Status of River Herring on the North Shore of Massachusetts Tim Purinton, Frances Doyle and Dr. Robert D. Stevenson 2003

Transcription

1 H.L. Todd H.L. Todd Vicky Boundy H.L. Todd Status of River Herring on the North Shore of Massachusetts Tim Purinton, Frances Doyle and Dr. Robert D. Stevenson 2003 This report was funded by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Watershed Initiative through the Riverways Programs of the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game formally the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement.

2 2 This project would not be possible if not for the hundreds of volunteers who counted fish in rain and sleet, dedicating hours of their time to the noble study of river herring. Special thanks to the staff of the City of Gloucester Water Filtration Plant, Byfield Water District and the Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site for allowing their properties to be used by volunteers and staff for fish counting. The following Massachusetts rivers of the North Shore are covered under this report: the Merrimack, Parker, Little (Gloucester), Saugus and Ipswich Rivers as well Alewife Brook/Essex River in Essex. Other rivers like the Danvers River, the Egypt River (Ipswich) and the Mill River (Rowley), with known populations of river herring, were not covered under this report; a map of the rivers is found in Figure 2. This report is can be downloaded at the Eight Towns and the Bay Website: or at Copies can also be obtained by contacting Tim Purinton of Mass Audubon at (978) ext

3 3 Table of Contents Section Page I. History of Volunteer Counts. 4 II. River Herring Natural History.. 5 III. Cultural Importance and Historical Significance.. 8 IV. Threats.. 9 V. Adult Spawning Run by Watershed. 10 VI. Spawn Run Based on Habitat Size.. 14 VII. Restoration Priorities and Recommendations Appendices A. Potential Alewife Spawning Habitat Per Watershed 1. Saugus River 2. Little River 3. Essex River/Alewife Brook 4. Ipswich River 5. Parker River B. Estimated Daily Count Totals 1. Essex River/Alewife Brook 2. Ipswich River 3. Little River 4. Parker River 5. Merrimack River 6. Saugus River 7. All Rivers C. Organizational Descriptions D. Relevant Online Resources E. Kenneth Reback and Joseph DiCarlo s, Anadromous Fish Investigations Report F. Recent Press Coverage (hard copy only)

4 Executive Summary 4 An expanding program of NGO-sponsored and citizen-based monitoring programs has collected data on the spring upstream spawning runs of river herring in the Great Marsh and the North Coastal Watershed, Essex County Massachusetts. Monitoring began with the Parker River in 1997 and now includes the Essex, Ipswich. Little and Saugus Rivers. After reviewing the biology and historic use of river herring, this report summarizes the data that have been collected. Despite some modest efforts at restoration, it appears that population levels are much below historic levels and well below the production capacity of the spawning habitats of the lakes and ponds of these river systems. More study is needed to determine the apparent decline of river herring. I. History of Volunteer Counts The Great Marsh Summit sponsored by the Massachusetts Audubon Society was convened in 1996 to discuss the status of the 20,000-acre Great Marsh ecosystem. The conference recommended that a Great Marsh anadromous fish restoration team be created. The recommendation was the result of data published in The Plum Island Sound/Rivers Ecosystem: Current Status and Future Management: Final Project Report of the Massachusetts Bays Program by Robert Buchsbaum, et al. (Buchsbaum et. al. 1997). The report executive summary stated, Certain species of fish, most notably smelt and alewives, have declined in recent years. Pollution of spawning areas and deteriorating fishways are suspected of playing a significant role in these declines. Figure 1. Degraded Fishway, Parker River The mission of this newly formed team was to work on the restoration of river herring runs that historically were abundant. This team included representatives from the Parker River Clean Water Association, Mass Audubon, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management and the Essex County Sportsman s Association. In early 1997, this anadromous fish team identified a University of Massachusetts graduate student s 1975 masters degree thesis entitled Movement and Behavior of Adult Anadromous Alosa Pseudoharengus in the Parker River, Massachusetts. In 1973 and 1974, as part of the thesis, James Beltz trapped and counted alewives during their runs at three of the fish ladders on the Parker River (Beltz 1975). A significant volume of data was developed on the age and size of the alewives that had returned to the river. This study used a count methodology that estimated total numbers of alewife based on 10-minute sample times. This methodology provided the basis for the contemporary counts started by the Parker River Clean Water Association in 1997 and standardized in 2002 for all the river systems except the Merrimack River, which is coordinated by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and based on actual, not estimated counts at the Essex Dam in Lawrence. The following four organizations are responsible for organizing the volunteer based river herring counts. The Parker River Clean Water Association organized the first volunteer fish count on the Parker River at the Central Street Dam in Byfield and later integrated counts at the Pentucket Pond Dam in Georgetown from 1997 to Mass Audubon and the Eight Towns and the Bay Committee co-organized the 2000 Little River

