CTFishTalk.com: New England Alewife Habitat Histories 1920 -present IMEP 57A - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

New England Alewife Habitat Histories and Conditions
1920 to Present
Do We Need to Re-establish Local Alewife Committees?
IMEP #57-A

Habitat Information for Fishers and Fishery Area Managers
Understanding Science Through History

(IMEP History Newsletters can be found indexed by date – Title on the BlueCrab.info™ website: Fishing, Eeling and Oystering thread) and on Connecticut Fish Talk™ (See Saltwater Reports thread)

Timothy C. Visel, Coordinator
The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center
60 South Water Street
New Haven, CT 06519

A Capstone Proposal
Local Alewife Runs Have a Habitat History – Part 1
Habitat Improvements Artificial Fisheries Restoration and Stewardship Part 2

Update January 2016 – Tim Visel – This is a two part newsletter –
both sections should be read as a combined report.

This initial Long Island Sound Study Report was started in 2009, completed in 2010 and looks at the habitat history after the Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus in New England including Massachusetts, Rhode island and Connecticut Alewife runs from about 1920 to present. This paper is the viewpoint of Tim Visel although he has submitted this proposal in a modified form in 2011, it does not reflect the opinion or viewpoint of the EPA Long Island Sound Study- Citizens’ Advisory Committee, or the Stewardship or Habitat Committees. As of December 2015, non consensus exists for the impacts of climate and energy impacts upon alewife runs or the need to monitor sulfide or aluminum chemical blocks. I mention reopening some alewife runs under an “Alewife Stamp” proposal while the alewife fishery remains closed in Connecticut. This paper is the viewpoint of Tim Visel. This is a two part series IMEP newsletter.

I want to thank Ronald A. Paffrath of Madison CT for sharing and writing the foundation history report, he wrote in 1987 titled “An Examination of the Natural History of the Alewife, Alosa pseudohaengus and Considerations For The Restoration Of A Spawning Site On The Connecticut Coast. It remains one of the most comprehensive history papers about New England’s Alewife populations. It was that foundation report that convinced Madison, Connecticut officials to support an alewife restoration project supported by community groups, residents, the Madison Land Trust, Madison Exchange Club, The University of Connecticut, Daniel Hand High School and the CT DEP, one of the first state and local efforts in Connecticut to rebuild an alewife run.

The paper written by Mr. Paffrath in 1987, leads off with a narrative – “The Return of the Alewife” set in colonial New England with a 1616 account that states four centuries ago the alewife abundance that was observed in coastal streams at that period- “experience that taught them at New Plymouth that in April there is a fish much like a herring that comes up into the small brooks to spawn, and when the water is not too deep, they will press up through your hands, yea thou you beat at them with cudgels (a hand held war club), and in such abundance as is, incredible” from Bigelow 1953 citing Capt. Charles Whitborne in True Travels of Capt. John Smith, (1616 Vol. 2, pg 2501).

In 2010, the concept of returning some Alewife runs to local control (and management) was presented at a Long Island Sound Study meeting. The proposal history was then completed as part of an exhibit for the Friends of Hammonasset in October 2011 and resubmitted to the Long Island Sound Study Stewardship Committee, November 2011. The proposal was revised for student Capstone projects in 2014 and now is an IMEP newsletter in 2016. [The Hummer’s Pond Fish Ladder was completed in 1990 and constructed by the Daniel Hand Technology Program students which was replaced with an aluminum one in 2004.]

Preface - Since 2009 additional information has come forward about Alewife habitat quality in high heat and sulfide and aluminum discharges from organic matter (sulfate bacterial digestion) on Cape Cod. In addition, a group of Old Lyme volunteers provided information to me last year (2014) about their local efforts to maintain a local run in Old Lyme and the work that was required to keep a local fish ladder clear of organic debris which required a pickup truck several loads of brush, branches, tree limbs in just two days. Many coastal streams also still suffer from winter sand deposits when years ago in times of little concern, large amounts of sand was distributed on streets which soon entered many watersheds. Many organizations and environmental groups have targeted both dam removal and fish passage way construction projects as a way to increase herring populations although they tend to minimize climate and energy cycles impacts upon the runs. The best example we have of this was trying to return salmon, a cold water species into the Connecticut River dug a warm climate period that equaled The Great Heat itself- 1880-1920, following cooling and storms from 1931 to 1972. If cold returns the salmon project restoration will succeed. Removing dams on blocked runs therefore is a good start, but does not finish the habitat restoration process, it is impractical to think that just dam removal alone in high heat during low rainfall conditions will result in “restoration” of a particular alewife run. Careful habitat monitoring is needed and attention paid to any chemical blocks or habitat barriers such as residual winter storms sand deposits (Tuxis Brook, Madison, CT, 1982, for example, as Charles Beebe formerly of Madison commented that many such herring runs in CT were destroyed by winter street sand), these would need to be cleared as well. Many mill and ice dams once built to sell ice or supply cheap renewable power in New England have deep Sapropel deposits behind them- the putrefied remains of decades (sometimes centuries) of leaf and organic matter that is toxic to most stream life. This material would now flow to the sea killing or destroying trout gravel bars for reproductive purposes. From my records, such legacy deposits could take decades to clear. Although dam removal efforts gain much public attention; they often leave many with the view their job is done. In fact, the job is just beginning. That is why we may need to turn alewife run control back to local communities and volunteers such as the alewife committees of the last century. Such efforts would include limited local harvests, as to continue a cultural fishery perhaps so the connection to the resource is not lost. Our use of the fishery gives it an intrinsic value – hoping we also can benefit from the resource. The resource connection is then directly made to habitat quality conditions. A 1985 survey of non-farm areas asked young people where dairy milk comes from about half mentioned the carton- not the cow- that is the separation from the resource I speak about.

