monitor population trends. Alewife spawn in Vermont, but at the beginning of the restoration and the Bellows Falls Dam. ies Division, unpublished data) as well as anecdotal the many coves and backwaters of the main-stem program, it was restricted to south of the Holyoke reports of the presence of blueback herring in the river (e.g., Chapmans Pond, Deadman's Swamp, Dam (Figure 1). Early fishermen and fisheries Discussion Atlantic herring catch. and Hamburg, Salmon, Keeney, and Wethersfield agency officials tended to lump both alewife and The general trend of blueback herring popu­ coves) and does not rely as much on tributary blueback herring together as "alewife" or "river It is apparent that, historically, the blueback her­ lations described for the Connecticut River is simi­ stream habitat as other species. herring," so it is difficult to distinguish historical ring penetrated much farther inland on all streams, lar for runs throughout the rest of the state of Despite the paucity of data with which to abundance of alewife and blueback herring. utilizing more habitat than alewife. It is our opin­ Connecticut (CTDEP/Inland Fisheries Division, monitor population trends, qualitative visual ob­ ion that the native blueback herring population unpublished data). The CTDEP/Inland Fisheries servations and angler reports to the CTDEP indi­ Restoration Strategies in the river greatly exceeded that of the alewife. Division imposed a total statewide prohibition on cate that the population size of alewife has During the mid-1960s when the water pollution the taking of either species of river herring (inland probably followed the same general trend that has 1. Targeted Habitat. CRASC has targeted much of the river was severe, large numbers of adult and marine waters), effective 1 March 2002, to con­ been documented for American shad and blueback of the historic range of blueback herring for blueback herring died regularly during summer restoration, including the main-stem river as serve the dwindling stocks of river herring. herring: a general increase from the late 1960s to nights. This was attributed to the regular deple­ 1111 the early 1990s and then a marked decrease there­ far upstream as Bellows Falls, Vermont and sig­ tion of dissolved oxygen in the river (Moss et al. after (see Table 5 for annual counts of the other nificant portions of the Eightmile, Farmington, 2004 [1976], this volume). Water pollution was Gizzard Shad two species). Westfield, West, and Ashuelot rivers. Lower greatly reduced beginning in the 1970s (Anony­ Some of the same issues that were listed as portions of smaller streams in Connecticut (e.g., Status Prior to the Restoration mous 1984) and such mass mortalities ceased. Fish Program possible factors for the decline in numbers of Roaring, Pewterpot, and Salmon brooks) and passage was provided at several dams during the Massachusetts (e.g., Fort River) have also been American shad are also likely factors in the de­ 1970s and 1980s, resulting in an increase in the This species was not present prior to the restora­ targeted. cline in alewife numbers. Alewife is also targeted size of the annual blueback herring run. The num­ tion program. Long Island Sound and southern 2. Fish Passage. Fishways at the lowest three dams by anglers, who use dip nets to capture alewife ber lifted over the Holyoke Dam peaked in 1985 New England was north of the historical range of on the main stem and three of the eight fish­ mostly for bait in the striped bass sport fishery. at 630,000. Since that time, the run has steadily the coastal populations. Alewife run up the river from very late March to ways built at dams on Connecticut tributaries declined, and in 2002, the number lifted was very early May and striped bass commonly enter are intended to pass blueback herring. Many 1,939, a reduction of 99.7% (Table 5). Restoration Strategies the river in early May. Not only does the alewife more tributary fishways are planned. At small Some of the same issues that were listed as dams, "steeppass" fish ways are commonly used. population appear to overlap with the striped bass possible factors for the decline in numbers of 1. Targeted Habitat. None. The Rainbow Dam Fishway on the Farmington run to a lesser extent than does the blueback her­ American shad (see Savoy and Crecco 2004) are 2. Fish Passage. No fish passage facility within River is a vertical slot design but only passes ring run, but the alewife run appears to have been also likely factors in the decline in blueback her- the basin has been designed to specifically pass Exhibit EN-LWB-1

306 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OFOF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTICATLANTIC SALMON SALMON AND AND OTHER OTHER DlADROMOUSDIADROMOUS FISHES 307

was not present gizzard shad since the speciesspecies was not present supportsu~port large,lar~e, multi-year-class,multi-year-class, year-roundyear-round popu-popu­ as thethe EastEast HaddamHaddam BridgeBridge (rkm(rkm 26). ItIt has beenbeen Shortnose Sturgeon planned. Giz­ when most of thethe fishwaysfishways werewere planned. Giz- lations of gizzardgtzzard shadshad (O'Leary(O'Leary andand SmithSmith 1987198}; documentedocumeme:a in in low low densitiesdensities asas far upstream as Dam zard shad currentlycurrently useuse thethe HolyokeHolyoke Dam R. P.P. Jacobs,Jacobs, CTDEP/InlandCTDEP/Inland FisheriesFisheries Division, Division' Hartford(rkm (rkm 80)80) (Tom Savoy, CTDEP/Marine Status PriorPrior to the Restoration have used Fishlift in large numbers (Table(Table 5) and have used personal communication). ItIt appears appears thatthat the the coastal coast~ FisheriesDivision, Division, personalpersonal communication). It Program and Bel­ the fishwaysfishways at TurnersTurners Falls, Vernon,Vernon, and Bel- populations of thethe speciesspecies maymay notnot be be fully fully adapted adapted is mostmost commoncommon between August and November,November, than 280 km up the This native sturgeon was present prior to the res-res­ lows Falls, ascending more than 280 km up the to thethe winterswinters ofof New New England.England. ItIt experienced experienced largelarge but therethere havehave been unconfirmed reports ofof This native species has toration program butbut itit has likelylikely notnot beenbeen abun-abun­ main-stem river. On tributaries, the species has mortalities throughout ConnecticutConnecticut duringduring thethe coldcold hickoryshad shad ascending ascending thethe riverriver in the spring.spring .. toration program used the DSIDSI DamDam FishwayFishway onon thethe WestfieldWestfield winter of 2000-2001,2000-2001, andand thethe springspring runsruns ofof 2001 2001 dant during anytime in the past 5050 years.years. TheThe River in relativelyrelatively small numbersnumbers andand ascendedascended were much smallersmaller thanthan thethe precedingpreceding 2 2 years years (Table (Table historical abundance ofof this species is not clear the Rainbow Dam Fishway only up as far as the 5). Discussion due to thethe lacklack ofof a a long-termlong-term scientificscientific databasedatabase to prevent by the general public of fish trap,trap, where staffstaff removeremove themthem to prevent No overtovert benefitsbenefits ofof gizzard gizzard shadshad havehave beenbeen ft appears thatthat hickory shad is experiencingexperiencing a and the likelylikely confusion by the general public of the the Atlantic sturgeon colonization of the upstream portions of the observed. No user groupgroup onon thethe riverriver is is advocat- advocat­ northerlyrange range extensionextension similarsimilar toto that exhib-exhib­ the shortnoseshortnose sturgeonsturgeon with the Atlantic sturgeon Farmington River. Future fish passage projects ing itsits activeactive management.management. However,However, sincesince thethe ited byby gizzardgizzard shad.shad. ItIt is possible thatthat hickoryhickory Acipenser oxyrinchus. may have to taketake gizzardgizzard shadshad