5 5 Alewife Count (funded by Riverways Programs) in Gloucester at the Water Filtration Plant and the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Essex River/ Alewife Brook count at Apple Street in Essex. Mass Audubon also organized the Little River Alewife Count. The Ipswich River Watershed Association has organized a Herring Count/Watch on the Ipswich from 1999 to 2003 at the G.E. Sylvania Dam in downtown Ipswich. The Saugus River Watershed Council, with funding from this grant, started to monitor river herring in the spring of 2003 at the Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site. Figure 2. Active Fish Count Rivers and Count Locations Merrimack River Essex Dam # Central Street # Parker River GE Sylvania Dam # Apple Street Ipswich River # # Water Filtration Plant Little River Essex River/Alewife Brook Saugus Iron Works # Saugus River II. Natural History of River Herring Typically, herring are small, streamlined, schooling planktivores, or plankton feeders. The nearly 200 true herring species in the family Clupeidae share several distinguishing characteristics. They are silvery fish with a single dorsal fin; no lateral line and a protruding bulldog-like lower jaw. There are two closely related migratory species both native to the eastern coast of North America. The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) occurs from Newfoundland to South Carolina and the blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) occurs from Nova Scotia to the St. John s River in Florida. Because they are so difficult to distinguish from each other, they are collectively termed, river herring.

6 6 Streamlined for swimming, the river herring body is relatively deep and flattened laterally (side to side), with a distinctly forked tail (caudal fin). On their laterally compressed bodies are one short-based dorsal fin and a small triangular flap of skin at the base of the pelvic fin. The midline of the belly narrows to knife-edged thinness. The rear margin of scales along this rear belly edge is slightly elevated, forming a saw-toothed pattern. Nearly all external characteristics are indistinguishable, or greatly overlapping in the two species although there are very subtle differences in the scale patterns. The most reliable identifying characteristic is internal, therefore dissection is needed. The peritoneum or tissue lining of the body cavity is uniformly dark brown or blackish in the blueback, but gray or silvery with small dark spots in the alewife. Alewives have a larger eye than bluebacks. Misidentification between the two species may cause problem in identifying range and abundance. An example of this ambiguity is that there is some speculation that the fish counted in the Ipswich River may be bluebacks rather than alewives. Further study is needed to determine which species is using the fishway at the G.E. Sylvania dam. River herring are important to the ecology of the freshwater, estuarine and marine environment. They feed extensively on zooplankton as well as small insect and fish larvae. They have three different feeding methods: gulping, individual particulate feeding, and filtering. Gulping involves opening the mouth wider for larger objects, as opposed to particulate feeding. When filtering, the river herring leaves its mouth open and captures any zooplankton and other small organisms present in its feeding area. River herring are anadromous fish, living in saltwater and seasonally returning to the freshwaters of Massachusetts to spawn. Throughout most of the year they travel the coast in large schools, foraging. Then in the spring, they ascend coastal streams and rivers to spawn. Alewives continue up river towards ponds and lakes to spawn. As a rule, they spawn in slack water. Bluebacks will spawn typically in moving waters, usually the mainstream proper. The adults and young provide a food source for striped bass, bluefish, brown trout, salmonid species, eels, ospreys, eagles, kingfishers, cormorants, and aquatic fur bearing mammals. River herring reproduce from April to mid July, spawning earliest in the southern portion of their ranges. Males arrive in spawning streams before females of the same species. Alewives often dominate streams with welldeveloped headwater ponds although both species do commonly inhabit the same rivers. Alewives usually spawn 3 to 4 weeks earlier than bluebacks in the same watershed. Spawning is initiated for alewives when the water temperatures reach 10.6 degrees Celsius (51 degrees Fahrenheit) and for bluebacks 13.9 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit). Alewives spawn in a diversity of habitats. These habitats include large slow moving sections of rivers and streams, and ponds, over a range of substrates such as gravel, and detritus and submerged vegetation. Blueback herring prefer to spawn in swift flowing sections of freshwater tributaries, channel sections of fresh and brackish tidal rivers and coastal ponds, over gravel and clean sand substrates, especially in northeastern rivers where alewife and blueback herring coexist (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Fertilization is external. Mature river herring broadcast their eggs and sperm simultaneously into the water column and over the substrate. As the female herring releases eggs, the male herring releases clouds of milt. Millions of eggs are produced. Overall, less than 1% of the eggs laid survive to the juvenile stage. Alewife and blueback herring, like other alosine species ( alosid and alosine are a collective term for all four Alosa species American shad, hickory shad, alewife, and blueback herring), lay down spawning marks on their scales so that the number of times an individual fish has spawned in its lifetime is recorded on it s scale (Maryland State Fisheries Department 1999).