Information was provided to a NOAA herring study titled “Fisherman’s Insights Into River Herring Population Trends, Fisheries and Restoration from Maine to South Carolina” on October 21, 2014 to Julia Beaty under contract to NOAA Fisheries. This report looks at the perception of New England fishers and relationships to alewife runs; it is available from Don.Kirchner@NOAA.gov. Although Connecticut has closed its alewife fishery I do not support such a blanket closure, it acts to separate resource use from the resource itself and isolates the many factors missing to sustaining alewife runs. Alewife was once a fish of value and therefore also of habitat concern. Natural conditions largely determine the strength of alewife runs not fishers (my view). One key factor that I was exposed to on Cape Cod was how much work is required to keep herring runs clear of brush, leaf debris, clean the resting and transit pools, and conducting shallow water seine surveys. This is a tremendous effort to undertake containing several limiting habitat conditions. Over a century ago, such herring run alewife maintenance was often bid out to those who wanted a share of the resource, in a type of a franchise as other New England communities had alewife committees (similar to coastal shellfish commissions) that had wardens who walked the runs and made reports. We may need to reestablish these Alewife local committees again if we are to fully assess the success of alewife restoration efforts made to date. We have a wealth of fisheries and historical habitat information in the State of Massachusetts, a state with a long fisheries history and value (the Codfish is on the State Seal) to gain this perspective.

From Belding: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts- A Report upon the Alewife Fisheries of Massachusetts – 1920 including research that started in 1912 page 37 is found this section.

“Herring Committee…The early laws provided for the appointment or election of one or more fish wardens for their enforcement. As time passed, the duties of the fish wardens were taken over by a herring committee elected at the annual town meeting. These men, varying in number from 3 to 9, had complete charge of the fishery; the town having previously designated the manner in which the fishery should be disposed of. They determined the time, place and manner of taking the fish, operated the fishery if run by the town, leased it to the highest bidder, drafted regulations, posted notices and removed all obstructions, having the right to cross the property of any person in the performance of their duties. When several towns were concerned with one fishery, a joint committee comprising others a nominal sum’ and still others no compensation whatever for their labors. Their powers were great, and the success or failure of the fishery invariably depended upon their judgment. Failure to appoint fish wardens or a committee sometimes rendered the town liable to a fine. Special wardens and inspectors for the enforcement of the laws were appointed by the committee from time to time.”

Many alewife and herring run restoration programs have correctly identified blocked passages (mostly by colonial ice and industrial mill dams) but have minimized (my view) the amount of work required historically to maintain runs and the influence of climate and energy patterns upon them. Removing dams will not eliminate climate and energy habitat parameters that largely govern shad, salmon and herring populations.

Readers interested in the cyclic pattern of shad/herring populations might be interested in two previous IMEP newsletters, IMEP #21 posted on July 2014 to the Fishing, Eeling, and Shellfishing thread Blue Crab Forum ™ or IMEP #20 posted on July 2014 to the same thread. They cover in greater detail populations changes in terms of climate for example, United States American Shad landings peaked in 1959, a period now recognized as a negative NAO – a climate period as cooler and storm filled. (Not a period recognized for pollution controls). In times of heat, alewife landings (and shad also) tend to decline, and sulfide and aluminum chemical blocks are suspected to be more damaging to young anadromous fish than regulated fishing. Belding refers to these chemical blocks in 1920 and he comments on sulfuric acid which causes the death of fish in a dilution of 1 portion 160,000 and interfaces with their migrating in for weaker solutions – and sulfide rich deposits in estuaries created in heat (mostly leaf composts) can be dislodged in spring rains and form a sulfuric acid wash. Commenting on pollution, especially alkalis’ fish could sense by observation this material (From Belding page 54,1920).

During a run of alewives, the fish were observed, upon reaching this material, to swerve to the opposite bank of the stream as if the substance were distasteful to them, but it did not seriously interfere with their spring run. Results have proved fairly satisfactory as long as this system has been adhered to.” This system that Dr. Belding refers to was pipes to filter beds to seep discharges instead of a direct pipe outfall.

This paper introduces the concept of an “Alewife Stamp” modeled after the immensely successful “Duck Stamp” for duck hunters. This concept however, was first mentioned to me by Joseph DiCarlo of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries at one of my many meetings in the Sandwich Cape Cod office (1980s). Mr. DiCarlo depended upon volunteers to help him keep alewife runs clear of debris and felt (as I do) that the “vested” interests were more willing to do so because they realized the value and benefit of keeping the run viable. The historic high landings of the alewife were in many cases “man-made”. Dr. Belding, Chief Biologist for the State of Massachusetts coastal fisheries was commissioned to report on the status of the Alewife Fisheries in Massachusetts, which came at the end of a very warm climate 1880-1920. [This period saw incredible warm springs and brutally hot heat waves that would destroy New England’s cold water fisheries (See IMEP The Fall of New England’s Cold Water Fisheries 1880-1920 on the Fishing, Eeling, and Shellfishing thread in the Blue Crab Forum ™ on October 14, 2015.)

This hot period was deadly to alewife and herring runs- not only did manufacturing and trade wastes pollute small streams, but heat rotted organics turned into toxic substances. Brook trout also were decimated by sawdust, releasing toxic sulfides and some of the first toxicology tests were about saw dust ruining brook trout habitats. Belding writes in 1920 “the injurious effect of saw dust upon trout is well known (see IMEP #27 Sept 30, 2014) continued “that (hot) water entering the stream in concentrated amounts quickly kills fish, brook trout transferred from water at 55° F to 85°F die in two and one half minutes.”

In 1901, Connecticut officials announced that studies indicated that the New England Brook Trout could become extinct and moved to increase trout hatchery experiments coupled with more temperature tolerant rainbow and brown trout species (transplants). (The amount of fisheries history information and the destruction of Brook Trout habitats in heat (1880-1920) can be found in turn of the century trout hatchery reports).

Alewife runs were also decimated during this hot period, and did not return until a colder climate period in the 1940s. [CT fishery managers were surprised by the sudden and dramatic return of the Alewife then (IMEP # 17 posted May 2014 Blue Crab Forum ™ fishing, Eeling, and Shellfishing thread. The Blue Crab Forum™
When alewife did return to Connecticut during this colder and storm filled period, one concept put forward at the time was “under fishing” as the cause – not knowing the climate period for the next three decades would be now colder and storm filled. The cold periods in fisheries history do have higher salmon and shad returns – the warm periods are especially hard on these cold water fisheries, especially the “ice fish” or rainbow smelt. Director Moss comments about the CT Alewife Fishery which remained steady from 1892 to 1916 then soared in 1948 to one million pounds commenting “There is no indication for this cyclic behavior.” See a History Of The Connecticut River And Its Fishing Douglas by Moss, Director CT Board of Fisheries and Game, June 1965. Dr. Belding details some of the work that was being done to keep alewife runs viable, (1920) and some of the same conditions now confronting Mr. DiCarlo in 1982 at the beginning of another long increasingly hot New England period-1972 to 2011.

