CTFishTalk.com: New England Alewife Habitat Histories 1920 -present IMEP 57B - 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-B

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
This is Part 2 of a 2 part newsletter

Part 2 – Habitat Improvements Artificial Fisheries – Restoration and Stewardship
Tim Visel

Probably the best source of information on our efforts to improve alewife habitats is found in the comprehensive review by Dr. David Belding in his report to the Massachusetts legislature in 1920. On page 22 of his landmark report, he reports in great detail artificial fisheries on the middle of page 22.

“Alewife fisheries have been artificially created in streams or ponds where no alewives were previously found by the simple expedient of connecting these ponds by canals either directly with the salt water, as on Martha's Vineyard; or through coastal streams, as in the case of Nine Mile Pond Stream in Barnstable, thus affording accessible spawning grounds.

Many natural alewife fisheries have been aided artificially by extra canals, ditches and sluiceways constructed for the purpose of facilitating fishing methods, and of increasing the decreasing supply in the coastal streams. Outlets which have become closed through natural changes have been artificially opened, and the fish permitted once more to frequent their old spawning grounds. In certain instances the headwaters of one stream have been joined to another by an artificial ditch, e.g., Snipatuit Pond and Mattapoisett River, John's Pond and Quashnet River, Long Pond and Herring River (Fig. 2).

On Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard the simple procedure of opening the brackish water ponds to the ocean by cutting short ditches through the. sandy beach has been followed (Fig. 1). Owing to the shifting sand these ditches require reopening nearly every year. The alewife industries on Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard are good illustrations of the ability of man to create successful fisheries artificially. Since but few streams are found on these islands, the important fishing centers are located in the large ponds near the salt water. The artificial or partly artificial fisheries in Massachusetts naturally fall into three groups:

Town-managed. — Very few artificial fisheries are now operated for the public, because the majority have been developed under long-term leases.

Privately owned. — More often these fisheries are owned outright by the individual or corporation who first acquired through legislative action the right to create the fishery, e.g., Nine Mile Pond Stream in Barnstable, and Childs River in Falmouth.

Fig. 1. — Outlet to ocean, Squibnockct Pond, Martha's Vineyard.
Fig,. 2. — Wooden runway at outlet, Long Pond, Harwich

Leased. — Under the Acts of 1839 the Fish and Game Commissioners were given the privilege of leasing the great ponds for a suitable period of time, for the purpose of cultivating useful food fish. The system of leasing shore ponds for maximum periods of twenty years by incorporated companies for the purpose of establishing alewife fisheries has been popular on Martha's Vineyard, and special privileges have been given by the towns in which these ponds are located. The important fisheries on Martha's Vineyard, e.g., the Mattakessett Creeks at Edgartown, and Tisbury Great Pond at West Tisbury, have operated under such special legislative acts. These semi-private fisheries have reached a most successful state of development.”

Madison Restoration Efforts – Capstone Projects for High School Student Research -

Do We Need local Fish Committees or “fisheries stewards” for Alewife restoration projects?

Steve Gephard and Tom Savoy of DEP (today DEEP) in the late 1980s evaluated Tuxis Pond and Hummers Pond both in Madison for an Alewife restoration project, Tuxis Pond a deep glacial kettle pond had a Alewife run up until 1900 about when the Main Street removed a bridge and buried a substantial length of the Tuxis Brook below what is Route 1 today. The presence of a tide gate at Middle Beach west (post 1938) made the Alewife run restoration here is difficult if not impossible. Fence creek to the east looked better, it didn’t have a glacier freshwater pond but and old pasture converted to a ice pond with a dam but needed a modest fish way. Daniel Hand High School students built the plywood fish ladder with plans provided by Steve Gephard in 1990 (plywood donated by Tuxis Lumber and resin donated by Beebe Marine both of Madison). (Started as a Sea Grant UCONN project – Nancy Balcom of Sea Grant completed it when I left UCONN in 1990 for the Bridgeport Aquaculture School). A stronger more permanent aluminum fish ladder was installed by DEEP in 2004 (see Appendix #4). Our state biologists cannot do it alone, alewife runs need to be checked, streams walked, pools created and obstructions cleared seine surveys monitoring - this take time, energy and planning. Most importantly a return of Connecticuts forest cover which is now estimated at 72 to 78 percent has nearly filled some small streams with leaves. These small streams now need to be “dug out.” That used to occur during a period when they were valued for commerce (food) as evidenced by colonial herring or alewife town committees and later as high quality (bait) to catch food – mostly for large striped bass on Cape Cod. Do runs (ladders) work and how strong is the return – each year – that also remains unclear and would need a yearly sampling or census. How many and what size/age fish or of the return is something that would be very helpful information to fishery managers. This effort could include citizen monitors, high school students and perhaps local science classes.