7 7 Larvae begin to feed externally 3 to 5 days after hatching, and transform gradually into the juvenile stage. Juveniles remain in freshwater nursery areas in spring and early summer, feeding mainly on zooplankton and relatively small cladocereans and copepods. As water temperatures decline in the fall, juveniles move downstream to more saline waters and eventually to the sea. Recent studies indicate that juvenile river herring may begin to leave nursery grounds as early as late June, although the greater numbers remain in ponds and lakes until the fall season. Environmental factors such as heavy rainfalls, high waters, and/or sharp declines in water temperature usually stimulate this downstream migration. Little information is available on the life history of subadult and adult river herring after they migrate to the seas as young of year or yearlings, and before they mature and return to freshwater to spawn. Various studies have determined that river herring are capable of migrating long distances over 2,000 kilometers (approximately 1,200 miles) in ocean waters of the Atlantic seaboard, and that patterns of river herring migration may be similar to those of American shad. Figure 3. Characteristics of the Two Species of River Herring Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife H.L. Todd Alosa aestivalis Blueback Herring H.L. Todd Description: Large eye (larger than blueback herring), dorsal margin of upper jaw angled upward, pale peritoneum Body compressed fusiform, abdomen compressed Sides silvery with shoulder spot present on fish greater that 10 cm Iridescent gray green or violet shade on top that fades down their sides to a silver underbelly Habitat: Occur in rivers, estuaries and coastal waters of the western Atlantic Schools in fresh and salt water making vertical migrations moving upward during the day and night Adults found on Continental Shelf between spawning migrations Spawning occurs in slow moving rivers, ponds and lakes Distribution: Newfoundland to South Carolina Similar Gulf of Maine species: blueback herring, Atlantic herring, American shad, Atlantic menhaden Migrations: Adults enter Massachusetts s waters to spawn in the spring then migrate to the sea to overwinter in deep offshore water Diet: Feed on diatoms, copepods, shrimps, insects, small fishes, squids and fish eggs Sexual Maturity: 3 years (Massachusetts) Description: Large eye, dorsal margin of lower jaw sloped abruptly upward, black peritoneum, last dorsal ray fin not filamentous Body moderately deep and compressed Gray green to blue green on top, which fades down their sides to a silver underbelly Habitat: Typical pelagic-schooling river herring Occurs in rivers, estuaries and coastal waters of the western Atlantic Adults found over the Continental Shelf when not migrating between spawning grounds Larvae and juveniles found in brackish and tidal fresh waters Spawning usually occurs in swift moving rivers and streams Distribution: Nova Scotia to Florida Similar Gulf of Maine species: Alewife, American shad, Atlantic menhaden Migrations: Adults enter Massachusetts to spawn in later spring (April and May) then migrate to the sea to overwinter in deep offshore water. Juveniles begin moving to the sea from mid July through October. Diet: Feed on diatoms, copepods, shrimps, insects, small fishes, squids and fish eggs Sexual Maturity: 3-6 years

8 8 Size: An average length of 10 to 12 inches and 8 to 9 ounces in weight Fecundity: 45, ,000 eggs per season Predators: Schooling species such as bluefish, striped and largemouth bass; birds such as gulls, terns, cormorants, osprey, eagles, kingfishers; and fur bearing aquatic mammals Common Names: river herring, sawbelly, kyak, branch herring, freshwater herring Size: On average 10 to 12 inches in length and weigh roughly half a pound Fecundity: 48, ,000 eggs per season laid by females Predators: Schooling species such as bluefish and striped bass; birds such as gulls, terns, cormorants, osprey, eagles, kingfishers; and fur bearing aquatic mammals Common Names: river herring, glut herring, summer herring, kyak, blackbelly On the North Shore the main differences with the two species of river herring is temporal. In general blueback herring arrive latter to spawn in the rivers, on average two to three weeks later. It is also assumed that alewife are the only species that use the fish ladders in the Parker River but it is unclear if alewives are present in the Ipswich River where some feel that that the only species recorded at the GE Sylvania Dam are blueback herring. More study is needed to determine the species use of fish ladders as it relates to spawning habitat III. Cultural Importance and Historical Significance River herring populations started to decline along the East Coast during colonial times. The combined effects of overfishing, pollution, and the damming of spawning rivers and stream had drastic long-term effects upon these two species. Once 27 streams in the Gulf of Maine coast of Massachusetts held river herring spawning runs. By 1920, only 9 of these runs remained (Ross et al., no date from Belding 1921). Long before the arrival of the Mayflower in 1620, the Native Americans of Massachusetts had depended on the great quantities of anadromous fish that traveled the sea to breed in stream and ponds throughout the region. At the or near the end of each long New England winter, Native Americans gathered along the riverbanks as countless herring, shad, rainbow smelt, and Atlantic salmon performed their springtime ritual. After feasting and smoking quantities of fish for future use, the local tradition was to place a herring on every mound where corn was planted as a sacrifice to the agricultural spirits and a source of nutrients for a bountiful harvest. As Europeans began to more rigorously alter the landscape by clear-cutting the forests for pasture, converting wetlands into agriculture and damming the waterways of wells powering grist and saw mills, anadromous fish began to dwindle. Whether exploited as food or ignored by industry, New England s anadromous fish populations suffered extensive declines. As testimony to this, between 1790 and 1860, regulations were adopted to manage alewife fisheries for nearly every river in Massachusetts to ensure the survival of this important resource (Belding 1921). By the 1900s trade wastes from the manufacture of paper and other goods had taken their toll on fish populations. Household chemicals and sewage effluent became a significant problem in the mid 20 th century, and by 1960 it was determined that the anadromous fish populations in New England were in serious decline (Moring 1998). River herring have traditionally supported a modest commercial bait industry in New England. Offshore landings are typically picked up as by-catch while harvesting other species, while inshore and river harvests are directed toward herring spawning runs. Recreational fishing accounts for modest harvest, with the greatest effort occurring in the Mid-Atlantic States. Much of this harvest is used as bait for other predator sport fish. Commercial landings of alewife in Massachusetts have decreased after large catches of 8,000 to 16,000 metric tons in the late 1950s and early 1960s, in recent decades landings have been less than 2,000 metric tons.