It’s been nearly a century since Dr. Belding published his alewife work. The Cape Cod Extension Service (my former UMASS employer) has recently reprinted Dr. Belding’s historic reports on Massachusetts shellfisheries and hope they can do the same for Dr. Belding’s Alewife report.

“A Report on The Alewife Fisheries of Massachusetts.” New England Alewife Fisheries I believe many alewife fishers would find his reports of interest.
Always interested in comments, suggestions, please email me at: Tim.Visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us

Capstone Questions: Alewife Restoration Programs

(1) Was a stream survey conducted? Mapping, resting and transit pools located?
(2) Was a habitat quality report conducted?
(a) Chemical blocks; sulfide/aluminum tests? Sapropel locations?
(b) Legacy sediments (winter sand) accumulations reported?
(c) Passages and resting pools –identified and maintained? (Blocked trees, etc.)
(3) Shallow water seine surveys – Young of the year index created?
(4) Run monitoring – is there evidence that the fish passage facility, graduated pools, ladder or lift are actually being used? (Photo documentation).

CTE ASTE standards – Natural Resources and Environmental – CT State Dept. of Education
• NRE # A-4 Identify the ecosystem structure in terms of food web, biodiversity, and carrying capacity
• NRE #A-10 Describe how laws can be used – 95a fish and wildlife management technique in New England
• NRE #A-14 Identify the Following water quality indicators, pH, temperature, ammonia, misdirect oxygen and turbidity.

Students interested in researching local alewife runs for a Senior Capstone Project should contact Tim Visel in the Aquaculture office or contact your ASTE Advisor.

Do we need to reestablish Local Alewife Committees?
ISSP and Capstone Project Research Areas for High School Students
Submitted to the EPA-DEP Long Island Sound Study Stewardship Committee
November 18, 2011

- Three sections -
1) A Fisheries History 2) Restorational Stewardship 3) Biological Fish Census - Monitoring

Timothy Visel, The Sound School Adult Education and Outreach Programs
October 2011
A Proposal for Stakeholder Stewardship to Increase The Alewife Fishery

Building a Powerpoint or Poster for a Local Habitat History
Revised to 2012 Adult Education – IMEP/Capstone The Lost Uncas Alewife
Weirs November 2013* – Revised for Capstone Proposals, April 2014
Part 1 – The Need for a Fisheries Habitat History – Tim Visel

Alewife in Madison and Guilford – A Coastal Habitat and Fishery History for Alewife

In doing some extensive research in the early 1980's in the town of Guilford (The Guilford Keeping Society) I was able to access boxed files contained a letter and some documents that describe a rare armed conflict between the New Haven Quinnipiac Native American Tribe and the Hammonassetts, a tribe generally referred to as a peaceful tribe over the right to set up brush fykes for Alewife, then a 1600's "fish of value". According to the notes and 3x5 index cards (old rewritten accounts from the first Guilford area settlers) a dispute over the right to catch Alewife in what is today called the West and East Rivers occurred. The Quinnipiacs claimed the right to set brush fykes in the East River and the Hammonassets opposed this and sought to protect this valuable spring food supply as theirs by fighting over it. These fykes were of the stone/basket type set in the upper reaches of streams where they Alewife could be easily seined with nets made with natural fiber twines (see appendix).

* Original paper - Alewives: Once the Fish to War Over? (2010)
Presented at Hammonasset Festival Oct. 1 & 2, 2011
Hammonasset State Beach, Madison, CT

According to the letter and notes the Quinnipiacs invaded with a force of about 80, (then a large army), and made it all the way to Westbrook at Pachaug (River?) when the battle stalled and fell back to Guilford and finally turned after three days, retreated west and were pushed back by a force sent by Uncas of Montville then a protectorate of the Hammonassets (1600s). About 40 total the combined force although outnumbered the Hammonassets knew the territory well and pushed the Quinnipiacs back to the West River, Guilford. After a long stalemate, a compromise was reached: Alewife fishery in the West River went to the Quinnipiacs, the Alewife fishery in the East River (Kuttawoo) to the Hammonassets. What seemed to be the theme is that both groups turned to the Guilford
settlers to help with a truce. Several cards mentioned how surprised that some like this would lead to armed conflict over fish, not land (cultural and society differences were apparent even then). No mention of casualties, but this conflict was most likely more a stealing of supplies or poaching snared animal traps then producing causalities in Guilford. In pre colonial New England Rivers then were convenient and unmistakable boundaries – the Native American town lines centuries ago. It is through these Native American boundaries were picked up by the first setters and rivers today continue to delineate jurisdictions such as the East River between Guilford and Madison today. The early runs of Alewife were prized as food as they were rich in oil (calories) and relatively easy to catch (the fish after all came to you). They were also valuable to the first Connecticut inhabitants as well.

Alewife and Conflict – A 1600’s Fish of Value

I have tried for several years to find another source to confirm this report about this conflict and have been to date unsuccessful. The account does seem plausible – the original land area in what became largely Guilford was purchased three times, once from the Quinnipiac area representatives, the Hammonassetts and again from Uncas representing the Hammonassetts. Other reports give evidence that the land ownership was questioned and a source of conflicting views and claims. The first Guilford deed purchase was September 29, 1639 and the second September 20, 1641 and finally a third deed of purchase December 1641. It is the third deed that is the most interesting as it mentions the privileges and royalties of fishing – which is curious because no mention of fisheries appear in the written deed descriptions before but in this deed both the setting of deer traps (greatly feared by cattle owners and “wares” (colonial version of fish weirs) are highlighted and immediately proceed a clause which details how the Queliappyack (Quinnipiac) lay claim to this same land.