A survey of existing habitat and potential habitat needs to be determined, streams that could or do currently have runs, areas that could be a habitat restoration or preparation project and finally can we identify potential habitat creation sites. And after restoration, can we build that stewardship or monitoring capacity that could help sustain this fishery? That is something that local towns used to do (for a similar role see the operation and function of Connecticut municipal shellfish commissions). High school students may be able to do this as a class or perhaps a Capstone project, local ground truthing or to photo document potential areas for further study – do we need on a local or regional level fish committees – once in every coastal town with a duty to regulate and monitoring fish runs such as those that used to exist? It’s difficult to answer as it is both an education and a public policy issue. Often a fish ladder is installed but the approach needs to be cleared of leaves which in very hot weather can release sulfide compounds. (This is often termed a chemical “block”).

Dr. Belding’s report (1920) details how his investigation in Massachusetts was organized and what sources of information he deemed important. Although his recommendations are nearly a century old they remain pertinent and valid today and his methods of investigation are reproduced here:

Study question or plan of work -

• “The simultaneous decline of the alewife and shore fisheries suggests that there is a direct relation between the two, and that the success of the fishing towns along the coast in a considerable measure is dependent upon the flourishing condition of the alewife fishery.”*
The requisite steps in the reconstruction work are:

(1) An unobstructed and uncontaminated passageway from salt water to the spawning grounds
(2) Artificial restocking of depleted streams and the creation of new fisheries in favorable localities.
(3) Adequate and efficient methods of regulating the fishery.
* Note (his description reads that other cold water species were in decline at the same time most likely. Winter flounder and bay scallops – they were usually called shore fisheries, also declined in The Great Heat 1880-1920 now connected to the Northeast Atlantic Oscillation or “NAO”).
Methods of Investigation – The work consisted of three parts: (1) a survey of the coastal streams; (2) a statistical study of fishing methods; and (3) an investigation of the life-history and habits of the alewife.

The survey comprised a biological examination and personal inspection of each stream, with maps and descriptions of all important features. Special emphasis was placed on the condition and accessibility of the spawning grounds, the location of dams, presence or absence of fishways, the volume of water in the stream, and possible sources of pollution, both trade waste and sewage. The life history and habits were observed at the spring runs, on the spawning grounds and during artificial hatching.

The various methods of operating the fishery under town control were studied from the standpoint of efficiency and the resulting effect upon general conditions in the different streams. The testimony of members of herring committees, operators of fisheries, fish dealers and townspeople interested in the fisheries, was taken, and the town records were examined for local regulations. Statistics, both past and present, were gathered from all available sources, including town documents, fish committee reports and various legislative enactments.” From Belding 1920 -
Part 3 – We Need to Reestablish a Fish Census

Local groups and High School students may help
increase alewife populations –
A Massachusetts Case History

In the spring, 1982, I asked to be assigned to the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Extension Agency. I wanted to learn more about the Cape Cod fisheries, Sherrill Smith and Joseph DiCarlo were the DMF extension fisheries people at the time. Sherrill did the shore fisheries, clams, oysters and Joe, inland- herring and alewife runs. I was interested in both, but new to my employment with the Cape Cod Extension Service of UMASS. I went to meet with Mr. DiCarlo – “Buzzy” as the lobsterman and striped bass fishermen on Cape Cod called him. We met in the Sandwich office and explained my knowledge of herring runs from my limited exposure to Connecticut and Rhode Island alewife runs in the late 1970s. I soon found out I didn’t know much about them, in fact, a few hours with Joe and I soon realized how little, very little I knew.

Over the next few weeks, I would accompany him on his visits to the runs from Bourne to Eastham. He liked the Cape runs; they had these deep kettle ponds or “great ponds,” the glacial remains of a giant ice cube that when melted, created these cool, deep ponds. Rain and runoff in the spring with ice melt provided a good clean flow. The second choice was salt ponds; here the entrance was a problem, closed by storms such as the one in Dennis that had a Natural Resource Officer restore the flow with backhoe, and in a few minutes a small heap of sand was quickly gone and exit flow restored. Before backhoes, Mr. DiCarlo said it was drawn scoops (sounded like the metal drag line dredge buckets) by a team of oxen. Joe claimed that backhoes were easier. I agreed.

The third type was the ones that needed the most work they were Mr. DiCarlo explained were the “long runs”, the ones that needed graduated pools, or ladders to get fish over the top of a dike or dam. These are the ones that were large, but needed constant oversight. The Cape was in the midst of a drought so low flows were a concern, the other was water management on the Cape as this had become an divisive issue, and had basically three types of dams, old mill dams once needed for water driven machinery, now often recreational use or public water supply, ice pond dams, those that naturally did not impound water but were created habitat from drowned fields or pasture for the production of ice a century ago and newer ponds dug or created dams for the cranberry industry. Low flows during this time were a concern, everyone was trying to stockpile water, and drinking water had also become scarce, he was concerned about the fish they needed that strong exit flow in the spring. Without it, the pools would become isolated and “ladders would dry up.” I remember him saying that he had never seen it so bad; in the old days you would just pull a weir board on a pond and let the water flow out. That was no longer the case.