9 9 IV. Threats Individual stocks of river herring have been reduced due to pollution and dams that altered habitat and blocked access to spawning sites (Jury et al from Belding 1921 and Reback and DiCarlo 1970). The National Marine Fisheries Service considers alewife and blueback herring stocks as variable, dependent on local conditions, although the State of Connecticut has recently issued an emergency fishery closure for river herring prohibiting the take of the two species due to precipitous population declines statewide. By their very nature, river herring are influenced by conditions in freshwater as well as in the ocean. Stocks of all anadromous fish have declined from historical levels, principally due to dams, habitat alterations and pollution. To a lesser extent, overfishing on declining stock also has played a role (Moring 1998). By-catch, beaver expansion and predation by expanding species such as striped bass may also contribute to the local decline of river herring. Other factors that may limit the viability of the fishery may include stocking of predatory fish in nursery ponds and rivers and genetic weakening of fish through stocking. Initially, impassable dams blocked upstream passage of river herring, preventing them from reaching their spawning grounds. The early fish ladders and fish lifts were inefficient, and today s state-of the art designs still involve some mortality or failure in passage. According to Moring in his Recent Trends in Anadromous Fish, downstream fish passage has lagged behind concerns for upstream passage. For example the Main Street Dam also known as the Woolen Mills Dam on the Parker River has an exposed rock dam face that slopes considerably away from the lip of the dam (see Figure 3) this is believed to cause mortality of adults returning to the ocean after spawning especially in lower flow conditions where more rock is exposed. Figure 4. Central St. Dam, Parker River In the Parker River almost all of the five fishways are situated, with the exception of the Pentucket Pond Fishway, where it is difficult for the returning adults to find the inlet of the fish ladders for downstream migration given that the fish ladders are not placed in the run of the river. This is also true of the new Alaskan steep pass ladder at the Main Street Dam. Although the new ladder is situated more in the run of the river at the lip of the dam it is too small to attract the majority of the returning adults or juveniles (see Figure 10). Water level changes due to competing demands for surface waters also may be an important factor in herring decline and dam management. A USGS study in the Ipswich River and an independent consultant study in the Parker River show that natural flows are impaired by water withdrawals. Water withdrawals have become more pronounced as the region s population has grown in the past two decades. In the Parker River this may attribute to the steady estimated run decline since the 1970s, as other threats have remained seemingly constant. Juvenile success is especially susceptible to change in natural flows, limited flows may change predation pressure, mortality during out migration, and water quality indicators. More study is needed to determine the correlation between flow and river herring population. In Massachusetts municipalities can assume control of the river herring fishery from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and this has taken place in Gloucester, Newbury and Essex. In Essex for example the town bylaws restrict the take of alewife for bait or other purposes.