It is one of the few clues that survive today and documents that fishing weirs were set in the rivers of early Guilford and the Quinnipiac claim next to this clause may perhaps be just merely a coincidence. I think however the third deed was made necessary by this fishing right (weir) conflict among others in the above mentioned conflict. The exact citation from the History of Guilford and Madison by Bernard Christian Steiner (1897) on page 32. Has this deed article #3 this clause “with all rights, privileges or royalty of fishing and that it shall not be lawful for the said Uncas or any of this men, or any others from him to set any traps for Deare (deer) in the said lands or any wares (weirs) in the Rivers for to catch fish.” This detail leads me to believe it was included to “quiet” any remaining claims to set Alewife weirs, and perhaps any other “conflicts.”

It was common to prelude rights as a deed covenant (article) as to assure those colonial “deeded rights” are clear, a term still used today. It could be argued that just mention of them in a deed and following quickly two previous ones that this area was a point of contention. In fact a later Guilford deed contains another reference to fishing as it relates that it continues only subject to English laws and also several later deeds for larger purchases. Later deeds do mention that hunting fishing and fowling is at liberty according to law. Guilford’s (then later Madison) deep tidal rivers the West River (or Menunkatuck) headwaters begin in Quonepaug Pond. East River (or Kuttawoo) headwaters exist in Northwestern Madison. A seine fishery in Quonepaug Pond (West Pond) existed until 1817 – most certainly for Alewife (Steiner pg 184). In fact Menunkatuck is sometimes attributed to menhaden (Steiner 27) a relative of the river herring and alewife – rather then menhaden, fish then familiar to eighteenth centuries historical writers if that name is based upon Native American fisheries it is most likely a reference to alewife. It is important to remember that the early settlers to this area were farmers – not fishers and much confusion exists between herring species and fishing gears are found in many old texts.

The most likely clue to the early alewife fisheries in Guilford was that reference to the seine fishery in Quonepaug Pond – perhaps the alewife spawning ground for the West River. It’s continued productivity is significant. As such much for the colonial records mention agricultural interest concerns, soil types, and manure value of fish/seaweed and oyster shell or drainage. Much of the history of these fisheries include industrial uses for oil, animal feed and fertilizer – not food. While white fish (menhaden) would rise in huge commercial importance in Guilford and Madison – so much so that Madison’s town seal still carries this fish in recognition of its role in town history. Shad fishing was regulated by Guilford February 24, 1794 – although it was considered a low quality food many did depend upon it although its use was a feed mostly for pigs. The West, East and Hammonasset Rivers did have runs of alewife and shad but for the first European settlers of the area such fish was considered good fertilizer and not fish for food. The primarily interest was the quick establishment of an agricultural society and little published material exists that fully describes (in detail) early Native American fisheries.

The Lost Stone Weirs of Uncas -

I’m certain however of the existence of these alewife stone and wood weirs remain in some streams and perhaps with some additional research could provide important answers to questions regarding these first fisheries. Accounts may be contained in town hall records – Alewife runs were later bid out or leased by local town committees, such as those in East Lyme- Niantic. In the later colonial period salted and smoked alewife did find its way to food value and commerce.

The Clinton, Madison, Guilford and Westbrook areas most likely have the remains of alewife weirs. With the number of subtidal streams in these towns chances are that one or more of these weirs still exist, perhaps drowned in an old mill or ice pond above the tidal areas. Some history projects might include research available records, family journals or town records and such reports add to the foundational information we have today.

I mention this now because of the event I attended last year (2009) in Guilford and saw many alewife, just below a mill dam on the West River, a rare event to see them in daylight. Perhaps the Guilford High School students can do what Daniel Hand High School students did in the late 1980's and build an Alewife fish way or monitor an existing one. A fish way has been established in the East River. It was exciting (for me at least) to see something that caused a serious yet brief conflict four centuries also, the last time I saw alewife in the daytime was in 1989. It was good to see that they can still swim in our streams, perhaps a future restoration project for the high schools – a monitoring program for the West River Guilford or possibly Fence Creek in Madison.

When I attended the social function at the Martin Bishop Field last year on Long Hill Road in Guilford, CT, it was a great afternoon. Knowing the history of the legendary Alewife Run in Guilford (It is I believe the only suggested Native American Quinnipiac - Hammonasset Indian Conflict - over the right to catch Alewife in Guilford streams). I noticed a pond at the edge of the property. Curious, I went over to examine as it resembled the Hummers Ice Pond in Madison the site of the Daniel Hand High School Alewife Project in Madison (1987-89). At the foot of a concrete apron in a small down stream pool was 20 to 30 Alewife! They were trying to jump the concrete apron to reach the dam which unfortunately was to high to allow them to the pond and potential spawning grounds. But they were there and rare chance to see this event. No one at the gathering had seen this before and Alewife is now a closed/protected fishery in Connecticut (since 2002). They usually travel up stream at night to avoid predation so to see them in broad daylight was very rare, these fish are just a portion of those who have tried, they will eventually tire and be swept down stream to be eaten by predators (new returning fish will come the next day, etc - it (the run) lasts for weeks). The exciting news is that the water flow temperature and oxygen levels were such that they traveled thousands of miles and almost made it! I'm not familiar with the watershed but the pond looks like an old mill pond - just like Hummers Pond in Madison and perhaps suitable for a Guilford High School student monitoring project? As an example the Daniel Hand High School project is on our Adult Education Workshop directory - which is available on our website www.soundschool.com its paper #11. We have had some discussions regarding Daniel Hand High School students watching the Fence Creek alewife run as an old fish census or fish “count” two years ago. Project Shellfish/Finfish Student Monitoring - It would be great to see this run monitored and learn more about how effective it is. (For a write up of this project including a 2004 replacement of the Daniel Hand Student Denil plywood fish way see Appendix #4).

Alewife was one of the first fish Native Americans would see, and after a long cold and hoarse winter, low on food they were a welcome sight no doubt. It was in all respects a life saver – food resources were low and a relatively easy catch, the fish came to you – you didn’t have to chase it. What you did need was a trap – a series of stones that acted to funnel fish into a concentrated space, therefore making them susceptible to nets, spears and in some cases basket fykes – one most effective method was a haul seine in a deep area or pool just above the stone weir – returning fish going back out to sea were caught in wing brush basket fykes set at the lower reaches of the streams. Stone weirs concentrated them on the return up stream to ponds and spawning and nursery waters. It is these areas that contained Native American weirs – very similar to modern day “fish ladders.”