Today he needed the dam owner’s permission, one run in Falmouth the flow was down to a trickle, he had pulled a board and allegations of water theft soon surfaced. In times past, the local “Fish Committee” (I would find out later that these runs were so important they had a local herring or fish committees very similar to the still in place as the local shellfish committee). The local herring or fish committee regulated fish runs in the town. Flows, seasons, catch limits, everything. Sometimes appointed by the town government but now the State of Massachusetts within his division handled it, but he saw changes; he saw people “lining up for the water” and the volunteers, he needed to walk the streams looking for problems seemed less and less every year. The local connection to the fishery was being lost and that concerned him greatly.

The runs with created habitat, although very productive (mill, ice and cranberry ponds) needed a lot of work, they were the “long runs” and had to get past several obstacles, fish would get tired “beat up” and arrive to the spawning habitat in poor conditions or some years not arrive at all. A few years ago it was leaves, the Cape had a recovering “forest cover” and more trees with more people raking them. In the 1970s, people dumped leaves into low points, like brooks and streams because they could not burn them any longer (Connecticut history also) “when they couldn’t burn them- I got them” (meaning in his runs Mr. DiCarlo mentioned).

People dumped so many leaves along the runs that some were completely blocked jamming both ladders and pools during a heavy rain had been the source of horrific washouts, and people blamed the runs, but it was because the brackish streams were clogged with sticks, brush, trees and leaves. He just couldn’t keep all the runs clear. When I walked with him, a come along (hoist) was a constant companion, to pull a tree out that had caught other sticks and leaves in a stream. Some crossovers were good, logs had created pools but fallen trees with branches caught all the sticks and leaves “brushes” he called them – they quickly jammed the flow, eliminated the deep water stream, turning it into a googy soft leaf and stick filled mass like a sponge – One run I remembered he cleared what was a long abandoned ice pond now the source of a cranberry water reserve system for summer water. The herring run had been abandoned in the 1960s, and property owners had changed, but the marshes and shallow pools had created a large mosquito breeding area and the new owner was being “eaten alive” by mosquitoes so the interest in eliminating all these muddy pools (having oystered among the marshes in CT since grade school, I could equate with the eaten alive concept). One of the suggestions was to eliminate the widening exit streams (his term) when filled with logs, leaves and sticks form mini dams, and strong flows tended to widen them, he called “widening” leaving shallow isolated pools of water that would breed mosquitoes.

Mr. DiCarlo explained that over time the deep areas are filled with debris, so the flow widens (causing some of those washouts mentioned earlier) when that happens, side shallow poorly drained pools in hot weather become a problem, so in this case, the run was being cleaned and cleared for two reasons, restore the alewife run, restore the natural drainage channel and eliminate mosquitoes (breeding habitat). But the work needed was enormous and related to the slope elevation and stream velocity. This was one of the those long runs, he had to first find the natural channel, and false channels were created when sticks and logs blocked the older deeper sections, and redirected normal stream flows the leaves tended to sponge the water physically blocking fish and dispersing a runoff instead of a strong flow. If the drop was quick, he hoped the stream would self clear, after the big logs were dragged out, but if it was a “long run” and shallow with no sharp drop of elevation then it was a large amount of work, branches would trap silt and bury sticks, leaves in mats, sometimes feet deep, it (the bottom) would look like a stream channel, even with sand and gravel, but it is false and underneath a maze of sticks, leaves exits – breakthrough’s were a constant concern, a step on what looked like hard channel quickly followed by a snap and then a step or fall into this soup (my father would call this “quicksand” while trout fishing but it really wasn’t, just a similar experience). In the heat of summer this leaf rot would smell of sulfur – a potential to create a sulfide “block.”

A pole or pipe was something that was a handy tool when walking a leaf filled stream for a restoration survey. He needed volunteers to restore such long runs, I believe this was in Mashpee, but only had a few showed on that Saturday; years ago he could get 20 or 30 people to help on a weekend (most striped bass fishers). But he just didn’t get the volunteers to help and this had concerned him there was just no way he could do it all (the run above would be two to three years before the stream could support alewife again, the stream had “narrowed” and during years two and three would need rebuilt stone pools, stone walls in a Vee to pool water for the returning fish. He came across the remains of such historic pools, called stone weirs left by the Native Americans, they worked well, and newer techniques modified them, but clearing the trees and brush and rebuilding pools, shallow (gradual slopes) were the hardest and made returning fish more vulnerable to predators (and our harvests). The fish just couldn’t swim long periods without a rest, a deeper pool or slow moving water was necessary. Step runs, the velocity of the stream seems to create them and helped keep them clear but long shallow runs, sometimes straightened years ago by agriculture and cranberry culture tended to fill with leaves many of which had these years ago wooded dams (weirs) sluice ways with top planks with a notch cut, but someone had to be ready to adjust the planks on sluice ways and many had abandoned this method. Today pools created by stone, and in some areas, poured concrete. Many of the fish ladders that needed pools concrete were used, instead of layered up natural stone during the 1950s and 1960s on Cape Cod.