intointo accountaccount species isis abundant,abundant, overlapsoverlaps withwith targetedtargeted ,liad havehave beenbeen present inin Long Island Sound andand the spe­ during the design process. Even though the spe- anadromous species in time andand spacespace andand isis dif-dif­ the lowerlower ConnecticutConnecticut River River inin thethe past, but thethe Restoration Strategies be cies is notnot targetedtargeted forfor restoration,restoration, it will be ficult toto excludeexclude fromfrom fishways,fishways, itit hashas becomebecome aa ,pocies becamebecame more abundant during the 1990s1990s Habitat. The historic range of this difficult to exclude them fromfrom somesome fishways,fishways, de facto restorationrestoration species.species. Furthermore,Furthermore, CRASCCRAse than atat anyany otherother timetime inin recent memory. Batsavage 1.I. Targeted Habitat. species within the river appearsappears to have ex-ex­ and their abundance needs to be accommodated.accommodated. does not havehave anyany evidenceevidence thatthat thethe presence presence ofof 997) reported large population increases in species the mouth of the river upstream 3. Introduction of Species into Habitat. There have the speciesspecies isis detrimentaldetrimental toto thethe targetedtargeted species.species. :NorthCarolina, Carolina, where where the the speciesspecies isis native, dur-dur­ tended from the mouth of the river upstream this as far as TurnersTurners Falls,Falls, MassachusettsMassachusetts (rkm(rkm been no efforts toto deliberatelydeliberately introduceintroduce this Gizzard shad areare sympatricsympatric withwith AmericanAmerican shad,shad, ing thethe 1990s, indicatingindicating thatthat there may be moremore as far as allowing it to 198). Shortnose sturgeon also likely enteredentered species into habitat, other than allowing it to alewife, and bluebackblueback herringherring inin thethe Mid-Atlan- Mid-Atlan­ to thethe trendtrend thanthan rangerange extension. IfIf the species is 198). Shortnose use fishways constructed for the benefit of other Therefore, there may most large tributaries (e.g.,(e.g., Farmington,Farmington, tic states (Rohde(Rohde etet al.al. 1994).1994). Therefore, there may present inin thethe ConnecticutConnecticut River during the spring, 1111111111101111 Westfield, Deerfield rivers) as far upstream as anadromous species. not be anyany reasonreason toto excludeexclude thethe nonnativenonnative giz-giz­ it raises thethe possibility that the speciesspecies is spawn-spawn­ Westfield, zard shad from colonizingcolonizing additionaladditional habitathabitat whilewhile the first fallsfalls oror heavyheavy rapids.rapids. ThereThere has beenbeen zard shad from ing inin the river. Richkus and DiNardo (1984)(1984) re-re­ 111111111111111i if11,11 no formal adoption of a restorationrestoration plan for Current Status other species are restored toto thethe samesame habitat.habitat. ported thatthat thethe species did not spawn north of no formal this species by CRASC, but the area of thethe Maryland, andand Collette andand Klein-MacPheeKlein-MacPhee this species in the Connecticut River basin described above is consideredconsidered the dede This species is now present in the Connecticut River Hickory Shad (2002) reportedreported thatthat thethe species does not spawnspawn basin range extension during the facto targetedtargeted habitat.habitat. basin due to aa naturalnatural range extension during the in the New England region. That may no longerlonger facto program (O'Leary The only fishwayfishway that has beenbeen 11111111111111MP( time period of thethe restorationrestoration program (O'Leary Status PriorPrior to the Restoration be true after the northerly shift of the speciesspecies dur- 2. Fish Passage.Passage. It is now abundant in the main targeted for upstreamupstream andand downstreamdownstream pas-pas­ and Smith 1987). It is now abundant in the main Program ing thethe 1990s. No juvenilejuvenile hickory shad have been targeted of many tributaries in sage of shortnoseshortnose sturgeon is atat thethe HolyokeHolyoke stem and thethe lowerlower reachesreaches of many tributaries in sampled inin the river during thethe annualannual juvenilejuvenile sage of Falls Dam. Juvenile Dam, which is located in betweenbetween twotwo knownknown the basin belowbelow thethe BellowsBellows Falls Dam. Juvenile Hickory shad appearappear toto havehave beenbeen sporadicallysporadically clupeid index surveys (Tom(Tom Savoy,Savoy, CTDEP/Ma-CTDEP/Ma­ Dam, which documented in the Vernon to the restora­ spawning areas for the species.species. Shortnose stur-stur­ INNIIIIIIIIIHIII gizzard shad havehave beenbeen documented in the Vernon present in LongLong IslandIsland SoundSound priorprior to the restora- rine Fisheries Division, personal communication).communication). spawning Pool, attesting to successfulsuccessful reproduction.reproduction. 2002), geon seem to safelysafely passpass upstreamupstream via the Pool, attesting tion program (Collette(Collette andand Klein-MacPheeKlein-MacPhee 2002), Batsavage (1997) speculated that young-of-yearyoung-of-year geon but therethere waswas nono evidenceevidence ofof thethe speciesspecies inin thethe Holyoke lifts, but there is concern that a large IM111110111111114 hickory shadshad depart rivers quickly and utilize the 11111111111111fiiiilio 1960s and 1970s. percentage of the spawningspawning migrantsmigrants cannotcannot Discussion Connecticut River during thethe 1960s and 1970s. ocean asas nursery habitat and therefore may not be percentage to the lifts. Downstream available to summer juvenile surveys.surveys. locate the entranceentrance to the lifts. Downstream Gizzard shad were first reported in the tidal portion passage of sturgeon at Holyoke is thought to Gizzard shad Restoration StrategiesStrategies Hickory shad have not been reported in the passage of the Connecticut River in 19761976 byby commercialcommercial be inadequate. It is possiblepossible that thethe speciesspecies of the Connecticut river upstream of Connecticut and does not war-war­ be inadequate. American shad netters, who referred to them as Habitat. None. historically ascended above the present-daypresent-day American I. Targeted Habitat. None. rant the interest of CRASC.CRASC. TheThe onlyonly manage-manage­ historically "Geechee River shad" (Whitworth et al. 1980;1980; Pe-Pe­ 2. is no evidence that hickory location of thethe DSIDSI fishwayfishway (Westfield(Westfield River),River), "Geechee 2. Fish Passage. There is no evidence that hickory ment activity taken on behalf of hickory shad has location of ter Minta, CTDEP/MarineCTDEP/Marine FisheriesFisheries Division—re- Division-re­ shad extend inland as far asas anyany damdam inin thethe but this fishwayfishway was not designeddesigned for stur-stur­ ter Minta, shad extend been the establishment ofof a daily creel limit of six but tired, personal communication).communication). ReportsReports increasedincreased no perceived need to pro­ geon passage and the species cannot use this tired, watershed. There is no perceived need to pro- for conservation purposes withinwithin ConnecticutConnecticut geon passage during the mid-1980s, and the first gizzardgizzard shad vide fish passage to thisthis species.species. facility. during vide fish waters. The colonization of the ConnecticutConnecticut River was lifted at thethe HolyokeHolyoke Dam Fishlift in 19851985 3. Species into Habitat. None. Reintroduction of Species into Habitat.Habitat. There was 3. Introduction of Species into Habitat. by hickory shad is currently seen as aa positivepositive 3. Reintroduction (O'Leary and SmithSmith 1987).1987). The speciesspecies appearsappears to have been no efforts to cultureculture oror transplanttransplant (O'Leary and development sincesince the species is highlyhighly regardedregarded have been have a veryvery adaptable life history, and each year's shortnose sturgeon within the basin.basin. have Current Status by anglers. However, there have been no studiesstudies shortnose run appears toto consistconsist ofof anadromousanadromous individualsindividuals run appears of the ecologicalecological relationshipsrelationships betweenbetween hickoryhickory entering the river fromfrom thethe oceanocean andand potamo-potamo­ Hickory shad increased in abundanceabundance inin thethe lowerlower entering Hickory shad and other clupeids. The increaseincrease in hickoryhickory Current Status dromous individuals that overwintered in fresh-fresh­ Connecticut River during thethe 1990s.1990s. ItIt is is currentlycurrently dromous Connecticut shad occurred during the same time as the increase water. Backwater areas such asas WethersfieldWethersfield Cove common inin the lower 8 km of thethe riverriver andand is The current population of shortnoseshortnose sturgeon in common in gizzard shad and thethe decrease inin American shadshad in Connecticut and "the"the Oxbow"Oxbow" inin MassachusettsMassachusetts commonly recreationally fished asas farfar upstreamupstream the river is anan estimatedestimated 1,8001,800 individualsindividuals (Savoy(Savoy in Connecticut and commonly recreationally and river herring. the river is Exhibit EN-LWB-1