These basket fykes a much smaller version of the coastal stone/brush weirs that were so effective with concentrating fish after spawning (usually in salt ponds or deep freshwater glacier ponds). Glacier ponds like Tuxis Pond in Madison – the site of a once productive Alewife Run itself or salt water ponds in the area we now call Hammonasset. A large salt pond would occasionally open and be sealed from the sound – called Dowd’s Creek by the First Madison/Guilford setters of “Hammonasset Plains” the region that was the area in and around Griswold Airport/Hammonasset State Park today. These kettle ponds as they were known on the Cape are very valuable Alewife spawning and nursery areas.

Alewife – needed a pond or freshwater headwater lake in which to spawn – the very valuable spawning sites were those closest to the shore, salt ponds that turned fresh were perfect – a long stream shallow subjected them to predators, both from land and sky (Osprey love alewife) and a tiring swim. Alewife is the food fish of many land and sea species especially striped bass. But once in a narrow shallow stream they were vulnerable to almost all of land mammals predators including mink, raccoon and weasels.

I have watched alewife swimming along the sand catching a wave to reach a salt pond brook complex in Rhode Island that was only two foot wide and one foot deep. Behind the Bonnet Shore Bathhouses was a several acre salt pond, called Wesquage Pond and the fish entering it each night was numbered in the thousands. From the width of the freshwater brook in day time you would never guess the number of returning fish each night. We were catching a few each night with bamboo leaf rakes, a wave would strand an alewife on the sand and the flipping was attracting another predator, Osprey so we had to race to the fish – we needed live bait then because offshore huge strippers were also interested in this activity and live bait alewife was once a popular striped bass bait. Once in awhile we would hear the rushing of large fish attack the Alewife offshore that were approaching the Beach, the constant swooping of Osprey made getting and keeping bait fish difficult. At times they even (the Osprey) pulled them out of our buckets.

An Alewife Run at Hammonasset?

At Hammonasset, the Dowds Creek Salt Pond wasn’t really creek – it was a barrier inlet that opened and closed with storms – the inlet would reopen and over time “heal” or close. The salt pond was filled for the Trolley line into the park (1920s) and the old inlet was redirected into a straight drainage ditch which is still visible to the north into Tom’s Creek – in fact, much of the current West Beach asphalt parking lot today is the site of Dowds Creek inlet and salt pond. It was bridged according to Emil Miller a former park resident (the Miller family homestead is still at the end of Dudley Lane in Madison but now resides on State Park land) for the fish companies which set out long haul seines from the shores after the Civil War. The long haul fishery (a Native American fishery continued by European settlers) sought mainly the White fish or Menhaden – the Madison town seal still has this fish on it – signifies the tremendous commercial importance of this fishery menhaden to the early Madison settlers. It was cold during this period and the Alewife runs were very good until the late 1880s but by 1915, the Alewife was in steep decline during a hot period in our recent climate history. High heat appears to directly impact Alewife runs when it turned colder here in the 1940s Alewife populations recovered (see Clinton Harbor and the Great Heat).

Along Hammonasset Beach the long haul seine fishery needed to move nets and equipment quickly behind the dune line along the beach to set and haul the seine. The first wagon trails behind the dunes where made to position nets and gather seaweed. The Dowds inlet would be in the way and quick movement to catch a school of fish in shallow water was an opportunistic event, to catch them – dory type skiffs had to be quickly launched – the net set fast as several people helped haul it back (sometimes a capstan) or had to move to pre existing four pile cashons. These were built along the beach and in the 1970s still pointed out by Mr. Miller after serious storms but these four post arrangements now only seen at the lowest of tides and the severest of storms. One four piling set was still visible at the end of Nepture Avenue (1970s) but were once common along the shores in Madison. In Miller said that this was most likely the same type of hauling stations or cart ways that allowed hauling and ways for off loading fish at high tide. They were simple structures narrow docks and timber ramps that allowed the off loading of fish from dories. A wood corduroy or cord in a row road that consisted of trees over the sand to the road behind the dune line.

Mr. Miller called them “hauling stations for the nets” thus the term long haul seines which we still use today. These were long seines set out to encircle a school of fish and had to be a shore fishery. In the salt ponds these same seines were effective for alewife also and in one nearby town East Lyme electors once bid on the rights to particular coves upon which to seine them. Salted alewife then was the potato chip and salted peanuts of today – pickled, salted and smoked this delicate and oil rich flavorful fish was served in taverns with as a snack (heavily salted no doubt) by the tavern owners, wife – thus the term “alewife” or so the saying goes. I have heard this many times (the food use is correct) and the term just struck. The Alewife scientific term is Alosa pseudoharengus a member of the herring family. Other accounts give a similar sounding Native American name “a loof” as the true name for alewives.

Shore Fisheries Put Out to Bid

Saltwater fisheries a century ago such as alewife were pursued by landowners (farmers) or shared out as a percentage of the catch. A series of hauling stations were build in the lower CT River away from shore to avoid this landowner “tax.” As rights to fisheries were assigned to adjacent landowners, this was the case in CT until the 1890s. During this period a series of legislative changes transferred the fishing right of landowners and towns eventually to the state. This change is the history of the Marine and Inland Fisheries of CT now part of the Dept of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).

Years ago when I watched the excavation for the Hammonasset West Beach parking lot I thought I was witnessing the restoration of the Dowd’s tidal inlet and salt pond. Mr. Miller claimed that stories told to him mentioned this area once had so many alewife. But instead after digging out the salt pond the crushed stone arrived (after taking many dozens of tapered wood poles came by a drag line bucket dredge perhaps an early bridge or most likely a historic salt low oxygen preserved fish weir) and dozens of truck loads of fill topped with asphalt. I was disappointed and penned a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers about the process (not that positive as I recall) but I feel its important that people realize Hammonasset was not just one long continuous beach, the inlet appears on a very old map called the 1852 Whiteford County map. This map clearly shows the Dowds Creek next to Tom’s Creek at the Western Park edge today) and further west Fence Creek is also shown. For practical purposes, Hammassett Beach was at times two beaches.