The point of his “talk” to me was it took more than the ladder to make a run successful, it had to be checked, stream walked, debris cleared, evaluate stream function with fish counts (did the fish actually use it) transplants (although he had found that a new run had many “bump into” fish from neighboring runs who got lost or felt the flow first and decided good enough) and fry pond seine surveys (now termed young of the year). The final analysis was it took a lot of effort for this to happen. Years ago people kept records of the alewife runs, written surveys like maps of the stream itself that’s how people valued them back then. But he felt that was changing on the Cape, he needed more volunteers, but was getting less and less (1982-83). He had even gone to the technical high schools (I believe the one in Harwich) and asked about their involvement but was not that successful. He was hopeful about the future, but strongly felt it would take a re-energized volunteer and local response. He longed for the time herring has their own town committees. Most of the support he did have came from the commercial lobstermen and recreational striped bass fishermen. They still valued the alewife, and were willing to “help out” as it was in their “bait” interest.

The project in Hummers Pond Madison in many ways was the application of working with Mr. DiCarlo. I had sponsored a series of workshops at the Cape Cod Extension Service in the hopes of increasing his volunteer pool. Each time I learned more about his work and dedication to these fish, I hoped someone at the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries has documented his knowledge somehow. We are losing much of our fisheries history and Mr. DiCarlo held a lot of it especially for Alewife.

The concept of involving high school youth in potential Alewife Projects when I returned to the University of Connecticut was actually Mr. DiCarlo’s- he needed temporary plywood sluice ways as he called them. He knew that the technical high schools had shops (wood shops) so that cutting and completing plywood sluices (some of the pools in this low flow on the Cape had become small dams themselves. He needed several -- two or three chambers and to stake them in a stream when the draught ended they would be “pulled” – those of marine glue he felt could make them last 4 or 5 years. By that time, the draught would be over or at least he hoped it had. He thought high school classes would be ideal to study and monitor Alewife runs. He had learned that the Cape Cod Technical High School had a fisheries program led by Dana Eldridge who used nets seines. One of the projects he was considering was shallow water science survey for alewife fisheries – new pond juveniles or young of the year (YOY) as they are called today. Before I was to see that program finalized I turned to Connecticut and employment with the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension and NOAA Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service at Avery Point in Groton. A write up of the Madison project is found in appendix #11, The Hummer Pond Project on our Sound School publication website. (Steve Gephard and Tom Savoy of DEP (DEEP today) were a great help with fish way design and transplants. Nancy Balcom of Uconn Sea Grant finished the project for me when I left UCONN in 1990).

Capstone Projects for Area Students –

Several potential projects exist for Sound School and regional High School students

1) History – we know that Alewife weirs were built in the East, West Rivers in Guilford/Madison. Also in the Indian River in Clinton, Oyster River and South Cove, Old Saybrook and Westbrook. Historical records or reports may be located that provide additional information – in fact it might be able to find the remains of a Alewife trap in the East River – if it hasn’t been covered by a pond.

Local fisheries histories also – Alewife capture fisheries in the colonial periods, for these towns local historical society like the Charlotte Evarts Historical Library in Madison or the Guilford Keeping Society - Guilford, Connecticut can be important sources of old reports.

2) Restoration/Stewardship – check existing fish ways ladders – are they working, can fish be observed using them? Are the runs walked and mapped? Do they contain winter “street sand” or leaves that needs to be removed to restore proper flows. This is part of a habitat stewardship effort with civic groups and organizations. Conservation Commissions and Coastal Land Trusts might wish to sponsor such student research. The students would then report back to the sponsoring agency (community service).

3) Biological Fish Census – Do the alewife spawn and can fry or young of the year be seined (small mesh seine) and identified in ponds above the fish way or ladder. This is a climate and biological perspective of habitat quality. Seine surveys would need to be monitored over a long term.

These are just some of the possible Capstone Projects at this time.

If you are interested in a Capstone Project please review the State Dept of Education website http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2702&Q=322264 and look for the Capstone fact sheets of contact your high school guidance counselor for more information. For more information about this paper or to comment – share information or ask questions please email me at
tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us.

Appendix 3 – Impacts of Dams Upon Fish Runs -

Report of The Commissioners Concerning the Protection of Fish In the
Connecticut River

To The General Assembly, May Session, 1867.

Printed by Order of the Legislature.
Hartford: Case, Lockwood and Company, Printers. 1867.

