Migratory fish and their habitat have decreased throughout the Boston Harbor Watershed, of which the Neponset River Watershed is a part.

Fish that migrate between salt water, brackish water, and freshwater as part of their life cycle are called “migratory (diadromous) fish.” This group of fish also includes “anadromous” and “catadromous” species.

Anadromous fish begin life in freshwater, then migrate to the ocean to spend much of their life. Eventually, during a spring, they return to freshwater rivers or to the brackish upper reaches of estuaries to spawn and lay eggs.  In the autumn, most juveniles head downstream to more brackish water.

Over 15 species (1) of anadromous fish occur in the inland and marine waters along Massachusetts’ coast, including the Mystic, Back, Charles, and Neponset Rivers, and historically the Weir River.

In the Neponset River, alewife, blueback, American shad, smelt, and white perch have been recorded. (2)

Anadromous fish in the Boston Harbor Watershed include American shad (principal fish run in Charles River), blueback herring (Back River) alewives (Charles River), Atlantic salmon, striped bass (Parker River, although no spawning), rainbow smelt (Neponset River estuary), sea-run brook trout, and sea lamprey. (3)  Also present in Massachusetts waters are the introduced sea-run brown trout and Pacific salmon. Anadromous shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon historically were present (Charles River), but have been extirpated.

Catadromous fish species begin life at sea and then migrate to freshwater, where they spend most of their adult lives. Eventually, they return to the ocean to spawn and die. The American eel is born at sea, then migrates to freshwater lakes and ponds, and eventually returns to the Sargasso Sea to spawn and die. American eels are found in the Neponset River.

Blueback herring. Credit: USFWS.

Removing dams would allow fish passage

Since the mid-1600s, migratory fish have been impacted by dams in Boston Harbor Watershed, when rivers hummed with water-powered mills.

By 1970, species such as American shad, Atlantic salmon, alewives, blueback herring, striped bass, and rainbow smelt were all declining in southern New England, at least in part because of migrations stopped by dams and because of water pollution near towns and mills. Today, these species’ numbers remain below historic levels. (4)

Migratory fish species, which for thousands of years swam up the Neponset River to lay their eggs, now have no access to the river beyond the Baker Dam.

These fisheries were a critical food resource for Native Americans for at least 10,000 years and were an important resource for early European settlers as well.

If both the Baker Dam and the Tileston & Hollingsworth Dam were modified or removed – enabling the river to be “open,” in a sense – American shad, blueback herring, and alewife would come from the ocean to lay their eggs upstream, and their offspring would head back to the ocean in the fall, restoring these “anadromous” fish runs along 17 miles of the Neponset River.

These runs would extend to the communities of Dorchester, Quincy, Milton, Mattapan, Hyde Park, Canton, Dedham, Westwood, Norwood, and Walpole. The Department of Fish and Game has evaluated fish habitat in these upstream communities and found it well suited for anadromous fish spawning if the dams were not blocking the runs.

Baker dam
Tileston and Hollingsworth dam

Shad and herring make up a large part of the diets of popular saltwater sport fish such as striped bass and bluefish. Dam removal would enhance the existing sport fisheries in the Neponset River Estuary. In addition, American shad are considered a sport fish in their own right.

Resident freshwater fish species in the Neponset River, such as largemouth bass and sunfish, would also benefit from the restoration of the natural river flow and resulting in cooler water temperatures and higher oxygen levels.

Finally, herring and shad are important links in the larger Gulf of Maine food chain which supports numerous commercial fish species. Fishery restoration on the Neponset River would provide an incremental benefit to the overall commercial fishing industry in New England.

In addition to enhancing predator fish species, the restoration of anadromous fish would have a beneficial effect on the overall ecology of the river, extending to a variety of bird and mammal species such as great blue herons, eagles, and osprey to name just a few.

Other migratory species that would benefit if the dams were removed include rainbow smelt and American eel. Smelt currently spawn in Lower Mills below the dam. Dam removal would allow spring tides to move roughly 100 yards further upstream, expanding the smelt spawning area and providing more desirable salinity conditions for the smelt. American eels are a “catadromous” species; they spend their adult lives in freshwater rivers and then migrate to the open sea to spawn.

In the absence of dam removal, none of the above benefits from fishery restoration would be realized.

Population and habitat extent

The distribution of migratory fish populations has waned, due in particular to habitat degradation and reduction.