Commercial Importance of Coastal Alewife Runs and Coastal Processes

That is the history of the barrier beaches, they often have weak places that break and close or “heal” over time. A similar process has occurred with the barrier split that today connects Cedar Island to Hammonasset State Park on the 1792 Blodget map, Cedar Island does not exist. Storm energy can be quite severe and weak beach fronts often break, the worst erosion today at Hammonasset basically is the same area that used to contain Dowd’s Creek inlet (for an in depth study of the Dowd’s Creek area see publication #50 on our Sound School website). This is the area that would split Hammonasset into two beaches. It would also provide spawning habitat for the Alewife be reopening salt pond inlets. The effects of these storms could also reduce habitat and a famous habitat altering storm the Portland Gale of 1898 (The Steamship Portland was lost during this storm) and much can be found in Massachusetts Alewife fishery history. The alewife fishery was one of the first capture fisheries and early colonial history of New England an colonial reports assigns much interest to them. If it was valued it was named and we have so many herring ponds, herring rivers or alewife coves in our fisheries history providing evidence of such early importance. Alewife Cove today is for example, the current border between Waterford and New London, Connecticut.

In periods of cold and energy, there was a tendency for Dowds inlet to reopen.
This is the breach that Mr. Miller referred to as being filled (not bridged) for the Trolley Line expansion in to Hammonesett Park in the late 1920s. Other areas also would close and reopen in response to coastal energy and the 1898 storm called the “Portland Gale” would have a huge impact upon habitat quality for many species. The severe gale (most likely a level 1 Hurricane by today’s standards) raked the New England Coast for two days November 26 to 28, 1898 and the changed the New England coastline forever in many areas. People would quickly notice a breach closing as the ruin of the alewife run and using teams of oxen reopen them. This was done in eastern Connecticut as well as several southern Rhode Island salt ponds. Excellent habitat histories of this practice can be found on the Cape and Islands Alewife fisheries.

One potential excerpt from Dr. David Belding’s 1920 “A Report upon the Alewife Fisheries of Massachusetts” refers to the Alewife habitat impacts storms on the Eel River at the South end of Plymouth Harbor. The eel river formerly had its source in Great South Pond (but) the storm of 1898 closed its Plymouth Harbor outlet and the stream broke through into the Cape Cod Bay, where it continued to discharge until 1903, when it was restricted to its natural course – the closing of the mouth of the stream for four succession years is thought to have ruined the fishery.” There is an outstanding narrative available on the internet that reviews the history of Eel river available today and is from the Pilgrim Hall Museum. The closures often occurred during periods of heat and little energy. When it turned colder energy levels increased and barrier spits broke or inlets “reopened.”
(It is also during these colder energy filled periods herry runs (populations) increased.

The 1898 storm would breach Hammonasset Beach reopening Dowds inlet and also the Dardanelles inlet to the east making Clinton Harbors Cedar Island truly an Island once again. A 1790 map called the Blodget map in DEEP documents shows that Cedar Island does not exist later maps would show it as both as island and peninsula. Hammonasset’s Barrier Beach changing ecology would be the subject of a 1929 Connecticut geological study and is found in the appendix #1.

The Alewife Fisheries of Massachusetts were carefully detailed and Dr. David Belding’s 1920 report describes early fishing and harvest practices on Pg 119 – The Alewife Fisheries of Martha’s Vineyard provides an excellent example below,

“The alewife fisheries of Martha's Vineyard assume an important commercial aspect and well illustrate the ability of man to create a successful and lucrative fishery. Fishing is conducted exclusively in the brackish shore ponds, since there are but few streams upon the island. These ponds are connected with the ocean by artificial openings at the proper time in the spring and fall, thus permitting adult fish to enter for spawning and the young to return to salt water in the fall. Alewives are taken by seining in these ponds, and the fisheries are controlled under long-term leases by various private companies, usually composed of riparian owners.”

In the late 1890’s the both CT smelt and Alewife fishery failed and was largely absent until the late 1940s. This period saw several habitat/species shifts – one of which was the Alewife – it got hot during the summers here when the climate cooled slightly, beginning in the late 1940s Alewife numbers improved and by the 1950s could again be found in nearly all CT streams but not like any thing as the abundance level 1870s. The 1870s was a period of extreme cold here in New England and these cold water species did well in areas not blocked by dams. Dams at the time 1820 to 1890 produced an economic boom, manufacturing. So the commercial importance of anadromous fish were pitted against those same industries that needed water for power, cooling and draining away waste. That led the first report and a call for Connecticut to establish Fish Commissioners who in a May 1867 report to legislature highlighted to problems of dams blocking migratory routes. That is found in Appendix 3.

The “Great Heat” and Habitat Loss – 1880 to 1920 – Heat and Habitat Failure

Perhaps no other fish has been so impacted by coastal development than the Alewife, its runs were close to the coast, salt pond and those tidal streams that were fed by glacier ponds – while shad and salmon migrated dozens if not hundreds of miles to reach suitable spawning areas – alewife was a coastline event, and didn’t usually travel miles inland in cool deep water streams such as the Connecticut River. That habitat niche being occupied by a close relative also called a “River Herring” or the Blue Back Herring Alosa – aestivalis. Much of the most productive Alewife runs, such as the Bride Brook run in East Lyme or the Bonnet Shores run at Wesquage Pond, Rhode Island are fed by colder groundwater aquifers and such tend to be cooler in the summer. Early fisheries biologists did not realize the impact of climate upon these fisheries but it did puzzle them – the unexplained periodic abundance. The heat waves in New England beginning about 1890 and the strongest in 1896 (see the Great Heat Wave of 1896 and the Rise of Theodore Roosevelt National Public Radio series) started to impact these 3 to 5 year cycle fish. A poor recruitment in 1901 would show up as diminished return in 1906. The1898 Portland Storm described earlier would most impact near coastal habitats – those salt pond and barrier beaches and would cause a 1903 reduction which occurred. After a decade of warmth, the fishery failed in 1913-1914 and would not recover until temperatures turned cooler here in the 1940s. A similar drop in the 1850s also following a period of warmth and a general decline in shad and herring prompted Connecticut legislators to ask questions about the protection of the herring island fishery just after the Civil War.