10 10 Reproductive and nursery carrying capacity of New England freshwaters is no longer as high as it was in Colonial times. This significant portion of habitat once used by river herring is no longer available due to land disturbance activities such as agriculture, forestry and industry. Ironically mill ponds may offer some increased spawning habitat for alewife, although there evidence that this the case in this region. Since the mid 1800s, pollutants have continued to influence the freshwater cycles of anadromous fishes. The most severe pollution occurs in coastal waters, because these areas are adjacent to land-based and pollutant discharge sources. Although pollution is significantly lower in the 21 st century, levels of heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and acid precipitation may be adversely affecting anadromous fishes, especially through levels in sediment (Moring 1998). Another threat to river herring may include bycatch in the Atlantic herring fishery. Bycatch studies of Atlantic herring landings have been limited according to the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. The bycatch of river herring by the Atlantic Herring fishing industry should be more carefully studied as the Atlantic herring fishery has expanded with a new processing plant recently constructed in Gloucester. Although there is evidence that the Atlantic herring fishery was also present in the 1960s and 1970s and may have been more intense than the present day fishery due to less regulations. Recently beavers have populated the North Shore watersheds and have created natural impediments to passage in each watershed. In Essex the outlet to Chebacco Lake has been dammed for the past few years. Permits have been issued for beaver removal there and at the Main Street Dam on the Parker River. Beaver dams have been removed by hand. This problem seems to be unique to the North Shore and communities are grappling with solutions to this problem. Beaver deceivers (devises designed to allow water flow through or over a dam) are probably a barrier to fish passage although some designs are reputed to pass fish. Declines seen in river herring on the North Shore are probably the result of some aspects of each of the listed threats. V. Adult Spawning Run by Watershed Volunteers for all the watersheds (excluding the Merrimack River) follow the same count methodology that was conducted by University of Massachusetts graduate students in the 1970s. Volunteers count fish that pass across a submerged reflective board at the top rung of the ladder or in an assigned river location for two five minutes periods during a specified hour. This is repeated throughout the day, into the early evening. Volunteers are scheduled throughout the day in assigned hourly slots. An estimate of fish passing through the fishway or assigned location on a per hour basis is determined by multiplying six by the number of fish seen. For periods where no sampling took place simple linear interpolation is used to estimate the number of fish between counts, for most times this number was zero. Volunteers complete data forms that record the number of fish seen, water temperature, air temperature and weather conditions and submit this information directly to their river coordinator via or at a predetermined on-site drop off point. Volunteers are trained to follow the standardized count methodology prior to the run commencement for each watershed. The following table shows estimated total river herring runs for the major North Shore watersheds with river herring runs. Data suggest that the populations are in steep decline, with yearly population variations sometimes exceeding the normal natural cyclical variations, which is generally considered on the order of 4 times. Count locations are shown in Figure 2.

11 Figure 5. Yearly Estimated River Herring Totals for Five North Shore Watersheds 11 Estimated Total Run Essex River/Alewife Brook Year Estimated Total Run Ipsw ich River Year Estimated Total Run Little River/Unnamed Stream 10,000 7,500 5,000 2, Year Estimated Total Run Parker River - Central Street Year The steady decline in the Essex, Parker and Little 400,000 Rivers are comparable and somewhat proportional. It is notable that there were no fish were recorded in the Little River in the spring of Merrimack River 300, , and this may be attributable to the cold water temperatures and high river flows. The Little River is also more susceptible to variation given 200,000 that access to the fishway is only available at mid to high tides. The Ipswich River has only recently 100,000 been stocked in an efforts re-establish a natural population in tandem with the construction of a new fishway at the furthest most downstream dam. 0 Volunteer counts in the Saugus River reported no Year fish at the Saugus Iron Works viewing site during Although not tracked as part of the official count, a small run of alewives was evident in the Saugus River during 2003 as herring were spotted at the base of the Lynn Water and Sewer Commission Dam on several occasions. Alewives were also seen spawning in the pond at Camp Nihan, but numbers were fewer than in past years. Total Run

12 12 The Merrimack River counts are recorded visually at a viewing area within the Essex Dam in Lawrence. The fish are passed over the dam by means of a fish lift. The Merrimack data is not comparable to the other watersheds given its size and given that the fish lift is managed manually. Figure 6. Estimated Daily Adult Upstream Migration for Four Local Watersheds Estimated Alewife Upstream Migration Essex River Alewife Migration Year Total Fish , , , Mar 10-Apr 20-Apr 30-Apr 10-May 20-May 30-May Date Estimated Adult Upstream Migration Ipswich River Herring Migration 10-Apr 20-Apr 30-Apr 10-May 20-May 30-May 9-Jun Date Year Total 1999, , , , , 231 Little River Alewife Migration Estimated Alewife Upstream Migration 4000 Year Total 2000, , , , Mar 10-Apr 20-Apr 30-Apr 10-May 20-May 30-May Date