Page 15

The disappearance of salmon in the Connecticut river is of much earlier date than in the Merrimack; nor was it gradual, but comparatively sudden. In 1797 they were abundant; within a dozen years after they had nearly or quite disappeared. The cause of this rapid extinction was a dam, whose effect was precisely that of the one at Lawrence, though its relative position was entirely different. Just below the mouth of Miller’s river, may yet be seen the ruins of this fatal barrier, erected about 1798 by the Upper Locks and Canals Company. It was sixteen foot high, and stretched entirely across the river. The extinction that followed makes a precise parallel with that already cited in the Merrimack river. For some few years, till about 1808, salmon were caught at the falls. The first year they were in great numbers, being headed off by the new obstruction, but, within a dozen years, their extinction was complete, and for the last fifty-five years

Page 16

The salmon has been unknown, except as a straggler, in the Connecticut. It may be asked, how an impassable barrier, placed at Miller’s Falls, one hundred miles from the mouth of the river, should have caused the immediate extinction of the salmon, whereas a similar barrier, near Bristol, on the Pemigewasset, at about the same distance from the mouth of the Merrimack, should simply have shut out the fish from so much of the river as lay above the day, while below they continued to flourish; for they were numerous a dozen miles above Concord, N.H., some thirty years since ? The answer to this question is a complete illustration of those special conditions which are absolutely essential for the propagation of salmon. The Connecticut has a long and gently declining course; it deposits the fertile alluvium of a sluggish stream. The Merrimack has about the same fall, but in a much shorter course; it deposits the coarse, barren silt of a strong current. The waters of the one were too quiet and too little aerated to hatch the salmon spawn, except in the mountain branches; while in the other, many of the middle tributaries, and parts even of the main river, were doubtless suitable for spawning beds, when the fish were cut off from the upper sources.

Page 19

Fish-ways may be made in two modes; the pass, which is simply a sloping trough; or the stair, which is a series of steps, whereof each is a water-tank; (see plate). In the first case, the fish rush up the sloping trough; in the second, they jump from step to step, aided by the flowing sheet of water, which makes a serious of little falls in its decent. The pass is more simple, cheaper and less likely to get out of order; but the stair gives better chances to the fish to rest in their ascent, and is, therefore, more fitted for high dams, and for fish of less activity than the salmon- for example, the shad. Several modifications may be introduced in the construction of both.

The alewife will run up a fish-way of moderate width, as is 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 fish-way that is not approached by a channel, a dozen feet wide and a couple of feet deep. Further more, some mill canals are obstructed by locks, which would be a serious impediment.

The lower end of the way should rest in a large pool, not less than three feet in depth, and which, by its lower level, would be full, even when the river about it was shallow.

This pool and the current of pure water from the pass, would attract fish, which might further be directed to the spot by a slat weir, stretching toward the center of the stream. The head of the pass should be similarly arranged, so that the young fish might go down by the proper route and not be carried over the dam and killed.

From the Report of the Commissioners Concerning the Protection of Fish – In the Connecticut River and Counties to the General Assembly. May Session 1867 – Printed by Orders of the Legislative, Hartford, CT. Case Lockwood & Co., Printers, 1867

Appendix – Notes regarding the types of fish ways that may be built in particular, those that are suited for the Alewife – Pages 19-20 – reference Mystic Pond, 1867

Appendix #4

Fence Creek Hummus Pond Update 2004 EPA Long Island Sound Study

LONG ISLAND SOUND STUDY HABITAT RESTORATION INITIATIVE
HABITAT RESTORATION TECHNICAL MANUAL 15
HUMMERS POND DAM FISHWAY REPLACEMENT
State: Connecticut
Town: Madison
Habitat Type: Riverine Migratory Corridor
Stream Name: Fence Creek
Miles Restored: 1.1 – As an Adaptive Management project, this site cannot be applied toward the Long
Island Sound Study's 10-year habitat restoration goal.
Cause of Degradation: An aging wooden Denil fishway on Hummers Pond Dam in Fence Creek was no
longer capable of safely passing fish.
Project Description: The wooden Denil fishway was replaced with an aluminum Denil fishway.
Targeted Fish Species: Alewife.
Implementation Partners: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection - Inland Fisheries Division
(lead); Kensington Acres Condo Association.
Funding Provided By: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 104(b)(4) Program Grant awarded to the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

This new aluminum fishway replaced the pre-existing wooden structure that had fallen into disrepair
Appendix 5