Overexploitation, primarily by commercial fishers, also has reduced populations of migratory fish such as striped bass, Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic sturgeon. (5)

Consider these three anadromous fish of Boston Harbor Watershed:

  • Rainbow smelt. Coastal populations of rainbow smelt have been declining along the Atlantic Coast, including southern New England and the Gulf of Maine. (6) The decline may be due to poor spawning habitat conditions, fish health, marine environmental conditions, and/or fishing. (7) In 2004, the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) listed rainbow smelt as a Species of Concern.
  • River herring (includes blueback herring and alewife). The extent of river herring has been reduced by spawning migrations blocked by dams, as well as by pollution, overfishing, and increased predation. Because several Massachusetts herring runs have declined to historically low levels, in 2006, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries established a three-year moratorium on the sale and harvest of river herring. In 2008, that moratorium was extended through 2011. The National Marine Fisheries Service also has listed river herring as a Species of Concern. In Massachusetts, a 2001-2002 survey of 215 coastal streams found active herring runs in 100 waterways. (8)
  • American shad. Shad are in severe decline. In Massachusetts, shad have been extirpated or reduced to unsustainable populations in all rivers where they occurred. Factors include blocked spawning migrations, pollution of spawning grounds, changes in land and water use that reduce habitat, nonpoint source pollution, increased water withdrawals from spawning rivers, and overfishing. Climate change, predation, and bycatch in other fisheries also have led to population declines. (9)

Each migratory fish species seeks out different habitats. (10)  For example:

  • Rainbow smelt. Smelt spend the summer in shallow waters less than a mile from shore and then move into bays and estuaries during the fall and winter. (11)
  • River herring (e.g., alewife and blueback herring). Although river herring use both riverine and lacustrine environments as spawning grounds, alewives prefer lacustrine areas, while blueback herring prefers streams or rivers. (12)  Once river herring hatch, they swim out to the ocean to spend their adult lives. Eventually, they return to spawn in the freshwater where they were born. River herring occur in schools of thousands near their natal streams, where they feed on plankton. (13)  Many river herring, in turn, are consumed by gulls, terns, and other coastal birds, mammals, fishermen, striped bass, and bluefish.
  • American shad. Shad seek out backwater areas, lakes, and larger rivers. In Massachusetts, they spawn in larger river systems (Connecticut and Merrimack Rivers), although small populations also occur in smaller waterways (Palmer and Indianhead Rivers). New England Shad overwinter in the mid-Atlantic coastal region and then migrate northward in the spring. Post-spawn adults and immature fish congregate in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy during the summer before moving to wintering grounds. (14)
  • Sea-run brook trout. Sea-run brook trout prefer cold, fast-flowing streams.

Migratory fish habitat

For migratory fish, habitat includes areas that support nurseries, feeding, migration (“fish runs”), and spawning. (15)

Waterways that lack dams, and that have sinuous channels and diverse structures are the most likely to support fish runs, feeding, and spawning areas.

Waterways that support migratory fish tend to have sandy or gravelly substrate, riffle, and pool sequences, slightly undercut banks, fallen logs or boulders, flowing water, wetlands, riparian habitats, vegetative buffers, a diverse benthic community, and clean and adequate water flow. These conditions provide food for the aquatic invertebrates on which migratory fish feed. The conditions listed above also assure stable habitat, as they cool the water and stabilize the riverbanks, preventing soil erosion, high water turbidity and siltation. (16)

Note that fish runs also are most likely to occur in waters that meet certain water quality standards and drain into coastal ponds and Boston Harbor. (17)

Habitat condition

The condition of migratory fish habitat has declined significantly over the years, due in part to water pollution, blocked fish passage along waterways key to spawning migrations, alteration of riparian habitat, and low stream flow, among other factors.

Because migratory fish use both fresh and saltwater over their lifetimes, they are vulnerable to changes in either. For example:

  • Barriers to migration. Low water levels, dams, aging or improperly maintained or sited culverts, large debris, poorly performing fish ladders, and other blockages, can obstruct fish spawning migrations along waterways. Even some fish passage structures can act as barriers; some fish species will not use fish ladders.(18)  Sand accumulation in the outlets of spawning area ponds due to sandy soils, shoreline development, and/or beach nourishment can trap juvenile herring in the ponds and delay or prevent downstream migration during years of low water.(19)
  • Instream habitat quality. During migrations, when most anadromous fish stay in coastal waters, close to land, the pollutants in this water can hurt the fish, especially juveniles. Pollutants may include heavy metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons, and effluents. (20) Also, high nutrient levels from untreated sewage can nurture dense aquatic plant growth that endangers fish. (21)  Pollutants of both recent and historical origin – for example, PCBs (manufacture banned since 1979) and DDT (use banned since 1972) occur in Boston Harbor Watershed. Instream habitat also can be degraded by excessive silt caused by the removal of riparian buffers, riverbank erosion, street runoff, and construction. This siltation can block fish spawning migrations and reduce habitat, prevent successful spawning, kill embryonic and juvenile fish, and smother eggs. (22) Removal of riparian habitats and buffers reduces the ability of a waterway to maintain cooled water, to provide food and wildlife habitat, and to avoid pollution from surface water and erosion. Channelization and hardening of river channels (with cement, riprap, seawalls, etc.) also simplify river structure and reduce instream habitat.
  • Spawning habitat quality. Pollution degrades migratory fish spawning grounds, as do lack of water, lack of appropriate substrate, and damaged habitat. Spawning habitat degradation also results from the removal of riparian habitats, erosion, sedimentation, hardening of river channels, decreases in submerged aquatic vegetation, and increases in algae,(23)  as well as acid precipitation, which results in water acidification.(24)  Finally, environmental changes due to climate change compound these issues.(25)
  • Hydrology. As water withdrawals continue to increase – pulling from groundwater and surface water sources, instream water levels drop, yielding “low flow” conditions that damage fish habitat and fish populations. (26)  Agricultural practices also divert streamflow from waterways, causing low water levels and potentially blocking fish passage and entrapping and stranding juvenile fish. (27)  In addition, the increased periods of drought associated with climate change yield low instream water levels. (28)

Protection and Restoration Potential

To restore and rehabilitate anadromous fish populations, we must protect and improve the condition of the freshwater and estuarine resources on which they rely, by implementing projects to reduce aquatic pollution, restore fish passage, reduce water withdrawals, and rehabilitate or protect nursery and spawning habitats. (29) When planning such conservation efforts, it is beneficial to consider the interplay of directly affected and other species. (30)

A range of agencies has worked to maintain, restore, and boost diadromous fish populations and habitat in the Boston Harbor Watershed, and their efforts occur within a network of national, regional, and state-level guidelines concerning species management.

Such efforts to restore diadromous fish populations and habitat in the Boston Harbor Watershed targeted species key to recreational fisheries, like rainbow smelt, American shad, and river herring, which also are important members of the food web, feeding predators like striped bass and bluefish. (31)

These efforts have experienced some success – fish populations have been established in areas where they previously had disappeared due to human activities, fish passage for some species has been restored along some waterways, and populations of migratory fish have increased in some areas.  However, although a migratory fish species may be observed to increase in number here in Massachusetts, that increase may be due to restoration efforts elsewhere in their migratory path (e.g., striped bass, which no longer spawn in Massachusetts). (32)

A sampling of agencies involved in migratory fish and/or aquatic resources conservation in Massachusetts include: the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF, MarineFisheries), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, Massachusetts Bays Program, Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration (Riverways Program),  river watershed associations, conservation organizations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Geologic Survey, American Rivers, Coastal America Foundation, Conservation Law Foundation, Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership, Ducks Unlimited, Fish American Foundation, MassAudubon, Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commission, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, The Trustees of Reservations, etc. (33)

The anadromous fish habitat restoration toolbox includes:

  • Removing barriers to migration. Blockages along waterways key to spawning migrations are removed to restore fish passage. The focus has shifted from managing for specific fish species by enabling them to bypass an obstruction, to re-establishing annual migrations of groups of species. (34)  Of the various methods available for restoring fish passage, dam removal provides the most ecological benefits – restoring river hydrology, connectivity, water quality, recreation, ecology, and fish passage for a variety of fish species. (35) Restoring a fish ladder, on the other hand, only benefits limited species.  In spite of this, dam removal projects in Boston Harbor Watershed can be complicated by the potential for pollutants in river-bottom sediments, producing added expense and time. Some contaminated sediments require removal, treatment, and proper disposal. Note that when a dam cannot be removed, fish passage may be restored by installing fishways – e.g., upstream and downstream fish ladders, fish lifts (elevators), or nature-like fishways. (36)  The nature-like fishways pass more types of fish than fish ladders (some fish do not use fish ladders). Nature-like fishways include rock ramps and by-pass channels, which mimic natural river morphology. A 2001-2002 study implemented by the MA Division of Marine Fisheries assessed and recorded waterway blockages, fishways, and anadromous fish in 215 coastal Massachusetts waterways, updating a 1970s data set. (37) The updated survey recorded 380 fish passage blockages (i.e., dams, etc.) and the location and condition of 175 fish passage structures (i.e., fishways). This data can provide direction for restoration efforts (almost half of the existing fishways were found to be in deteriorated condition, and half functioned inadequately). (38)
  • Improving and restoring instream habitat quality. River contours and riparian habitats and buffers can be restored. Water pollution and water withdrawals can be reduced. Groundwater recharge can be increased in the watershed. Waterway blockages can be removed or altered to restore waterway connectivity and water flow.
  • Improving spawning habitat quality. Spawning habitat substrate can be restored. Water quality can be improved. Riparian buffers can be restored. Water withdrawals can be reduced and groundwater recharge can be increased in the watershed.
  • Improving hydrology. Water withdrawals can be reduced and groundwater recharge can be increased in the watershed, to improve water flow in the waterway.