13 13 Estimated Alewife Migration Upstream Parker River Alewife Migration 31-Mar 10-Apr 20-Apr 30-Apr 10- May Date Year Total 1972, 12, , 38, , 34, May 30- May Parker River Alewife Migration Estimated Adult Upstream Migration Mar 10-Apr 20-Apr 30-Apr 10-May 20-May 30-May Date Year Total 1997, , , , 7900 Estimated Adult Upstream Migration Parker River Alewife Migration Year Total 2001, , , Mar 10-Apr 20-Apr 30-Apr 10-May 20-May 30-May Date The daily data for estimated river herring shows interesting patterns; pulse periods are noted, showing that schooling behavior is evident in spawning. In the Parker River a dual pulse pattern is more evident, perhaps suggesting that the pulses are sorted by sex or age. Figure 7. North Shore River Herring Returns from 2003 and Comparison Estimates From Other Years River Counting Location Start Date Stop Date # of Counts # of Counters Counting method Fish seen Fish Estimated Years of Record Min. Max. estimate estimate observed observed in in other other years years Saugus Saugus Iron Works 14-Apr 29-May 52 8 Visual count Water Filtration Little River* Plant 1-Apr 15-Jun Visual count Essex Apple Street 1-Apr 31-May Visual count Ipswich G.E. Sylvania Dam 8-Apr 19-Jun Visual count Parker Central Street 1-Apr 3-Jun Visual count Merrimack Essex Dam 3-Jun Visual count * Fish were seen but none were seen to be migrating. On Monday May 12, 2003 Mass Division of Marine Fisheries stocked 1,500 fish in Lily Pond.

14 In Bigelow and Schroeder s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, Colette et al. suggests that temperature initiates spawning between 5 and 10 degrees Celsius, with little adult movement below 8 degrees Celsius and above 18 degrees Celsius (Colette et al. 2002). Data from the North Shore counts substantiates this claim, although significant movement has been recorded at the higher temperature range (see Figure 7). Water temperatures in 2003 were especially low and may have stunted runs. Figure 8. Temperature Sensitivity 14 Temperature Sensitivity of the Alewife Run Central Street, Parker River 1997 Temperature Sensitivity of the Alewife Run Central Street, Parker River Estimated Total Daily Run Estimated Daily Total Run Average Water Temperature (C) Average Water Temperature (C) Time of day analysis was also examined to determine when fish are more likely to move through the fish ladders. Analysis showed significant variation in time of day per watershed. Temperature again seems to be the main stimulus for run initiation. Each of the watersheds studied showed significant day time migrations, perhaps owing to daily water temperatures increases during sunlight hours. The Beltz thesis examines time of day migrations in more detail for the Parker River in the 1970s. More study is needed to see if a specific time of day relates to increased upstream migration and if the data from the 1970s pertains to the present day run dynamic. VI. Spawn Run Based on Habitat Size The following table shows the spawning potential that each of the watersheds based on GIS mapping of the spawning habitat (see Appendix A for spawning area maps). Spawning habitat was mapped based on historical and anecdotal information about alewife spawning locations. Slow moving portions of the main stem of the rivers were also mapped. Total spawning potential is based on a general rule of thumb that for every spawning acre there is a potential for 2,000 alewives (Brady 2003).

15 Figure 9. Spawning Potential 15 River Spawning Areas Approximate Acres of Alewife Spawning Habitat Saugus Camp Nihan Pond and Saugus River Unnamed Stream/Little River Essex River/Alewife Brook Ipswich River Parker River Total Spawning Potential Average Estimated Yearly Run ,800 0 (2003) 0 Lily Pond ,800 2,744 ( ) Chebacco Lake, Round Pond and ,200 9,856 Coy Ponds ( ) Great Wenham Swamp, Norwood Pond, Pleasant Pond, Hood Pond, Lowe Pond, Martin s Pond, Ipswich River and Beverly-Salem Canal Unnamed Mill Ponds/Parker River, Crane Pond, Pentucket Pond, Rock Pond and Baldpate Pond *Counts may reflect blueback herring - not alewife , * ( ) ,000 4,948 ( ) % of Total Spawning Potential Data show that the rivers are supporting only a fraction of the potential. The healthiest run seems to be the Little River run although in 2003 no fish were recorded. The Essex River/Alewife Brook, which has no artificial impediments to passage, is only at a small percentage of its total potential. This points to the fact that even with no significant barriers to passage populations of alewife on the North Shore are in significant decline. This analysis should be careful considered, as presence of suitable habitat is difficult to measure. For example in the Parker River, Crane Pond seems to be suitable habitat for alewife spawning although no evidence exists to confirm that alewife actually spawn there despite unfettered access. There may be strong fidelity towards historic spawning areas and he simple presence of what seems to be suitable habitat may in fact not be viable for reasons unknown or unapparent. VII. Restoration Priorities and Recommendations Since the 1960s several rehabilitation efforts have been aimed at the major barriers to anadromous fish reproduction. Fish ladders were improved; ponds and rivers were stocked. Although there seemed to be temporary improvement in the 1970s, recent data indicates that the population of river herring is in precipitous decline on the North Shore. Twentieth century efforts at restoring depleted stock by constructing fishways and transplanting spawning adults led to some recovery in Massachusetts s waters. On the North Shore there has been limited stocking of late with the Ipswich River receiving some stocked fish from the Charles River. Local sportsmen and the Ipswich River Watershed Association have spearheaded this effort. The Little River received approximately 1,500 alewives from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries in the spring of The following list of restoration and rehabilitation projects have been conducted in the past decade in the watersheds covered under this report except for the Merrimack River where the complete suite of restoration efforts conducted to enhance river herring was not examined. Most of these projects were the result of