On page 1 of the 1867 report lists the primary subject – sea fish, herring shad salmon including Alewife. In accordance with a resolution passed by the General Assembly, May Session, 1866, concerning “The Protection of Fish in the Connecticut River,” &c., the Commissioners beg leave respectfully to report:

The resolution states, that His Excellency the Governor been authorized to appoint two commissioners to consider the subjects;
1st. Of the protection of sea fish in the Connecticut River. Others were listed in priority and much attention to the poor condition of the shad fishery.

The foundation was to become our modern fisheries agency (Marine Fisheries, Inland Fisheries) began with an effort to save herrings and document the habitat changes caused by dams and pollution. Much of the report focuses upon fish ways to get returning from sea fish over those obstructions (dams) as this passage from (page 19) details:

“The alewife will run up a fish-way of moderate width, as it proved by the success of the one below Mystic Pond; so, too, will salmon, which have been seen to force their way through water so shallow, that their back fins showed above the surface, and then rush up the apron of a dam six feet high. But it is to be feared that shad will be shy of any-way that is not approached by a channel, a dozen feet wide and a couple of feet deep. Furthermore, some mill canals are obstructed by locks, which would be a serious impediment.”

The chief causes of destructive impacts such as pollution were also detailed in a simple but effective suggestion as detailed below (pg 23) – substances should not be thrown at all into the water.

The causes of destruction are chiefly as follows:
1st. Impassable dams. Over these fish-ways may be built with little waste of water.
2d. Pollution of water by lime, dyes, soap, saw-dust, and other mill refuse. Much of all these should not be thrown at all into the water. As to the dirty water from wool or cloth washing, it may be continued to one side of the river by a plank screen placed opposite the race-way.
3d. Destruction of young fish by mill wheels, which may be avoided by a lattice placed across the mouth of the mill canal.

The next issue listed is fishing and details a series of season, gear restrictions, limits and closed areas. In other words much of the habitat loss or destructive activities such as pollution were acknowledged but in terms of public policy – the report would focus upon the impacts of fishermen, not habitat loss or pollution. This policy would remain largely unchanged for the next century until 1967 when the US Fish and Wildlife changed its policy of harvest restrictions to habitat improvement. In other words the fishers could only harvest what the habitat could produce – no habitat, no fish, and no fishers for that matter. Restoration of habitat became a priority not harvest restrictions. The Duck Stamp and hunter user group habitat policy had a similar beginning.

Effects of Pollution

Less than two decades would pass and the impacts of pollution would become well known from that 1867 report. Quoting from a State Board of Fisheries and Game 1965 study. “In the Eighteenth Report of Fish Commissioners of the State of Connecticut, 1884, there appears the first major reference to the concern of Connecticut conservationists about the possible effects of pollution. It is there noted that perch had always been abundant but were giving way to less desirable fish. Striped bass at half a pound were common twenty years previous, and ten pounders occasionally were caught. The report blames the scarcity of desirable fish to pollution in the main river and its tributaries. The report closes the section as follows: “As long as the river receives so much poison from factories and so much sewage from cities it is probable that the supply of fish will remain small in quantity and poor in quality.”

Habitat quality and habitat quantity continue to perplex fishery regulators even today and most overfishing events (which do occur) follow habitat failure events. For example we used to have an abundant species King fish here in Connecticut. It’s a cold water migratory species that has completed disappeared from our waters but was never the subject of a large directed fishery. It was not over fished it just was that the cooler habitat it needed, no longer exists in our waters.

Connecticut’s Fishery History – A Sudden Return of Alewife

In a Connecticut Board of Fisheries and Game (precursor to DEEP) report titled: A History of the Connecticut River And Its Fisheries by Douglas D. Moss then Chief of the Fish Division, wrote about the Alewife fishery in the 1960s but did not realize that the 1865 to 1965 period had two distinct cool periods and the 1890 to 1920 period of higher temperatures – but is perplexed by the higher catches in the early 1960s “There is no indication of the reason for this cyclic behavior, and questioned the validity of the catch reports, the section on the Alewife fishery is found on page 9–10 of his bulletin.

“The Alewife fishery in the Connecticut appears to come into prominence periodically. There is no indication of the reason for this cyclic behavior. It may indicate scarcity and abundance of this species, an increased demand for alewives specifically or an increased demand for cheap food. A perusal of catch records and value of catches from 1892 to 1916 does not indicate an extreme fluctuation in total yearly catch or value. That the total abundance of such a species should vary but little in the span of years seems to violate the rules of nature. Thus, it would seem that either these records derive from unreliable reports or that the fishery was underfished with only enough of its production being taken each year to supply the demand for the year. Commercial fishing for alewives on the Connecticut was discontinued about the time of the United States’ entrance into World War. It was profitably resumed in 1948 when two canneries reported receiving from Connecticut a total of a little more than a million pounds of alewives. This is believed to be practically the entire catch from Connecticut. It seems odd that from 1903 through 1916 the reported catch of the fishermen of the river seldom dropped appreciably below three-quarters of a million pounds or rose over one and one-quarter million pounds and that, after a lapse of thirty years when little or no alewife fishing occurred, this figure of one million pounds should be reported from accurate cannery records.”

It is interesting to note that the author never connected abundance to habitat quality, either the catch records were faulty, or the fishery was “under fished.” Climate and energy impacts were not often reviewed – only the visible conditions, you could see the dams blocking migratory runs or see polluting substances in the water. But over time habitat conditions do begin to emerging as patterns, the reemergence of the Alewife fishery in the late 1949 after its failure in 1916 must have been perplexing to Director Moss. The truth is another species bay scallops that benefits from coastal energy storms and cooler temperatures, at the height of the mini cold period, 1955 between a series of devastating hurricanes beginning in 1931 bay scallop production would surge. At the middle of the severest winters and storm filled falls bay scallop production would soar to 450,000 pounds a CT record – twelve years before the Clean Water Act of 1967. When you look at the habitat history (quality and quantity) you do see patterns of abundance related to climate factors.