Another migratory fish restoration technique is to propagate fish to re-stock depleted waterways. Fish, their larvae, or eggs can be harvested from one river and moved to another. The juvenile fish imprint on the new site and eventually return there to spawn, boosting local fish populations. (39) River herring and American shad have benefited from propagation. (40, 41)

End Notes

  1. Anadromous Fish Restoration: Enhancing fin fish resources in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/hubline_anadromous_restoration_leaflet.pdf, 2005 or prior.
  2. Phillips D. Brady, Kenneth E. Reback, Katherine D. McLaughlin, and Cheryl G. Milliken, “A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts. Part 4. Boston Harbor, North Shore and Merrimack River,” Technical Report TR-18, of Michael P. Armstrong, ed., Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report Series, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, MA DMF Southshore Field Station, Pocasset, MA, Department of Fisheries and Game, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement., Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, January 2005, p. 34.
  3. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 26.
  4.  John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 36.
  5. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 38.
  6. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 32.
  7. Kathy Mills, Claire Enterline, and Brad Chase, “Protecting a Threatened Coastal Fish Species Through Regional Collaboration.” Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Maine Department of Marine Resources, and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Shifting Shorelines: Adapting to the Future, The 22nd International Conference of The Coastal Society, June 13-16, 2010, Wilmington, North Carolina., Dec. 14, 2010.
  8. J. Kocik, “River Herring,” in Stephen H. Clark, ed., Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States, (Resource Evaluation and Assessment Division, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, 1998), http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/fisheries/anadromous/river_herring.htm, June 22, 2011.
  9. “Anadromous Fish Restoration in Massachusetts Bay” of Hubline Anadromous Fish 5-Year Completion Report, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, 2009, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/hubline/hubline_5yr_anadromous_fish_restoration.pdf, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/hubline/admin.htm, p. 209.
  10. Anadromous Fish Habitat, Priority Habitats and Threats,Gulf ofMaine Council on the Marine Environment, http://restoration.gulfofmaine.org/habitatsandthreats/anadromousfishhabitat.php, June 17, 2011.
  11. Kenneth E. Reback, Phillips D. Brady, Katherine D. McLaughlin, and Cheryl G. Milliken. “A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts, Part 1. Southeastern Massachusetts,” Technical Report TR-15, of Michael P. Armstrong, ed., Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report Series, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Game, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May 2004, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/tr15_anad_p1_intro.pdf, p. 3.
  12. Rhode Island’s Coastal Habitats: Anadromous Fish Habitats. Restoring Coastal Habitats for Rhode Island’s Future,EnvironmentalDataCenter,University ofRhode Island, Partnership of the Coastal Resources Management Council, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, and Save The Bay, http://www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/html/intro/fish.htm, June 2011.
  13. Rhode Island’s Coastal Habitats: Anadromous Fish Habitats. Restoring Coastal Habitats for Rhode Island’s Future,EnvironmentalDataCenter,University ofRhode Island, Partnership of the Coastal Resources Management Council, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, and Save The Bay, http://www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/html/intro/fish.htm, June 2011.
  14. Kenneth E. Reback, Phillips D. Brady, Katherine D. McLaughlin, and Cheryl G. Milliken. “A  Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts, Part 1. Southeastern Massachusetts,” Technical Report TR-15, of Michael P. Armstrong, ed., Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report Series, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Game, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May 2004, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/tr15_anad_p1_intro.pdf, p. 3.
  15. Linda Deegan and Robert Buchsbaum, “The Effect of Habitat Loss and Degradation on Fisheries,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 68.
  16. Rhode Island’s Coastal Habitats: Anadromous Fish Habitats. Restoring Coastal Habitats for Rhode Island’s Future, Environmental Data Center, University of Rhode Island, Partnership of the Coastal Resources Management Council, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, and Save The Bay, http://www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/html/intro/fish.htm, June 2011.
  17. Rhode Island’s Coastal Habitats: Anadromous Fish Habitats. Restoring Coastal Habitats for Rhode Island’s Future, Environmental Data Center, University of Rhode Island, Partnership of the Coastal Resources Management Council, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, and Save The Bay, http://www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/html/intro/fish.htm, June 2011.