308 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTIC SALMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 309

2004, this volume). The species is currently listed Restoration Strategies passed annually at the Holyoke Dam Fishway the river up to the Holyoke Dam and the first dam as "Endangered" under the U.S. Endangered Spe­ (Table 5), and very small numbers are passed on most tributaries below the Holyoke Dam. cies Act and under the Connecticut Endangered 1. Targeted habitat. None. annually at the Turners Falls, Vernon, DSI, and 2. Fish passage. None. It is assumed that the fish Species Act. Rainbow Dam fishways. Striped bass are not Restoration Strategies passage requirements of Atlantic sturgeon known to spawn in the Connecticut River ba­ would be similar to those of shortnose stur­ sin, and therefore the species does not have to 1. Targeted Habitat. No specific range targeted. Discussion geon. Shortnose sturgeon use the Holyoke Fish access upstream habitat to flourish. 2. Fish Passage. Not specifically targeted for fish Lift, but no Atlantic sturgeon has been docu­ This species is generally referred to as "anadro­ 3. Reintroduction of Species into Habitat., There passage but significant numbers of the species mous" yet evidence indicates that relatively few mented using it. have been no deliberate efforts to introduce ascend some fishways. 3. Reintroduction of Species into Habitat. None. individuals may venture outside of the mouth of striped bass into Connecticut River habitats. 3. Reintroduction of Species into Habitat. There the river (Tom Savoy, CTDEP/Marine Fisheries have been no deliberate efforts by CRASC to Division, personal communication). The species Current Status Current Status reintroduce/introduce white perch into up­ engages in long riverine migrations between the stream habitat. However, humans have trans­ It is believed that this species no longer spawns salt wedge in Old Saybrook (rkm 13) to the Striped bass are extremely abundant in the Con­ planted the species widely within the watershed in Connecticut River, but Atlantic sturgeon from Enfield (rkm 110) and Holyoke (rkm 139) dams necticut River, perhaps numbering in the hun­ (Whitworth 1996). (Savoy 2004) that might better be referred to as other river systems seasonally visit the lower Con­ dreds of thousands annually. For a more thorough necticut River (Savoy and Pacileo 2003). pota-modromous. Shortnose sturgeon is known discussion of the species' abundance, see Savoy Current Status to spawn above the Holyoke Dam, near Turners and Crecco (2004 ). The increase of abundance of 111111 Falls, Massachusetts (Kynard 1998) and are 11!111 Discussion striped bass in the river (Table 5) is due to the White perch are abundant and widespread ~Ill thought to spawn below the Holyoke Dam (Tom coast-wide stock recovery of the species in 1995 throughout the lower basin. Howell and Molnar IIIII I Atlantic sturgeon was once very common in the Savoy, CTDEP/Marine Fisheries Division, per­ (ASMFC 1995). (2004, this volume) estimated the lower Con­ Connecticut River and the sturgeon fishery in the sonal communication). However, the relationship necticut River population at 1.6 million. The ..!11111 state of Connecticut was centered in the Cromwell between the two apparent subpopulations and species is common in the middle portion of the reach of the river (-rkm 42), although some fish Discussion the nature of recruitment from one area to the main stem (Holyoke to Wilder dams) and is rou­ were taken near the Enfield Dam (Galligan 1960). IIIII! other is not understood. Striped bass supports a very popular sport fishery tinely seen in the Vernon Dam fishway. The spe­ No Atlantic sturgeon were collected during the Commercial shad netters now report that in the Connecticut River. Commercial fishing of cies has been introduced into many inland lakes Connecticut River Ecological Study (Marcy 2004a they commonly catch sturgeon in their gill nets. striped bass is prohibited in Connecticut and in in New Hampshire (Scarola 1973) and the fish in [1976]). The CTDEP has conducted sturgeon stud­ The Connecticut River Ecological Study (1965- the Massachusetts portion of the Connecticut the main-stem river in New Hampshire likely ies in the Connecticut River for the past 18 years 1972) conducted numerous net sets for Ameri­ River. Numerous striped bass in the river possess originated from fish dropping downstream from and collected 98 immature Atlantic sturgeon. All can shad using similar techniques to those of the mature gonads yet there has never been any di­ the lakes. current shad netters, yet the study never col­ but one Atlantic sturgeon were collected in the rect evidence of the species spawning in the Con­ estuary (lower 26 km), and all are believed to be lected any sturgeon (Marcy 2003a [1976], this necticut River. Less than 10 young of year have Discussion volume). It suggests that the species may have from the Hudson River (Savoy and Pacileo 2003). been collected in river by the annual clupeid ju­ been very uncommon during those years, and venile survey and those were collected in the lower White perch that overwinter in Hamburg Cove the population has since experienced a recovery Striped Bass 16 km and attributed to the Hudson River (Tom (rkm 12.8) greatly contribute to spring popula­ to the present-day level. For a more complete Savoy, CTDEP/Marine Fisheries Division, per­ tions in upstream coves (e.g., rkm 78) and the discussion of the biology of Connecticut River Status Prior to the Restoration sonal communication). Striped bass did not typi­ mouth of the river (Maltezos et al. 1979; Howell Ill !II! shortnose sturgeon and results of recent studies, Program cally overwinter in the river prior to the late and Molnar 2004). It is unclear what proportion, see Savoy (2004) and Savoy and Benway (2004, 1990s. They generally entered the river in low Striped bass were abundant upon European Con­ if any, of white perch migrate upstream from Long this volume). numbers in April during the river herring runs and tact (Judd 1905) and have been present in fluctu­ Island Sound and the species may be more accu­ departed in late June/early July when the blueback ating numbers ever since. The population in the rately described as potamodromous than anadro­ herring run left the river. While this general trend Atlantic Sturgeon Connecticut River was not very abundant during mous. Fishways have added additional com­ is still apparent, anglers report catching striped the late 1960s and 1970s when the restoration plexity to the white perch community in the ba­ Status Prior to the Restoration bass in the river year-round. program began (Marcy 2004a [1976]). sin by allowing migratory fish to access histori­ Program cal and nonhistorical habitat upstream of dams. White Perch Howell and Molnar (2004) concluded that fish­ The Atlantic sturgeon is native to the Connecti­ Restoration Strategies ing pressure on the population has remained cut River and at one time supported a large fish­ 1. Targeted Habitat. None. Status Prior to the Restoration stable during the past 30 years, but the popula­ ery (Galligan 1960). However, the population may Program tion has been recently depressed by natural mor­ have already been extirpated upon the beginning 2. Fish Passage. No fishway was designed to de­ liberately pass striped bass and few use fish­ tality that is likely caused by striped bass of the restoration program. White perch Morone americana was very com­ ways. Moderate numbers of striped bass are predation. The CTDEP implemented creel and mon and widely distributed from the mouth of minimum size limits for the sport fishery for the Exhibit EN-LWB-1