The Madison Hummers Pond Alewife Project

A Brief History of the Hummers Pond Alewife involvement in Restoring Alewife Runs Project begins in 1982. Workshops conducted at Cape Cod Extension Service, UMASS Cooperative Extension with Joseph DiCarlo, Mass. Division of Fisheries, stressed the involvement of volunteers and civic groups in Alewife Run Management for the University of Massachusetts. The same year the Town of Madison removes by way of a backhoe approximately 20 large dump truck loads of street sand from Tuxis Brook behind the Union Trust Company as it had been identified as a source of flooding. The Tuxis Brook had local history of supporting an alewife run to about 1900. The stream flow had been significantly restored and the concept of Alewife run restoration was periodically discussed at local shellfish commission meetings in Madison. Two of the shellfish commission members, Pat Russos and Ronald Paffrath were interested in the project and by 1984; Alewife restoration was a frequent Madison Shellfish Commission topic. Ron Paffrath and I would walk Fence Creek as an alternative site after many engineering obstacles were discovered in Tuxis Brook. A tide gate near Wyndy Brook Lane and the presence of a long culvert under Route 1 by a supermarket made Alewife Restoration here (Tuxis Brook) difficult. Steve Gephard of the CT Dept of Environmental Protection wrote a report for Tuxis Pond September 23, 1985 and suggests Hummers Pond as a good alternative. In 1987, Ron Paffrath wrote a research paper for Wesleyan University titled, “The Return of the Alewife” with a detailed map of the Fence Creek Brook from Hummers Pond Lover’s Lane to Route 1, Madison finds no serious Alewife Run obstructions. Mr. Paffrath’s report is copied to the Madison Board of Selectmen and to various town agencies for permitting.
This appendix appears in a write-up of the full project on the Sound School website (http://www.soundschool.com/directory.html) as Paper #11, The Hummers Pond Alewife Restoration Project. -Details of a Fish Run Project in Madison, CT, 1978 to 1989.
This appendix is included here for students reviewing a Capstone Project, giving some idea of the planning and town and state agencies involved in this effort.
The good news here is that in 2004, the Plywood Denil Fishway built by Daniel Hand High School students in 1989 was replaced by a new aluminum Denil Fishway and is pictured on page 15 of the Long Island Sound Study Habitat Restoration Initiative Annual Summary for Year 2004.
That information is found in appendix #4.

- Project History- Hummers Pond Project Fence Creek, Madison
In December of 1982, the Town of Madison removed accumulating silt, street sand and brush from a portion of Tuxis Brook (to alleviate perennial downtown flooding). The removal of debris gave rise to the concept of trying to restore an alewife run in the town of Madison. Several Madison residents recalled hearing stories of catching herring in the center of town, from Tuxis Brook around the turn of the century. In 1987, Ron Paffrath, former Chairmen of the Madison Shellfish Commission, wrote a paper for Wesleyan University entitled, “The Return of the Alewife,” and used it to support a local effort for such a fish restoration project in Madison. His paper helped initiate conversations about Hummers Pond, which we walked together in April of 1987.

Approvals/Contacts
Approval by current dam owners:
Mr. Wilford Taylor, Jr., 88 Lovers Lane
Signed Permission April 4th 1988

See Appendix
August 28th, 1988, Kensington Acres North
Appears by Ballot A Revised plan of a fish ladder
Edward Brennan, Association President
(61 in favor, 9 opposed) reports overwhelming support Friday, September 23, 1988

See Appendix
State Technical Report (DEP)
Mr. Steve Gephard, September 23, 1985
Potential for Alewife Restoration to Tuxis Pond, Madison
See Appendix
Endorsement by Local Agencies Groups
Approval April 8th, 1988 Madison Exchange Club
Ernest W. Small, Chairman Projects & Aims – See Appendix agreed to cover cost of project $200
Approval, June 22nd, 1988 Madison Land Trust (by vote of members)
Special Meeting – CT Light & Power Auditorium, Carl Schmidt, President

Work Plan outline – See Appendix C
First Transplant of Pre-spawned Adults From East Lyme

With the assistance of DEP staff, Mr. Tom Savoy, Tim Visel assisted by Ernest Small, Barry Eastland and Fred Korsmeyer, about 75 adult alewife were seined at the Brides Brook run in East Lyme and transported by a tank trailer to the Kensington Acres parking lot. A “bucket brigade” moved fish to the pond for release. The project plan was expanded to include two years of pre-spawned adults followed by installation of the fish ladder in the early spring of 1991. Plans for a box type fish ladder (made available by Steve Gephard), were provided to staff and students of Daniel Hand High School of Madison, Connecticut.

Mr. Steve Gephard of the CT Dept. of Environmental Protection provided the design for a multi-baffle fish ladder (about 12 to 14 feet long or wide) depends on run length and rise height of the dam. Final measurements would need to be taken. He suggests the local high school wood shop class could build it, perhaps as a special project. The plans were made available to Daniel Hand High School. Before construction could begin, Tim Visel leaves The Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program for a school coordination effort for Bridgeport Public Schools. Nancy Balcom of UCONN Sea Grant steps in and coordinates the final remaining fish ladder installation effort during 1990-1991.

Early Project History

1974 - 1978 Conversations with Madison residents Ralph MacDonald, Charles Schroeder, and Charles Beebe confirm historical accounts of herring in Madison’s tidal streams – Tuxis Brook in the center of Madison.