  18. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 40.
  19. Programs and Projects, Anadromous Fisheries, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/anadrom.htm, June 17, 2011.
  20. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005),  p. 40.
  21. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 37.
  22. Anadromous Fish Restoration: Enhancing finfish resources in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/hubline_anadromous_restoration_leaflet.pdf, 2005 or prior.
  23. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 32.
  24. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 32.
  25. Aquatic Habitat Restoration Taskforce. Charting the Course: A Blueprint for the Future of Aquatic Habitat Restoration in MA, Report of the Aquatic Habitat Restoration Task Force. January 2008, pp. 15-16.
  26.  “Anadromous Fish Restoration in Massachusetts Bay” of Hubline Anadromous Fish 5-Year Completion Report, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, 2009, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/hubline/hubline_5yr_anadromous_fish_restoration.pdf, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/hubline/admin.htm, pp. 176-218.
  27. Programs and Projects, Anadromous Fisheries, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/anadrom.htm, June 17, 2011.
  28. Aquatic Habitat Restoration Taskforce. Charting the Course: A Blueprint for the Future of Aquatic Habitat Restoration in MA, Report of the Aquatic Habitat Restoration Task Force. January 2008, p. 15.
  29. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 25.
  30. Programs and Projects, Anadromous Fisheries, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/anadrom.htm, June 17, 2011.
  31. Programs and Projects, Anadromous Fisheries, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/anadrom.htm, June 17, 2011.
  32. John Moring, “Recent Trends in Anadromous Fishes,” in Robert Buchsbaum, Judith Pederson, William E. Robinson, ed., The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation (Cambridge: MIT, 2005), p. 34.
  33. Aquatic Habitat Restoration Taskforce. Charting the Course: A Blueprint for the Future of Aquatic Habitat Restoration in MA, Report of the Aquatic Habitat Restoration Task Force. January 2008, pp. 10-11.
  34. Rhode Island’s Coastal Habitats: Anadromous Fish Habitats. Restoring Coastal Habitats for Rhode Island’s Future, Environmental Data Center, University of Rhode Island, Partnership of the Coastal Resources Management Council, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, and Save The Bay, http://www.edc.uri.edu/restoration/html/intro/fish.htm, June 2011.
  35. Anadromous Fish Restoration: Enhancing finfish resources in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/hubline_anadromous_restoration_leaflet.pdf, 2005 or prior.
  36. Kenneth E. Reback, Phillips D. Brady, Katherine D. McLaughlin, and Cheryl G. Milliken. “A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts, Part 1. Southeastern Massachusetts,” Technical Report TR-15, of Michael P. Armstrong, ed., Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report Series, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Game, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May 2004, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/tr15_anad_p1_intro.pdf, p. 5.
  37. Brady, Phillips D., Reback, Kenneth E., McLaughlin, Katherine D., and Milliken, Cheryl G., “A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts. Part 4. Boston Harbor, North Shore and Merrimack River,” Technical Report TR-18, of Michael P. Armstrong, ed., Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report Series, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, MA DMF Southshore Field Station, Pocasset, MA, Department of Fisheries and Game, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement., Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, January 2005.
  38. Kenneth E. Reback, Phillips D. Brady, Katherine D. McLaughlin, and Cheryl G. Milliken. “A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts, Part 1. Southeastern Massachusetts,” Technical Report TR-15, of Michael P. Armstrong, ed., Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report Series, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Game, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May 2004, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/tr15_anad_p1_intro.pdf
  39. Anadromous Fish Restoration: Enhancing finfish resources in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/hubline_anadromous_restoration_leaflet.pdf, 2005 or prior.
  40. Kenneth E. Reback, Phillips D. Brady, Katherine D. McLaughlin, and Cheryl G. Milliken. “A Survey of Anadromous Fish Passage in Coastal Massachusetts, Part 1. Southeastern Massachusetts,” Technical Report TR-15, of Michael P. Armstrong, ed., Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report Series, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Game, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May 2004, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/tr15_anad_p1_intro.pdf, p. 4.
  41. “Anadromous Fish Restoration in Massachusetts Bay” of Hubline Anadromous Fish 5-Year Completion Report, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, 2009, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/hubline/hubline_5yr_anadromous_fish_restoration.pdf, http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/hubline/admin.htm, p. 176.