Recent Habitat Concerns – Climate Change

In 1971 the winters here began to warm and the number of storms declined – Bay scallop production fell during this warming – scallop populations in CT are thought to be very low today. Shell middens – shell heaps left by Native Americans are great biological records of production – shell heaps of large oysters indicate maturing older oysters, many small oyster shells signs of a recent oyster set, the same for scallops. A good number in some midden layers and then fewer in layers or none. The seasonal or cyclic aspect to some fisheries doing better or worse based upon climate could be contained in such shell piles. The should be viewed as such – certainly much research has been invested in oyster bed ecology but little connection made to concurrent temperature and energy systems. The Alewife would be subject to these cycles and periods of cold and energy also and would sustain higher fisheries than warm and quiet periods. The habitat quality issue during these periods is of great importance to properly evaluate restoration efforts.

Some shell middens indicate changes in shellfish abundance – when scallop shells were numerous, oyster shells often were scare or of smalls sizes scarce. Oysters like heat and thrive during periods of relative calm. They often grow to large sizes during these periods. Many reports from fishermen at the turn of the century often mention that when hard clams are prevalent, oysters were not and vice versa. The shallow alewife “short runs” would be subject to greater thermal warming pollution. It is curious that the Douglass Moss report did not mention this habitat quality concern – someone in the Connecticut State Board of Fisheries and Game (June 1962) raised this thermal way issue 50 years ago – in terms of cold water fish species in the Hammonasset River a ground water or “cool water river” (one of a few in CT) and is found in Appendix 2.

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Connecticut Shoreline Madison Coastal Processes -1929

Appendix 2 The Hammonasset River – A New England Cold Water River – Thermal Pollution – CT State Board of Fisheries and Game -1962

Appendix 3 Report of the General Assembly 1867 Fish Passage and Protection with special reference to the Connecticut River including designs for fish passage pools.

Appendix 4 Replacement of the Daniel Hand High School Student Built Fish Ladder (1990) 2004 New Aluminum Denil type Hummers Pond Fence Creek Watershed, Madison, CT Long Island Sound Study

Appendix 5 The Madison Hummers Pond Alewife Project – Description and Timeline – Aluminum Denil Photo – LISS – Annual Summary 2004

Appendix 6 Project History Hummer’s Pond Project – Fence, Creek, Madison

Appendix 1

State of Connecticut

State Geological and Natural History Survey

Bulletin No. 46

“The Physical History of the Connecticut Shoreline”

By Henry Staats Sharp A.M.

Hartford – Published by the State

1929

Superintendent W. E. Britton Ph.D.

Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven

Press of The Wilson H. Lee Company,

New Haven, CT

CONNECTICUT GEOL. AND NAT. HIST. SURVEY
Bull. No. 46 - History of Connecticut Shoreline
HAMMONASSET BEACH.

In Hammonasset Beach in Madison the people on Connecticut own one of the longest and most beautiful stretches of sand beach in their State. As mentioned in Chapter I they have in this a self-supporting State Park maintained and operated for their benefit, and the writer strongly urges every resident or visitor in Connecticut who may not have beach privileges elsewhere, to visit and enjoy the excellent beach available here. The outer two-thirds toward Hammonasset Point is a tombolo uniting the Point to the mainland. The former stands about 20 feet above sea level and is composed of till containing many huge boulders, which form the shore as far as West Rock in Clinton Harbor. Offshore boulders and shoals testify to the former greater extent of the till, which, before the building of the tombolo and deposition of the marsh, must have appeared as an island at a considerable distance from the mainland. At low tide the surface of the beach averages 100 feet in width and slopes seaward about seven degrees. Behind the beach is usually found an area of dune sand of considerable width but little height. These dunes have been breached in a number of places on the western side of the Beach, and material has been carried three or four hundred feet back over the marsh. These breaks usually take place during winter storms at which times the marsh and low upland on which the park buildings stand may be partly inundated.

THE MADISON SHORELINE

The remaining shore of Madison shows no feature of great interest. As a rule it is composed of the stratified sands and gravels of low plain, which has suffered severe erosion, although the larger part is now protected by seawalls. Shorefront acreage is extremely valuable here, and the shore defenses are proportionately expensive. Immediately west of Hammonasset Beach the rapid wasting of the shore has caused the abandonment of a road, and the caving banks indicate the source of much material for that Beach. The shoreline in glacial material is occasionally interspersed with a brief stretch of bedrock, which invariably makes a slight projection and can be regarded as a contraposed shoreline. Tuxis Island and Gull Rock are rock islands, which were probably at one time largely or entirely covered by loose material. According to Mrs. Wilson Coe of Madison, Gull Rock was formerly tied to the mainland by a tombolo on which grew beach plums, while Tuxis Island could be reached by stepping from stone to stone at low tide. The upland here is said to have retreated at the rate of a foot a year before strenuous efforts at protection were made. At Hogshead Point the upland ends, and the shorefront is formed by a low bar of sand lying before the extensive East River marshes. In many places considerable areas of marsh appear outside the cordon of sand showing the retreat of the latter over the marsh surface. The end of this bar at East River shows two minor recurved hooks extending out into the marsh and denoting the former position of the shoreline, when the drift of material was more directly northward.

Appendix 2 – Impact of Warm Temperatures and Drought Upon Fisheries Habitats

Hammonasset River

The Hammonasset River, rising in the town of Durham, is obstructed by a large dam creating the Hammonasset Reservoir at Route 80 in the towns of Madison and Killingworth. This reservoir is owned by the New Haven Water Company. Below the dam, the Hammonasset River has a history of populations of shad, alewives, white perch, striped bass, tomcod, and sea-run brown trout. There is one small barrier below the Hammonasset Reservoir: the abandoned dam at the old Paper Mill Pond site has practically disappeared, and no longer impounds water.

Fairly intensive study of this stream system in connection with the sea-run brown trout investigation has indicated that the new Hammonasset Reservoir has contributed to the deterioration of water quality through warming and irregular flows. These factors, plus the establishment of a warm-water fish population in the reservoir which, in turn, has encroached upon stream habitat, have eliminated evidence of natural populations of trout. The only recommendations that can be made regarding this system would be to assure for constant flows out of the reservoir and to eliminate the remnants of the abandoned dam at the old Paper Mill site. Some blasting could improve conditions for fish passage at this abandoned dam site and thus open up an additional five miles of stream for brown trout and shad.

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF FISHERIES AND GAME
JUNE 1962