310 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OFOF THETHE PROGRAM TOTO RESTORE ATLANTICATLANTIC SALMON SALMON AND AND OTHER OTHER DIADROMOUS DIADROMOUS FISHES 311

first time in 2003,2003, but thethe speciesspecies does not re-re­ Discussion Rainbow Dam fishway have deterred passagepassage the reduction of public vandalism of nesting lam-lam­ quire any additionaladditional managementmanagement strategies by of American shad because resting (attached)(attached) preys is due toto publicpublic outreachoutreach efforts by thethe There is anecdotalanecdotal evidence of thethe lossloss oror declinedecline CRASC partners. For more information about the lamprey clogged the 25-cm25-cm slot openings.openings. CRASC partners. of anadromousanadromous rainbow smelt runsruns inin coastalcoastal white perch population in thethe lowerlower Connecti-Connecti­ 3. Reintroduction ofof Species into Habitat.Habitat. There The abundant runs of sea lampreylamprey provide re-re­ streams along thethe entireentire ConnecticutConnecticut shoreline.shoreline. cut River, see Howell and MolnarMolnar (2004).(2004). have been no efforts other thanthan fishfish passagepassage search opportunities. CRASC partners have col-col­ There are datadata toto indicateindicate recentrecent stockstock collapsescollapses to reintroduce sea lampreylamprey into historicalhistorical lected adult lampreyslampreys at fishwaysfishways andand juvenilejuvenile of rainbow smelt inin thethe HudsonHudson RiverRiver (Daniels(Daniels et habitat. lampreys inin streams for the USFWS to supportsupport re-re­ Rainbow Smelt al., in press).press). TheThe CTDEPCTDEP andand thethe UniversityUniversity ofof search associated with the international effort to Connecticut began a study in 20032003 toto assessassess thethe Status Prior to the Restoration control nuisance lamprey populations in the GreatGreat status of anadromousanadromous rainbowrainbow smeltsmelt inin thethe lowerlower Current Status Lakes. The CTDEP has cooperatedcooperated with academicacademic Program Connecticut River.River. Adult seasea lampreys were not consistently counted institutions in thethe collectioncollection ofof seasea lampreylamprey Anadromous rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax was at the HolyokeHolyoke DamDam FishliftFishlift prior to 1975, but the ammocoetes to support neurologicalneurological research.research. widespread inin the lowerlower riverriver (Marcy(Marcy 2004b2004b Sea Lamprey counts havehave subsequently ranged between 15,00015,000 this volume). [1976], this volume). and 100,000 adults annually (Table 5). Annual Sea-Run Brown Trout Status Prior to the Restoration sea lampreylamprey counts at thethe VernonVernon Dam fishwayfishway Restoration Strategies Program are usuallyusually severalseveral hundred,hundred, but have been as high Status Prior to the Restoration as 16,000 (VTDFW, unpublished data). The larg-larg­ Sea lamprey waswas abundantabundant inin thethe ConnecticutConnecticut Program 1. Targeted Habitat. None. est num~ernumber passedpassed at the Bellows Falls fishwayfishway River and tributaries as farfar upstreamupstream asas thethe firstfirst 2. Fish Passage.Passage. Most dams are upstream of the was 198 min 1998 (VTDFW, unpublished data). No Brown trout Salmo trutta is not native and was barrier falls. There areare reportsreports thatthat thethe speciesspecies maymay Brown trout is not native and was native range of rainbow smelt, which is not lampreys werewere observed using the Wilder Dam not present in the basinbasin priorprior toto thethe introductionintroduction have been able toto surmountsurmount thethe fallsfalls atat BellowsBellows not present able to surmountsurmount falls of greater than 0.5 m fishway, 1987-1994,1987-1994, butbut the fishway has not been of freshwater forms from Europe in the late 1800s1800s Falls, Vermont (Scarola 1973) and wewe suspectsuspect thatthat of freshwater (Collette and Klein-MacPheeKlein-MacPhee 2002). Further-Further­ monitored forfor fishfish counts since 1994. Sea lam-lam­ (Scott and Crossman 1973). ItIt is not known when its ability toto ascendascend thethe fallsfalls maymay havehave beenbeen spo-spo­ (Scott and more, smelt are not known to use anyany fishwayfishway preys maymay havehave utilizedutilized it during subsequent years anadromous formsforms ofof brown trout were first re-re­ radic and linkedlinked toto favorablefavorable flowflow conditions.conditions. anadromous design (Alex Haro, USGS-BRD, Conte Anadro­Anadro- (e.g., 1998). The sizes of runsruns inin thethe Westfield,Westfield ported but they were common in the lowerlower Con-Con­ When the restorationrestoration programprogram began,began, thethe speciesspecies ported but mous Fish ResearchResearch Center,Center, personalpersonal commu-commu­ Farmington, andand Salmon rivers have experiencedexperienced necticut River immediately prior to the beginningbeginning was common in thethe mainmain stemstem upstreamupstream toto thethe necticut River nication), and no effort has been made to pass increasesincreas~s similarsimilar toto those seen at HolyokeHolyoke duringduring of thethe restorationrestoration program.program. base of thethe HolyokeHolyoke Dam and to thethe basebase ofof thethe gio smelt above dams. the penodperiod of thethe restorationrestoration programprogram (CRASC,(CRASC 111111111 111 first damsdams onon mostmost tributariestributaries downstreamdownstream ofof 3. Reintroduction ofof Species into Habitat.Habitat. There unpublished data).data). Sea lamprey reproduction hasha~ Holyoke. Some of thesethese tributarytributary runsruns maymay havehave Introduction StrategiesStrategies have been no effortsefforts toto reintroducereintroduce rainbowrainbow been documented inin the Cold River,River, New Hamp-Hamp­ 11101101 had reduced numbers due toto poorpoor waterwater qualityquality smelt into historicalhistorical habitat.habitat. shire (#17, Figure 1) (Ken Sprankle, USFWS, per-per­ 1. Targeted Habitat. CRASC has not targetedtargeted and nonconsump-tive killing by humans.humans. 1. sonal communication), the WestWest River,River, VermontVermont trout introduc­ sonal any habitat for sea-runsea-run brownbrown trout introduc- 111111111o, Aie:° Current Status (#16), and the White River,River, Vermont (#26, Figure tion. The CTDEPCTDEP has targetedtargeted free-flowingfree-flowing Restoration StrategiesStrategies 111111111 111$ IWO 1) (Rich Kirn, VTDFW, personal communication). stretches above dams on six tributariestributaries in CTDEP has collected very small numbers of rain-rain­ Connecticut. 1. Targeted Habitat. The ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver At-At­ bow smelt. It It isis assumedassumed that that the the species species is isstill still 1. Targeted Habitat. 