A history of the Connecticut River and its fisheries

(PDF contains 15 pages)

Freshwater fishes of Connecticut

(PDF contains 135 pages)

The distribution and size composition of finfish, American lobster, and long-finned squid in Long Island Sound based on the Connecticut Fisheries Division Bottom Trawl Survey, 1984–1994

The distribution, abundance, and length composition of marine finfish, lobster, and squid in Long Island Sound were examined relative to season and physical features of the Sound, using Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection trawl survey data collected from 1984 to 1994. The following are presented: seasonal distribution maps for 59 species, abundance indices for 41 species, and length frequencies for 26 species. In addition, a broader view of habitat utilization in the Sound was examined by mapping aggregated catches (total catch per tow, demersal catch per tow, and pelagic catch per tow) and by comparing species richness and mean aggregate catch/tow by analysis of variance (ANOVA) among eight habitat types defined by depth interval and bottom type. For many individual species, seasonal migration patterns and preference for particular areas within Long Island Sound were evident. The aggregate distribution maps show that overall abundance was lower in the eastern Sound than the central and western portions. Demersal and pelagic temporal abundance show opposite trends—demersals were abundant in spring and declined through summer and fall, whereas pelagic abundance was low in spring and increased into fall. The analysis of habitat types revealed significant differences for both species richness and mean catch per tow. Generally, species richness was highest in habitats within the central area of the Sound and lowest in eastern habitats. The aggregate mean catch was highest in the western and central habitats, and declined eastward. (PDF file contains 199 pages.)

Monitoring hydrilla using two RAPD procedures and the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database

Hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle), an invasive aquatic weed, continues to spread to new regions in the United States. Two biotypes, one a female dioecious and the other monoecious have been identified. Management of the spread of hydrilla requires understanding the mechanisms of introduction and transport, an ability to map and make available information on distribution, and tools to distinguish the known U.S. biotypes as well as potential new introductions. Review of the literature and discussions with aquatic scientists and resource managers point to the aquarium and water garden plant trades as the primary past mechanism for the regional dispersal of hydrilla while local dispersal is primarily carried out by other mechanisms such as boat traffic, intentional introductions, and waterfowl. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database is presented as a tool for assembling, geo-referencing, and making available information on the distribution of hydrilla. A map of the current range of dioecious and monoecious hydrilla by drainage is presented. Four hydrilla samples, taken from three discrete, non-contiguous regions (Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Washington State) were examined using two RAPD assays. The first, generated using primer Operon G17, and capable of distinguishing the dioecious and monoecious U.S. biotypes, indicated all four samples were of the monoecious biotype. Results of the second assay using the Stoffel fragment and 5 primers, produced 111 markers, indicated that these samples do not represent new foreign introductions. The differences in the monoecious and dioecious growth habits and management are discussed.

Residential Docks and Piers: Inventory of laws, regulations, and policies for the New England region

While the homes threatened by erosion and the developer illegally filling in marshlands are the projects that make the headlines, for many state regulatory programs, it’s the residential docks and piers that take up the most time. When is a dock too long? What about crossing extended property lines? And at what point does a creek have too many docks? There are no easy answers to these questions. At the request of the Georgia Coastal Management Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center published in April 2003 an inventory of residential dock and pier management information for the southeastern U.S. This inventory builds upon that effort and includes five New England states and one municipality: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and the Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts. Federal laws, state laws and regulations, permitting policies, and contact information are presented in a tabular format that is easy to use. (PDF contains 16 pages)

Quahogs in Eastern North America: Part II, History by Province and State

The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England and Long Island, N.Y., made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has given consumers a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Tabasco leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certified beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Quahogs in Eastern North America: Part I, Biology, Ecology, and Historical Uses

The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has provided consumers with a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Campeche leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certifi ed beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

History of Whaling and Estimated Kill of Right Whales, Balaena glacialis, in the Northeastern United States, 1620–1924

This study, part of a broader investigation of the history of exploitation of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic, emphasizes U.S. shore whaling from Maine to Delaware (from lat. 45°N to 38°30'N) in the period 1620–1924. Our broader study of the entire catch history is intended to provide an empirical basis for assessing past distribution and abundance of this whale population. Shore whaling may have begun at Cape Cod, Mass., in the 1620’s or 1630’s; it was certainly underway there by 1668. Right whale catches in New England waters peaked before 1725, and shore whaling at Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket continued to decline through the rest of the 18th century. Right whales continued to be taken opportunistically in Massachusetts, however, until the early 20th century. They were hunted in Narragansett Bay, R.I., as early as 1662, and desultory whaling continued in Rhode Island until at least 1828. Shore whaling in Connecticut may have begun in the middle 1600’s, continuing there until at least 1718. Long Island shore whaling spanned the period 1650–1924. From its Dutch origins in the 1630’s, a persistent shore whaling enterprise developed in Delaware Bay and along the New Jersey shore. Although this activity was most profi table in New Jersey in the early 1700’s, it continued there until at least the 1820’s. Whaling in all areas of the northeastern United States was seasonal, with most catches in the winter and spring. Historically, right whales appear to have been essentially absent from coastal waters south of Maine during the summer and autumn. Based on documented references to specific whale kills, about 750–950 right whales were taken between Maine and Delaware, from 1620 to 1924. Using production statistics in British customs records, the estimated total secured catch of right whales in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania between 1696 and 1734 was 3,839 whales based on oil and 2,049 based on baleen. After adjusting these totals for hunting loss (loss-rate correction factor = 1.2), we estimate that 4,607 (oil) or 2,459 (baleen) right whales were removed from the stock in this region during the 38-year period 1696–1734. A cumulative catch estimate of the stock’s size in 1724 is 1,100–1,200. Although recent evidence of occurrence and movements suggests that right whales continue to use their traditional migratory corridor along the U.S. east coast, the catch history indicates that this stock was much larger in the 1600’s and early 1700’s than it is today. Right whale hunting in the eastern United States ended by the early 1900’s, and the species has been protected throughout the North Atlantic since the mid 1930’s. Among the possible reasons for the relatively slow stock recovery are: the very small number of whales that survived the whaling era to become founders, a decline in environmental carrying capacity, and, especially in recent decades, mortality from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.