16 partnerships between multiple organizations and funded through National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Marine Fisheries Service. 16 Figure 10. Recent River Herring Enhancements in Watersheds of Concern River Project Location Sponsor Details Parker Staging Pool at the Central Street, Byfield Essex County Sportsmen Funded Base of the Ladder Association through NOAA Parker Main Street Fish Ladder Main Street or Blacksmith Shop, Byfield Parker Pentucket Pond Fish Pentucket Pond, Parker Ladder/Dam Rehabilitation of Degraded Fishways Georgetown Larkin Road Snuff Mill and Central Street, Byfield Little New Wooden Fish Ladder Lily Pond outlet, Gloucester Ipswich New Fish Ladder GE Sylvania Dam, Ipswich Figure 11. New Alaskan steep pass fish ladder, Parker River Essex County Greenbelt Association Town of Georgetown Essex County Sportsmen Association, Parker River Clean Water Association, Eight Towns and the Bay Committee City of Gloucester Public Schools Division of Marine Fisheries Legislative priority restoration New Alaskan Steep Pass Trash rack not installed Wall stabilization and concrete structural work Funded through EPA There are many potential restoration and enhancement projects to be considered with dam removal being a viable option for most of the impediments in the Parker River. Dam removal has been a growing trend with the major benefit of the elimination of maintenance and repair of fishways. Removal of the Main Street Dam in Byfield (also known as the blacksmith shop) has been seriously considered and graduate students from Tufts University conducted a preliminary feasibility study a few years ago. Dam removal needs to be considered in light of upstream habitat alterations, historic preservation concerns and flooding consequences. Assessment and restoration efforts are also needed in the Saugus River Watershed. Each year, alewives are seen trying to migrate to potential fish spawning habitat upstream of the Lynn Water and Sewer Commission dam. An assessment is needed to evaluate the extent and status of upstream spawning habitat above the dam. The addition of a fish ladder at the dam could significantly benefit upstream migration.

17 Figure 12. Potential River Herring Restoration/Enhancement Projects 17 River Project Location Owner Parker Dam Spillway Central Street, Byfield Town of Newbury Enhancements Parker Trash rack installation Pentucket Pond Town of Georgetown Parker Dam removal or new Larkin Road, Byfield Town of Newbury fishway installation Parker Dam removal Main Street, Byfield Private Parker Fish ladder Snuff Mill, Byfield Private maintenance Ipswich USGS dam removal Topsfield Road, Ipswich USGS Ipswich Foote Bros. New Topsfield Road, Ipswich Private Fishway Installation Little Fishway removal Water Filtration Plant City of Gloucester Essex/Alewife Beaver dam removal or Pond Street, Essex Private beaver deceiver installation Essex/Alewife New culverts between Chebacco Woods, Private Coy and Round Ponds Wenham and Hamilton Saugus Spawning Habitat Reedy Meadow/Lake Lynnfield and Wakefield Assessment Quannapowitt Saugus Fish Ladder Lynn Water & Sewer Commission (LWSC) Dam LWSC Other restoration opportunities exist in other local watersheds not listed above, for example along the Mill River in Rowley the Jewel Mill Dam adjacent to Rte. 1 could benefit with the installation of a fishladder or a simple reconfiguration of the dam face. The Mill River has a viable blueback herring run. Other enhancements to the Mill River at the Lower and Upper Mill Ponds could serve to benefit alewife. In the Egypt River Watershed in Ipswich an old smelt ladder impedes upstream migration of river herring and may improve rainbow smelt habitat. The Back River in Amesbury may also benefit with a ladder at the old mill pond near Pine Street. Restoration also needs to be done in tandem with other watershed protection and conservation. Stream corridor protection, water quality improvements, invasive plant removal, maintaining baseline flows and management of predatory species are critical for sustaining a river herring fishery. Without suitable habitat enhancing fish passage reaps little benefit and may serve only to raise expectations and create a false sense of progress and improvement. Further study is clearly needed including the monitoring of juvenile fish habitat and viability of downstream passage. Volunteer data collected over a five-year period has clearly shown that the river herring fishery on the North Shore is in distress (continued funding of volunteer counts is presently un-funded although corporate sponsorship has been examined). Automated fish counters, continued local stewardship, more academic study, continued citizen involvement and aggressive management is recommended. Impacts to the fishery need to be looked at in a holistic way factoring in land use patterns, off shore fishing, natural predation, water withdrawals, proliferation of invasive species and water quality change. With funding strong for anadromous fish enhancement governmental and non-governmental groups need to be aggressive about pursuing restoration implementation grants if there is to be a viable river herring fishery on the North Shore in years to come.