11111111111 2. Fish Passage. No fishway outside of Connecti-Connecti­ 11111 lantic Salmon Commission and itsits partnerspartners Discussion 111111111 present in the lower river but there are no data on for sea-run brown trout. have targeted for restorationrestoration thethe extentextent ofof thethe cut has been designeddesigned for sea-run brown trout. abundance or distribution of spawning runs into ThereThe~e hashas been some public questioning of re-re­ tributaries 11111111111111 ego native distribution of seasea lampreyslampreys thatthat lieslies Several fishways on ConnecticutConnecticut tributaries lower river tributaries. A recent effort to docu-docu­ storingstonng seasea lamprey runsruns within the basin due to trout but within the targetedtargeted habitathabitat forfor AtlanticAtlantic salmon,salmon, have been planned for sea-run brown trout but ment spawning runs in two lower riverriver tributariestributaries the widespread knowledgeknowledge of the ecological prob-prob­ migrant and American shad, andand bluebackblueback herring.herring. ThisThis the species is anan extremelyextremely strongstrong migrant and known to support smelt in the past failed to ob-ob­ lems createdcreated byby the introduction of seasea lampreylamprey means that fish passagepassage wouldwould notnot bebe imple-imple­ ~ems can use fishwaysfishways designed for other species.species. serve any smelt (Heather Fried, University of Con-Con­ intomto the Great Lakes (Scott(Scott andand CrossmanCrossman 1973).1973). are not given mented for the solesole purposepurpose ofof passing passing seasea Therefore, sea-run brown trout are not given necticut, Department of Life Sciences,Sciences, Storrs,Storrs, However, seasea lampreylamprey hashas beenbeen present in the ba-ba­ for fish passage. lamprey. However, when fish passagepassage isis tar-tar­ special consideration for fish passage. Connecticut; personal communication). The dis-dis­ sins~n since prehistoric times with no problems of 3. habitat. Brown geted for other species,species, seasea lampreylamprey wouldwould be 3. Introduction of Species into habitat. Brown tribution of rainbow smelt in the upper portion of ftshfish parasitism noted. Juvenile sea lampreys are in the lowest part of thethe suitesuite ofof species species targetedtargeted forfor resto-resto­ trout are currently being stocked in the lowest the basin is similar to that of whitewhite perch. It was preyed uponupon by striped bass (Tom(Tom Savoy,Savoy, CTDEP/ section of the Eightmile River in anan experi-experi­ ration. section of the Eightmile not native to thethe upperupper basinbasin butbut waswas introducedintroduced Marine Fisheries, personal communication)communication) and mental manner to increase the returns of sea-sea­ 2. Fish Passage.Passage. Sea lampreylamprey useuse fishwaysfishways veryvery mental manner extensively intointo inland lakes for forage for sportsport presumably otherother species. Stonefly larvae are fre-fre­ run brown trout.trout. effectively and can bebe expectedexpected toto utilizeutilize anyany run brown fish (Scarola 1973) and the species is nownow foundfound quently observedobserved feedingfeeding on sea lamprey car-car­ style of fishwayfishway thatthat otherother speciesspecies ofof anadro- anadro­ throughout the basin, includingincluding nonanadromousnonanadromous casses in Connecticut River tributaries.tributaries. CRASCCRASC mous fish utilize. NoNo fishwayfishway hashas beenbeen de-de­ Current Status populations inin the main stem.stem. believes thatthat the restoration of sea lampreylamprey runs signed specificallyspecifically forfor seasea lamprey.lamprey. ThereThere havehave to the basin increases the basin's biodiversitybiodiversity and do not reach the been times when heavyheavy useuse ofof the the verticalvertical slotslot Sea-run brown trout generally do not reach the results inin ecosystem benefits.benefits. ItIt is believed that Holyoke Dam, although one large individual was Exhibit EN-LWB-1

312 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OFOF THETHE PROGRAM TOTO RESTORE ATI.ANTIC ATLANTIC SALMON SALMON AND AND OTHER OTHER DIADROMOUS DIADROMOUS FISHES 313

captured at the fishliftfishlift inin 20012001 (Mickey(Mickey Novak,Novak, border (Scarola(Scarola 1973).1973). TheThe speciesspecies waswas commoncommon ing studies atat thethe TurnersTurners FallsFalls andand RainbowRainbow proved downstream passage will improve spawn-spawn­ USFWS, Cronin National Salmon Station; per-per­ and abundant in thethe tidewatertidewater portionsportions ofof the the riverriver dams (Alex Haro,Haro, USGS-SCAFRC,USGS-SCAFRC, personalpersonal ing escapement toto thethe ocean.ocean. However,However, neither trend sonal communication). Some sea-run brown trout prior to thethe restorationrestoration programprogram (Marcy(Marcy 2004a2004a communication). may result in increased glass eel recruitment to the It.'" may be passing up the DSI Dam Fishway (#4, Fig-Fig­ [1976]).[1976]). 3. Reintroduction of Species into Habitat.Habitat. There mouth of the ConnecticutConnecticut River since the glass ure 1)1) onon thethe WestfieldWestfield RiverRiver (Caleb(Caleb Slater,Slater, have been no effortsefforts toto reintroducereintroduce AmericanAmerican eels do not return to the river in which theirtheir parents MADFW, personal communication). Annual adult Restoration Strategies eel into historical habitat by anyany otherother meansmeans resided and any increases in the number of eggseggs returns to thethe LeesvilleLeesville DamDam FishwayFishway and thethe other than passage over barrierbarrier dams.dams. and larvae in the Sargasso Sea will likely be sharedshared Rainbow Dam Fishway have ranged from 2 to 39. 1. Targeted Habitat. The ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver At-At­ among all North American rivers that receivereceive glass lantic SalmonSalmon CommissionCommission hashas notnot targetedtargeted Current Status eel runsruns (Moriarty(Moriarty 1978).1978). Increases of thethe numbernumber eel restoration, but Discussion any habitat forfor AmericanAmerican eel restoration, but of glass eels to thethe mouthmouth ofof thethe ConnecticutConnecticut River individual member statestate agenciesagencies have.have. TheThe CRASC membermember agenciesagencies have only recently be-be­ may occur only after similarsimilar restorationrestoration plans have The state ofof ConnecticutConnecticut hashas stockedstocked largelarge num-num­ CTDEP has targetedtargeted habitathabitat upstreamupstream ofof thethe gun to collect American eel data within the basin, been implemented in manymany NorthNorth AmericanAmerican riversrivers bers of hatchery-reared brown trout annually since Rainbow Dam on thethe FarmingtonFarmington River,River, up-up­ but itit seems safe to conclude that the species is and significantsignificant increases inin spawningspawning escapementescapement before the 1950s1950s and imported anadromous strains stream of thethe LeesvilleLeesville damdam onon thethe SalmonSalmon less abundantabundant inin thethe watershed than it was histori-histori­ to the Sargasso Sea occur. CRASC expects to adopt from Denmark and Tasmania during the 1950s1950s River, and habitat inin manymany smallersmaller tributariestributaries cally andand isis less abundant in some portions of the an American eel management plan in 2003.2003. and 1960s.1960s. Sea-run brown trout continue to enterenter such asas Scantic,Scantic, Hockanum,Hockanum, Mattabesett,Mattabesett, basin thanthan itit was prior to thethe beginningbeginning of thethe the Connecticut River and its tributariestributaries in smallsmall Coginchaug, and EightmileEightmile rivers.rivers. TheThe restoration program.program. EelsEels were routinelyroutinely capturedcaptured numbers and are believed toto be the result of thethe MADFW hashas targeted habitathabitat aboveabove thethe in the West RiverRiver inin southern Vermont inin thethe 1980s Summary 1111111 Holyoke Dam on the mainmain stem,stem, aboveabove thethe and early 1990s but have not been observed since. illllil state hatcheryhatchery trout stockingstocking program.program. The fishfish and early Restoring runs of migratorymigratory fish that crosscross manymany !IIIHI DSI Dam onon thethe WestfieldWestfield River,River, aboveabove thethe The species has not been capturedcaptured from centralcentral lii!HII are highly prized by anglers,anglers, promptingprompting the re-re­ The species national jurisdictions to a largelarge watershedwatershed thatthat Dwight Station DamDam onon thethe ChicopeeChicopee River,River, (Rich Kirn, VTDFW, personal communication) or cent effort toto increaseincrease theirtheir numbers.numbers. Sea-runSea-run (Rich Kim, VTDFW, spans many U.S. political jurisdictions is ex-ex­ brown trout are allowedallowed to ascendascend fishwaysfishways andand and aboveabove thethe AdvocateAdvocate DamDam onon thethe MillMill northern (Len Gerardi, VTDFW, personal commu-commu­ 1110I1 tremely challenging. The Connecticut River wa-wa­ •0100Hll~l( River (Caleb(Caleb Slater,Slater, MADFW,MADFW, personalpersonal com-com­ nication) VermontVermont duringduring thethe last 10 years. The spawn upstream, but it isis notnot knownknown whetherwhether nication) tershed contains some of thethe mostmost natural,natural, spawning by sea-runsea-run parentsparents produceproduce anadromousanadromous munication). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has undeveloped land in thethe NortheasternNortheastern UnitedUnited ((/lllll 2. Fish Passage.Passage. Some pool-and-weirpool-and-weir fishwaysfishways reported coast-widecoast-wide declines in American eel stock progeny or whether increasing the density of wild reported States and some of thethe mostmost urban,urban, densely-popu-densely-popu­ (e.g., RainbowRainbow DamDam andand TurnersTurners FallsFalls fish-fish­ abundance sincesince 1967 (ASMFC 2000) due to loss brown trout parr willwill increaseincrease thethe tendencytendency for abundance lated areas in thethe entireentire nation.nation. TheThe watershedwatershed is ways) allow the passagepassage ofof American American eels,eels, butbut of habitat and mortality of downstreamdownstream migrants.migrants. some juveniles to dropdrop downstreamdownstream toto tidewater.tidewater. of habitat very dynamic: it is recoveringrecovering from pastpast industri-industri­ many of the other fishwaysfishways alreadyalready constructedconstructed These factorsfactors are known to exist in thethe Connecti-Connecti­ Historically, the only stream-dwellingstream-dwelling salmo-salmo­ These alization; it hashas beenbeen experiencingexperiencing widespreadwidespread do not pass American eelseels (e.g.,(e.g., HolyokeHolyoke Dam,Dam, cut River basin and it isis reasonablereasonable toto concludeconclude nid native to thethe ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver otherother thanthan cut River reforestation, but the forests are now beingbeing frag-frag­ Leesville Dam, andand DSIDSI fishways).fishways). InIn mostmost that the distribution and abundanceabundance ofof AmericanAmerican Atlantic salmon was the brookbrook trouttrout Salvelinus that mented due to increasedincreased residentialresidential development;development; cases, separate,separate, specially-designedspecially-designed passagepassage fa-fa­ eel have declined during thethe period of time of the fontinalis.fontinalis. There are no goodgood datadata onon anadromousanadromous eel have it isis impactedimpacted byby globalglobal influencesinfluences such as cli-cli­ cilities areare neededneeded forfor AmericanAmerican eel.eel. TheThe de-de­ restoration program. populations of brook trout inin thethe ConnecticutConnecticut mate change and acid rain; andand isis experiencingexperiencing sign of eeleel passespasses willwill varyvary amongamong dams,dams, butbut River, but it is likelylikely thatthat therethere werewere anadromousanadromous the effects of coast-wide shifts in fish speciesspecies dis-dis­ the most commoncommon design forfor talltall damsdams willwill brook trout into thethe ConnecticutConnecticut River upon Eu-Eu­ Discussion tribution. Restoring native species in this con-con­ likely be aa bristlebristle oror pegboardpegboard substratesubstrate inin aa ropean Contact. TheThe last known report of a "sea-"sea­ text is analogousanalogous to "aiming"aiming at aa movingmoving target."target." at the trough carrying smallsmall amountsamounts ofof waterwater andand Undocumented increasesincreases in population densities run" brook trout was a catch from a gillnet at the The program has achievedachieved great successessuccesses andand and at dead-ends into a holdingholding tank/traptank/trap thatthat al-al­ of American eels have likely occurred on portionsportions 1111111111 mouth of the Connecticut River in 1979,1979, and at has experienced disappointments. ItIt is clear that be lows thethe enumerationenumeration andand handhand transporta-transporta­ of the Westfield, Salmon, and FarmingtonFarmington rivers that time,time, veteran biologists considered itit to be successful restoration of sustained fish runs will tion of thethe eelseels aboveabove thethe damdam (Haro(Haro etet al.al. above dams where effective upstream eel passagepassage extremely unusual. Sea-run brown trout areare above dams require many more years of work.work. for the native 2002). Downstream passagepassage ofof "silver""silver" Ameri-Ameri­ currently exists. The effort to provideprovide upstreamupstream stocked to provide a replacementreplacement for the native The diadromousdiadromous fish restoration program for longer be can eel isis aa problemproblem sincesince thesethese individualsindividuals passage forfor American eel in the ConnecticutConnecticut River sea-run brook trout that appears to no longer be the riverriver wouldwould be impossibleimpossible without the closeclose may be upup toto 11 m m longlong (Facey (Facey andand Van Van DenDen basin isis about 25 years behind that for anadromous capable of living in LongLong IslandIsland Sound.Sound. partnerships between the state and federalfederal agen-agen­ Avyle 1987) and areare particularlyparticularly vulnerablevulnerable fish. Many eel passage projects are expectedexpected dur-dur­ cies andand manymany nongovernmentalnongovernmental organizations.organizations. to mutilationmutilation inin hydroelectrichydroelectric turbinesturbines ing the next 1010 years.years. EffectiveEffective downstreamdownstream pas-pas­ American Eel The spirit of cooperationcooperation and willingness of all (McCleave 2001; EPRI 1999).1999). SilverSilver eelseels willwill sage of AmericanAmerican eel may lag behind while directed groups to makemake long-termlong-term commitmentscommitments to fish sometimes use facilitiesfacilities constructedconstructed forfor thethe research isis conducted. Population increases in Status Prior to the Restoration restoration as aa watershed-basedwatershed-based activityactivity havehave downstream passage ofof juvenilejuvenile anadromousanadromous anadromous fishfish species have generallygenerally followedfollowed Program been crucial to the program's success. In this pa-pa­ fish or thethe upstreamupstream passagepassage ofof adultadult anadro-anadro­ successful passagepassage atat dams.dams. ItIt isis not clear how im-im­ per, we havehave reviewedreviewed the restorationrestoration activitiesactivities American eeleel is one of thethe mostmost widelywidely distrib-distrib­ mous fish (such as atat thethe RainbowRainbow DamDam onon thethe proved eeleel passage at dams will affect overall eel undertaken for each diadromousdiadromous species.species. SomeSome uted fish speciesspecies in thethe ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver basin.basin. Farmington River). MoreMore researchresearch isis neededneeded population sizessizes in the ConnecticutConnecticut River basin. species only migrate short distances up the riverriver Historically, itit was found as far upstream as the to designdesign effectiveeffective downstreamdownstream passagewayspassageways Improved upstream passage should increase up-up­ (e.g., alewife, rainbowrainbow smelt, hickory shad) andand Connecticut Lakes (rkm 642) near thethe QuebecQuebec for eels,eels, andand SCAFRCSCAFRC isis currentlycurrently conductconduct-- stream distribution and population densities. Im- therefore management activities are conductedconducted Exhibit EN-LWB-1