1982 Tuxis Brook cleaned of build-up silt and street sand from center of town beyond Union Trust Bank by the town of Madison; proper flow restored.

1984 Meeting with Stewart MacMillen, Director of Public Works, Flood and Erosion Control programs for streams – He believes it to be a good way to reduce flooding during
heavy rains. (Remove built-up street sand from winter application.)

1985 Mr. Jonathan Cole, Assistant Engineer Public Works Dept, Town of Madison – Siltation of Streams and Creeks (Feb 1985) correspondence about rebuilding fish runs in Madison. Steve Gephard, Fisheries Biologist DEP Fisheries (Maine) writes report – subject potential for alewife restoration to Tuxis Pond, Madison, Sept 23, 1985 (recommends Hummers Pond instead). Ron Paffrath, Tim Visel walk Fence Creek and Hummers Pond – October.

1986 Mr. Robert Hincks – Madison Summer Resident asks for information on restoring Alewife runs Dec. 15 1986. He provides 1962 (June) CT State Board of Fisheries and Game – was interested in the Hammonasset River.

1987 Ronald Paffrath writes a research paper titled “The Return of the Alewife” for Wesleyan University. Copy of report sent to First Selectman Donald LaChance June 15, 1987.

1987 Plan presented to Mr. Warren Sinclair, Kensington Homeowners Association in April, for possible alewife/smelt restoration to Hummers Pond. Concerns were expressed before final approval was obtained (Workshop for Association held).

Donations and Volunteers - Tuxis Lumber Company, a local hardware and lumber company, donated the Quik-crete® cement and plywood; funds from the Exchange Club purchased polyester resin and fasteners for students at Daniel Hand High School. Volunteers from the Exchange Club and Madison Land Trust helped install the fish way, which students had built as part of their woodworking class. Mr. Bruce Beebe prepared the plywood fish ladder with resin to improve its lifespan.

1988 – Workshop and concrete work begins – Bypass 12 inch pipe installed weir board passage provided for fish ladders – concrete work completed by Tim Visel using DEP plans.

1989 – Nancy Balcom of University of Connecticut Sea Grant secures permits 1990 – 91 – Daniel Hand High School students build fish ladder

1991- Madison Land Trust and Exchange Club volunteers install fish ladder

Press Articles

“Clearing Underway” - Shoreline Times, December 9, 1982. Tuxis Brook cleaned of Silt

“Groups Support Sought in Restoring Fish to Pond” –
Hartford Courant, June 25, 1988.

“Madison Residents Reconsider Plan for Alewives” - Hartford
Courant, August 25, 1988.

“Herring Restoration Workshop Tonight” – Shorelines Times,
June 22, 1988.

“Fish Run to be Constructed at Madison Pond” - Hartford
Courant, Sept. 24, 1988.

“The Biology and Life History of the Alewife” – Connecticut
Currents Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service - Spring 1989.

“Officials Transport Alewives to Hummers Pond” - Hartford
Courant, April 19, 1989.

“Land Conservation Trust Earns Better Community Award” –
Shorelines Times, June 7, 1989.

“Alewife Restoration Project Progresses as Fish Way
Installed” – Connecticut Currents Sea Grant Marine Advisory
Service – Spring, 1991.

Project Timeline

1988- Alewife Restoration – Striped Bass Enhancement Pilot
Project, Madison, CT for the Exchange Club of Madison,
April 6th 1988.

Madison Land Conservation Trust Information Workshop - June 22, 1988.

Carl M. Schmidt, President (Herring Restoration) endorses project, May 19, 1998.

Support letter: Friends & Company, Mr. Richard Evarts

Herring Restoration, May 18, 1988.

Kensington Acres North, Owners Association. Agrees to support the Alewife Restoration Project, October 26, 1988.

Presentation, January 17th, 1989; Madison Land Trust

April 17th, 1985: DEP Report (Tom Savoy and Steve Gephard)

Transplant 50 adult alewives into Hummers Pond from Brides
Brook in East Lyme – DEP Trucks and Staff.

Dam stonework completed by Tim Visel, August, 1989 with Guidance from Raymond J. Visel an excellent stone mason..

Tim Visel leaves University of Connecticut Sea Grant
Program, 1990.

Steve Gephard provides plans to Nancy Balcom (for Daniel
Hand High School), who now coordinates restoration effort
with woodshop class, Daniel Hand High School, 1990.
(Wood materials donated by Tuxis Lumber, Madison, CT)

Fish ladder brought to Beebe Marine, Madison, where it is
coated with polyester resin, April 1, 1991 (thanks to Bruce
Beebe for resin donation).

Fish ladder completed and installed – coordinated by Nancy
Balcom, Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program, on March 15,
1991.