18 Figure 13. Staff from the Lynn Water and Sewer Commission (LWSC) and the Saugus River Watershed Council Assist Spawning Activity by Netting and Releasing Alewives at the LWSC Dam in May

19 References Cited 19 D. L Belding,.A Report on the Alewife Fisheries of Massachusetts. Marine Fisheries Series. No. 1. Massachusetts Division of Fish and Game, 135 pages; James R. Beltz, Movement and Behavior of Adult Anadromous Alosa Pseudoharengus (Wilson), in the Parker River, Massachusetts. Master of Science Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 65 pages; Philips Brady, per conversation with fisheries biologist, Philips Brady, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Robert Buchsbaum, A. Cooper and J. Leblanc, The Plum Island Sound/Rivers Ecosystem: Current Status and Future Management: Final Project Report of the Massachusetts Bays Program, Bruce B. Collette and G. Klein-MacPhee. Bigelow and Schroeder s, Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, 3 rd Edition, Smithsonian Institution Press, S. H. Jury, J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson and M.E. Monaco, Distribution and Adundance of Fishes and Invertabrates in North Atlantic Estuaries. ELMR Report Number 13, NOAA, Silver Springs, MD, 221 pages; John Moring, Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes, USGS, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, November, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Alewife and Blueback Herring, Alosa pseudoharengus and Alosa aestivalis, Michael R. Ross and R. Biagi, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Leaflet entitled: Marine Recreational Fisheries of Massachusetts. Marine Recreational Fisheries series, No date posted. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, The Natural History of the River Herrings (Alosa pseudoharengus and Alosa aestivalis), Further Reading Division of Marine Fisheries, River Herring. Marine Recreational Fisheries Leaflet., 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA C. Hegberg, S. Jacobs, A. Schlindwein, S. Cohen, Natural Fish Passage Structures in Urban Streams, Part 1: Hydrologic and Resource Issues, As presented at the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, 2001, KCI Technologies, Inc. Ipswich River Watershed Association, Ipswich River Herring Count Results, Daniel Lantagne and Kate Morkeski, Freshwater Fish! A Guide to the Fishes of the Ipswich River. Ipswich River Watershed Association. David Mountain, Mills of Byfield, Parker River Clean Water Association,

20 Tim Purinton, 2002 Little River, Gloucester, MA Alewife Count Final Report, Massachusetts Audubon Society 20 Kenneth Reback and J. DiCarlo, Anadromous Fish Project , Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Publication #6496. Kenneth Reback and J. DiCarlo, Completion Report Anadromous Fish Project. Project Title: Anadromous Fish Investigations. February 1, 1967 to June 30, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA Robert Stevenson, D. Mountain and B. Roolf, Parker River Alewives Count in Massachusetts,The Shad Foundation's Shad Journal, volume 4 number 1, winter 1999.

21 Appendix A. Potential Alewife Spawning Habitat Per Watershed Saugus River

22 2. Little River/Unnamed Stream 22

23 3. Essex River/Alewife Brook 23

24 4. Ipswich River 24 Martin s Pond

25 5. Parker River 25

26 Appendix B. Estimated Daily Count Totals Essex Date Date Apr May Apr 0 2-May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May 0 23-Apr May Apr May 0 25-Apr May Apr May 0 27-Apr May 0 28-Apr May 0 29-Apr May Apr May May 0 Total

27 2. Ipswich 27 Date Date Apr 15-May Apr 16-May Apr 17-May Apr 18-May Apr 19-May Apr 20-May Apr 21-May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun Apr Jun 0 1-May Jun 0 2-May Jun 3-May Jun May Jun 0 5-May Jun 6-May Jun 0 7-May Total May May May May May May May

28 28 3. Little River Date Date Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May Apr May May Total

29 4. Parker * 1976* 1977* 1978* Apr 0 2-Apr 0 3-Apr 0 4-Apr 0 5-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May

30 16-May May May May May May May May May May 0 26-May 0 27-May 0 28-May 0 29-May 0 30-May May 0 Total * Daily data not available 30

31 5. Merrimack, (Data from US Fish and Wildlife Service and Mass Division of Marine Fisheries) 31 Year River Herring * , , , , ,607 *Includes both river herring species

32 6. Saugus Apr 0 15-Apr 0 16-Apr 0 18-Apr 0 19-Apr 0 20-Apr 0 24-Apr 0 27-Apr 0 28-Apr 0 29-Apr 0 30-Apr 0 2-May 0 3-May 0 4-May 0 5-May 0 9-May 0 10-May 0 11-May 0 17-May 0 18-May 0 19-May 0 20-May 0 24-May 0 29-May 0 Total 0

33 7. All Rivers 33 Year Parker Essex Merrimack Little River Ipswich Saugus , , , , ,