Anadromous Rainbow Smelt and Tomcod in Connecticut: Assessment of populations, conservation status, and need for restoration plan

(beginning of rainbow smelt executive summary) Evidence indicates that anadromous rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) populations in Connecticut and elsewhere in the northeast United States have severely declined. Several sampling programs have documented declines in Connecticut’s smelt populations over the last three decades (Marcy 1976a, Marcy 1976b, Millstone Environmental Laboratory 2005). Similar declines have also been documented in the Hudson River (ASA Analysis & Communication 2005) and in Massachusetts (personal communication, Brad Chase, MA Division of Marine Fisheries 2004). Recreational and commercial fisheries in the region for this species have virtually ceased (Blake and Smith 1984). The Connecticut Fish Advisory Committee of the Endangered Species Program has recommended that rainbow smelt be listed as threatened in Connecticut, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (2004) has recently listed rainbow smelt as a Federal Species of Concern. The purpose of this project is to develop an environmental history of rainbow smelt in Connecticut and surrounding regions, and document the current status of populations in Connecticut waters. An environmental history that assesses trends in abundance, environmental threats and historical efforts to ameliorate the threats will contribute to regional efforts to conserve these fish. Comprehensive review of the regional literature and trends associated with rainbow smelt has not been undertaken since Kendall (1926). Assessment of current abundance, distribution, areas of critical habitat, and whether the species is presently reproducing in state waters is critical for clarifying conservation status, designing a monitoring program and developing a recovery or enhancement plan, if this appears to be necessary. (beginning of tomcod executive summary) Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) are believed to have declined significantly in Connecticut and other estuaries of the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states. Several monitoring programs indicate that the species is scarce and/or declining in the region’s estuaries (Gottschall and Pacileo 2004, Molnar 2004, Millstone Environmental Laboratory 2005, ASA Analysis and Communication 2005). Once-active recreational (NMFS MRFSS 2005, http://www.st.nmfs.gov) and commercial fisheries for this species in Connecticut are now dormant. For the past 10 years, the Connecticut Fish Advisory Committee of the Endangered Species Program has recommended that studies be undertaken to quantify the status of tomcod populations and to determine if conservation actions should be initiated. The purpose of this project is to develop an environmental history of Atlantic tomcod in Connecticut and surrounding regions, and document the current status of populations in Connecticut waters. An environmental history that assesses trends in abundance, environmental threats and historical efforts to ameliorate the threats will contribute to regional efforts to conserve these fish. Assessment of current abundance, distribution, areas of critical habitat, and whether the species is presently reproducing in state waters is critical for determining conservation status, designing a monitoring program and developing a recovery or enhancement plan, if this appears to be necessary.

Regional Specialization in Communal Agriculture: The Shakers, 1850- 1880

When the Shakers established communal farms in the Ohio Valley, they encountered a new agricultural environment that was substantially different from the familiar soils, climates, and markets of New England and the Hudson Valley. The ways in which their response to these new conditions differed by region has not been well documented. We examine patterns of specialization among the Shakers using the manuscript schedules of the federal Agricultural Censuses from 1850 through 1880. For each Shaker unit, we also recorded a random sample of five farms in the same township (or all available farms if there were fewer than five). The sample of neighboring farms included 75 in 1850, 70 in the next two census years, and 66 in 1880. A Herfindahl-type index suggested that, although the level of specialization was less among the Shakers than their neighbors, trends in specialization by the Shakers and their neighbors were remarkably similar when considered by region. Both Eastern and Western Shakers were more heavily committed to dairy and produce than were their neighbors, while Western Shakers produced more grains than did Eastern Shakers, a pattern imitated in nearby family farms. Livestock and related production was far more important to the Eastern Shakers than to the Western Shakers, again similar to patterns in the census returns from other farms. We conclude that, despite the obvious scale and organizational differences, Shaker production decisions were based on the same comparative advantages that determined production decisions of family farms.