Final project team members:

Daniel Hand High School Industrial Arts students Craig Bravi, John
Regan, Ryan Deschenes, Randy Lilly, Bill Boyd of Madison
Land Conservation Trust, woodworking teacher Daniel
Hauberger.

April 8, 1988

University of Conn.
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340

Attention: Tim Visel

Dear Tim:

Many thanks for speaking to the Madison Exchange Club on the Alewife Restoration Project this past Wednesday, April 6, 1988.

You have become our club’s most popular speaker.

Yours truly,

Ernest W. Small
Chairman Projects and Aims

Mr. Wilford Taylor, Jr.
88 Lovers Lane
Madison, CT 06443

April 4, 1988

Timothy C. Visel
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
University of Connecticut
Avery Point Groton CT 06340

Dear Tim:

Thank you for your recent phone call regarding progress
on the Alewife/Striped Bass project. I’m interested in
seeing this effort move along and give D.E.P. marine
fisheries staff and Sea Grant researchers access to my
property this spring for transplanting herring into Hummer’s
Pond.

You may wish to conduct your studies as soon as possible.
Good luck with the project.

Sincerely
Wilford Taylor, Jr.

February 12, 1982

Mr. Joseph DiCarlo
Division of Marine Fisheries
Shawmet State Forest
Route 130
Sandwich, MA 02563

Dear Joe:

On behalf of the Cape Cod Extension Service and the Cape Cod Natural
Resource Officers, I would like to thank you for your most interesting and educational presentation on Fish Run Management. By all accounts, your slide-lecture discussion was found to be excellent.

Thanks again. Sincerely,

Timothy C. Visel
Regional Marine Resource Specialist
Cape Cod Extension Service
Barnstable, MA

To: Tim Visel, Marine Resource Specialist, Marine Advisory Service
From: Steve Gephard, Fisheries Biologist, DEP – Fisheries (Marine)
Date: September 23, 1985

Subject: Potential for alewife restoration to Tuxis Pond, Madison

On September 15, I visited Tuxis Pond in Madison. In the past, we have discussed the possibility of establishing an alewife run into this pond. My initial response to my on-site visit is that the chances for such are dim.

The pond has no clearly defined outlet stream. Using a topographical map as a guide (photocopy attached), I tried to find an outlet for the pond. My initial suspicion was that it flowed under the road to the east of the pond, into the swamp, and into Fence Creek.

I did find a small, choked channel on both sides of Scotland Road, but found no trace of it near the pond. The ground on both sides of the street immediately to the east of the pond is high and dry. The only other possibility for an outlet would be a buried pipe, which alewives would not utilize. Likewise, if the pond drains to any other direction, it would have to exit via a buried pipe, unless I was unable to find a stream.

On the day of my visit, the pond was exceedingly turbid. I do not know if this is the normal condition or whether the turbidity was caused by bulldozer activity on the SE corner of the pond. That poor water quality would not be suitable for alewife populations.

If you have knowledge of the pond and its outlet that would shed new light on this subject, we should discuss it. Otherwise, I suggest we look for different candidates for alewife restoration. Hummers Pond, a sizeable impoundment just above tidewater on Fence Creek, has good potential.

Cc: Pete Minta, Anatropous Fisheries Coordinator, DEP

SCHEDULE

Field Surveys – Stream walk with Ron Paffrath - Madison Shellfish Commission

Adult fish transplant with DEP staff

Adult fish transplant 50-100 fish for spawning purposes

Seine survey – survey shallow areas for juvenile herring

Graduated pool construction. Three graduated pools will help adult alewives over the dam. The dam is about three feet high, requiring
three one-foot-high pools. (Later changed to Field Stone pools).

Transplant 250-500
adult herring

Look for returns; continue transplant program. Maintain stream free of brush/logs and leaves. A chicken wire cone trap under Lover’s Lane Road, Madison, CT

References

Olde Guilford, Dorothy Whitfield Historic Society, Inc. Copyright 1975. (An Historical Guide with Maps of Olde Guilford) Text by Joe Helander; text illustrations by Mrs. G. Roger Watrous & Rufus Bishop.

Twelve Fathom of Wompom, published by The Elisabeth C. Adams Middle School, 1974.

History of Guilford. (the History of Guilford, Connecticut from Its First Settlement in 1639. From the manuscripts of Hon. Ralph D. Smith. Albany, N.Y.: J. Munsell, Printer, 1877.

Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast by Hilary Stewart. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1977.

Pictorial Guilford (A New England town in photographs). Text by James Lindsay, Published by Guilford Keeping Society, 1976. 171 Boston Street, Guilford, CT 06437, First Edition.

History of Guilford and Madison, Connecticut by Bernard Christian Steiner, 1897 Edition reissued by The Guilford Free Library in 1975.

History of The Indians Of Connecticut: From the Earliest Known Period to 1850, by John W. DeForest, published with the sanction of the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford: Wm Jas. Hamersley, 1851.