314 GEPHARDGEPHARDAND AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OFOF THETHE PROGRAM TOTO RESTORE ATLANTICATLANTIC SALMON SALMON AND AND OTHER OTHER DIADROMOUS DIADROMOUS FISHES 315

only by thethe mostmost downstreamdownstream statestate (Connecti-(Connecti­ Anonymous. 1998.1998. ReportReport ofof the the 27th27th Northeast Northeast Re-Re­ turetore and data review of lifelife history,history, stock status,status, and growth of freshwater fishes fromfrom thethe Connecti­Connecti- cut). However,However, when CRASC considersconsiders activitiesactivities gional StockStock AssessmentAssessment Workshop,Workshop, JulyJuly 1998:1998: population dynamics, and hydroelectric impacts. cut River in ConnecticutConnecticut (1988-2002). (1988-2002). PagesPages 319-319- to restore selected diadromous fishfish runs to a largelarge section G: Atlantic herring. PagesPages 281-309281-309 in Woods Electric Power Research Institute, Technical Report 343 in P.P.M. M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. C.C. Leggett,Leggett, portion of the watershed, all four states share equal Hole ref. doc.doc. 98-15.98-15. National National Marine Marine Fisheries Fisheries TR-111873, Palo Alto, California. B. C. Marcy,Marcy, Jr., and R. R.R. Massengill,Massengill, editors.editors. responsibility, authority, and commitment.commitment. Service, NortheastNortheast FisheriesFisheries Center, Center, Woods Woods Hole,Hole ,,;ey, D. E., and J. J.J. Van Den Avyle. 1987. American The Connecticut River Ecological Study (1965-(1965- ' The program has benefited from applied re-re­ Massachusetts. eel. Species Profiles: life histories and environmen­environmen- 1973) revisited: ecology of the lower Connecticut North search conducted at manymany institutions,institutions, most no-no­ Atkins, C. G. 1874.1874. OnOn thethe salmon salmon of of eastern eastern North tal requirementsrequirements of coastal fishes and invertebratesinvertebrates River 1973-2003. AmericanAmerican FisheriesFisheries Society,Society, culture. Pages 226--335 in tably thethe SilvioSilvio 0.0. Conte Conte Anadromous Anadromous FishFish America, andand its artificial culture. Pages 226-335 in (North Atlantic). U.S. Fish andand Wildlife Service Monograph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. Report of thethe Commissioner,Commissioner, forfor 18721872 andand 1873,1873 Re­ 2004. Research Center (USGS/BRD),(USGS/BRD), thethe USGS/BRDUSGS/BRD National Wetlands Research Center, Biological Re- Jacobson, P. M., C. G. Fredette, and N. Barrett. 2004. Part II. U.S.U.S. CommissionCommission ofof Fish Fish and and Fisheries, Fisheries' Washington, D.C. River watershed manage­ Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, the port 82(11-74), Washington, D.C. Introduction: Connecticut River watershed manage- GPO, Washington, D.C. ' 1991. Yankee salmon-the Atlantic present, and future. Pages 263-272 in U.S. Forest ServiceService CooperativeCooperative ResearchResearch Unit, Foster,C. C. H. H. W.W. 1991. Yankee salmon-the Atlantic ment-past, present, and future. Pages 263-272 in ASMFC (Atlantic StatesStates MarineMarine FisheriesFisheries Commission).Commission). salmon of the Connecticut River. CIS, Cambridge, P. M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. C. Leggett, B. C. and thethe DepartmentDepartment of thethe ForestryForestry andand WildlifeWildlife 1995.1995. Amendment #5#5 toto thethe interstateinterstate fishery fishery man-man­ Massachusetts. Marcy, Jr., and R. R.R. Massengill,Massengill, editors. The Con­Con- at thethe UniversityUniversity ofof MassachusettsMassachusetts (Amherst),(Amherst), agement planplan forfor stripedstriped bass.bass. AtlanticAtlantic StatesStates Ma-Ma­ Fried, S.M.,S. M., J. D. McCleave, and G. W. LaBar. 1978. necticut River Ecological Study (1965-1973) re-re­ USGS/BRD Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Re-Re­ rine Fisheries Commission, FisheriesFisheries Management Management Seaward migration of hatchery-rearedhatchery-reared Atlantic visited: ecology of the lowerlower ConnecticutConnecticut RiverRiver search Unit atat thethe UniversityUniversity ofof Vermont Vermont (Burling-(Burling­ Report 24, Washington, D.C. salmon, Salmo salar, smolts in the Penobscot River 1973-2003.1973-2003. AmericanAmerican FisheriesFisheries Society,Society, Mono-Mono­ ton), DartmouthDartmouth College, andand thethe NortheastNortheast ASMFC (Atlantic StatesStates MarineMarine FisheriesFisheries Commis-Commis­ Estuary: riverine movements. Journal of the Fisher­Fisher- graph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. Center at Woods Hole (NMFS). The Con­ Fisheries Center at Woods Hole (NMFS). The Con- sion). 2000.2000. InterstateInterstate fisheryfishery managementmanagement planplan ies Research Board of CanadaCanada 35:76-87.35:76-87. Jacobson, P. M., C. Tomichek, and D. J. Danila. 2004. necticut River Ecological Study providedprovided encour-encour­ necticut for American eel. Atlantic StatesStates MarineMarine FisheriesFisheries Friedland,rno;;u~

316 GEPHARD AND MCMENEMY AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM TO RESTORE ATLANTIC SALMON AND OTHER DIADROMOUS FISHES 317

The impact of enhancement initiatives on the struc­ dams and fishing weirs on reproductive potential of . em New England stream. North American Journal in P. M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. C. Leggett, B. ture and dynamics of the Connecticut River popula­ silver phase American eels in the Kennebec River of Fisheries Management 14:588-606. C. Marcy, Jr., and R. R. Massengill, editors. The tion of American shad. Pages 391-405 in P. M. basin, Maine. North American Journal of Fisheries D. L., R. J. Behnke, S. R. Gephard, S. D. Connecticut River Ecological Study (1965-1973) Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. C. Leggett, B. C. Marcy, Management 21:592-605. McCormick, and G. H. Reeves. 1998. Why aren't revisited: ecology of the lower Connecticut River Jr., and R. R. Massengill, editors. The Connecticut McMenemy, J. R. 1995. Survival of Atlantic salmon fry there more Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Cana­ 1973-2003. American Fisheries Society, Mono­ River Ecological Study (1965-1973) revisited: ecol­ stocked at low density in the West River, Vermont. dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences graph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. ogy of the lower Connecticut River 1973-2003. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 55(Supplement1):281-287. Savoy, T. F., V. A. Crecco, and B. C. Marcy, Jr. 2004. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 9, 15(2):366-374. W. A., and G. DiNardo. 1984. Current status American shad early life history and recruitment in Bethesda, Maryland. McMenemy, J. R., and B. Kynard. 1988. Use of in­ and biological characteristics of the anadromous alosid the Connecticut River: a 40-year summary. Pages Letcher, B. H., and T. L. King. 1999. Targeted stock clined-plane traps to study movements and survival stocks of eastern United States: American shad, 407-417 in P. M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. C. identification using multilocus genotype 'family­ of Atlantic salmon smolts in the Connecticut River. hickory shad, alewife, and blueback herring. Inter­ Leggett, B. C. Marcy, Jr., and R. R. Massengill, printing.' Fisheries Research 43:99-111. North American Journal of Fisheries Management state Fisheries Management Program, Atlantic States editors. The Connecticut River Ecological Study Letcher, B. H., and T. L. King. 2001. Parentage and 8:481-488. Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. (1965-1973) revisited: ecology of the lower Con­ grandparentage assignment with known and un­ Merriman, D., andY. Jean. 1949. The capture of an nnwv•··· S. G., and L. W. Stolte. 1988. Restoration of necticut River 1973-2003. American Fisheries So­ known matings: application to Connecticut River Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River. Copeia Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut and Merrimack ciety, Monograph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. Atlantic salmon restoration. Canadian Journal of 1949(4):210-§ 121. rivers. Pages 67-81 in Richard H. Stroud, editor. Scarola, J. F. 1973. Freshwater fishes of New Hamp­ Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1812-1821. Meyers, T. F. 1994. The program to restore Atlantic Present and future Atlantic salmon management­ shire. New Hampshire Department of Fish and MacCrimmon, H. R., and B. L. Gots. 1979. World distri­ salmon to the Connecticut River. Pages 11-21 inS. measuring progress toward international coopera­ Game, Concord. bution of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Journal of Calabi and A. Stout, editors. A hard look at some tion. Marine Recreational Fisheries 12. Atlantic Scott, W. E., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:422-457. tough issues. New England Atlantic Salmon Man­ Salmon Federation & National Coalition forMa­ fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Maltezos, G., R. McMahon, andM. Leslie. 1979. Move­ agement Conference. New England Salmon Asso­ rine Conservation, Inc., Ipswich, Massachusetts. Canada Bulletin 184. ments of white perch in the lower Connecticut River. ciation, Newburyport, Massachusetts. Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Linquist, and J. F. Spidle, A. P., S. T. Kalinowski, B. A. Lubinski, D. L. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protec­ Moffitt, C. M., B. Kynard, and S. G. Rideout. 1982. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater fishes of the Carolinas, Perkins, K. F. Beland, Kocik, J. F., and T. L. King. tion, Fisheries Division, 88-309 Program Final Fish passage facilities and anadromous fish resto­ Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of 2003. Population structure of Atlantic salmon in Report, Hartford. ration in the Connecticut River basin. Fisheries North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Maine with reference to populations from Atlantic Mansueti, R., and H. Kolb. 1953. A historical review of 7(6):2-11. Saunders, R. L. 1981. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) Canada. Transactions of the American Fisheries the shad fisheries of North America. Chesapeake Moriarty, C. 1978. Eels- a natural and unnatural history. stocks and management implications in the Cana­ Society 132(2): 196-209. Biological Laboratory, Publication No. 97, Universe Books, New York. dian Atlantic provinces and New England, USA. Spidle, A. P., T. L. King, and B. H. Letcher. In press. Solomons, Maryland. Moss, D. D. 1952. A history of the Connecticut River Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Genetic diversity in Connecticut River Atlantic Marcy, B. C., Jr. 2004a. Fishes of the lower Connecticut and its fisheries. Connecticut Board of Fisheries 38:1612-1625. salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture. River and the effects of the Connecticut Yankee plant. and Game, Hartford. Savoy, T., and D. Pacileo. 2003. Movements and im­ Stier, D. J., and B. Kynard. 1986. Use of radio telemetry Pages 65-124 in P.M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. Moss, S. A., W. C. Leggett, and W. A. Boyd. 2004. portant habitats of subadultAtlantic sturgeon in Con­ to determine the mortality ofAtlantic salmon smolts C. Leggett, B. C. Marcy, Jr., and R. R. Massengill, Recurrent mass mortalities of the blueback herring necticut waters. Transactions of the American passed through a 17-MW Kaplan turbine at a low­ editors. The Connecticut River Ecological Study in the lower Connecticut River. Pages 239-246 in P. Fisheries Society 132:1-8. head hydroelectric dam. Transactions of the Ameri­ (1965-1973) revisited: ecology of the lower Con­ M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. C. Leggett, B. C. Savoy, T. F. 2004. Population estimate and ultization of can Fisheries Society 115:771-775. necticut River 1973-2003. American Fisheries So­ Marcy, Jr., and R. R. Massengill, editors. The Con­ the lower Connecticut River by shortnose sturgeon. Taylor, R. E., and B. Kynard. 1985. Mortality ofjuvenile ciety, Monograph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. (Origi­ necticut River Ecological Study (1965-1973) re­ Pages 345-352 in P.M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. American shad and blueback herring passed through nally published in 1976) visited: ecology of the lower Connecticut River C. Leggett, B. C. Marcy, Jr., and R. R. Massengill, a low-head hydroelectric turbine. Transactions of the Marcy, B. C., Jr. 2004b. Planktonic fish eggs and larvae 1973-2003. American Fisheries Society, Mono­ editors. The Connecticut River Ecological Study American Fisheries Society 114:430-435. of the lower Connecticut River and the effects of the graph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. (Originally published (1965-1973) revisited: ecology of the lower Con­ Whalen, K. G., and G. W. LaBar. 1998. Survival and Connecticut Yankee plant, including entrainment. in 1976) necticut River 1973-2003. American Fisheries So­ growth of unfed and fed Atlantic salmon fry stocked Pages 125-153 in P.M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, NASCO (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organi­ ciety, Monograph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. in a Vermont tributary of the Connecticut River. W. C. Leggett, B. C. Marcy, Jr., and R. R. zation). 2002. Manual of resolutions, agreements, Savoy, T. F., and J. Benway. 2004. Food habits of North American Journal of Fisheries Management Massengill, editors. The Connecticut River Eco­ and guidelines. NASCO, Edinburgh, Scotland. shortnose sturgeon collected in the lower Connecti­ 18:931-935. logical Study (1965-1973) revisited: ecology of NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council). cut River from 2000 through 2002. Pages 353-360 Whitworth, W. R. 1996. Freshwater fishes of Connecti­ the lower Connecticut River 1973-2003. Ameri­ 1987. Fishery management plan for Atlantic salmon. in P. M. Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. C. Leggett, B. cut. CTDEP/ State Geological and Natural History can Fisheries Society, Monograph 9, Bethesda, NEFMC, Saugus, Massachusetts. C. Marcy, Jr., and R. R. Massengill, editors. The Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin 114 (2nd edition), Maryland. (Originally published in 1976) O'Leary, J., and D. G. Smith. 1987. Occurrence of the Connecticut River Ecological Study (1965-1973) Hartford. Martinez, J. L., S. Gephard, F. Juanes, J. Pezez, and E. first freshwater migration of the gizzard shad, revisited: ecology of the lower Connecticut River Whitworth, W. R., P. Minta, and R. Orciari. 1980. Fur­ Garcia-Vazquez. 2001. Genetic and life history dif­ Dorosoma cepedianum, in the Connecticut River, 1973-2003. American Fisheries Society, Mono­ ther additions to, and notes on, the freshwater ich­ ferentiation between donor and derivative popula­ Massachusetts. Fishery Bulletin 85(2):380-383. graph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. thyofauna of Connecticut. Pages 27-29 in P. M. tions of Atlantic salmon. Transactions of the Orciari, R. D., G. H. Leonard, D. J. Mysling, and E. C. Savoy, T. F., and V. A. Crecco. 2004. Factors affecting Jacobson, editor. Studies of the ichthyofauna of American Fisheries Society 130:508-515. Schluntz. 1994. Survival, growth, and smolt pro­ the recent decline of blueback herring and Ameri­ Connecticut. University of Connecticut, Storrs Ag­ McCleave, J. D. 2001. Simulation of the impacts of duction of Atlantic salmon stocked as fry in a south- can shad in the Connecticut River. Pages 361-377 ricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 457, Storrs.